This whole video was very well done. Thank you! As a scientist by training, I especially applaud your disclaimer at the end about the limitations of your presentation. The more transparent we are about our methods and reasoning, the easier it will be for others to see the truth for what it is independent of our own presentation or biases.
Well I can tell you this. If you were to ask the founder of the Presbyterian church, John Knox, if women were to be ordained as elders and pastors he would not cast a vote. It would have been a vehement NO! But that was where he stood according the plain and i would say obvious reading of Paul's writings.
Sydney Anglicans should be a subject on its own on how Evangelical it is compared to the rest of the Anglican dioceses in Australia, most of which are very liberal.
@@anyanyanyanyanyany3551 Aye, there's a whole fascinating history behind it that goes back to the founding of the cities. Although I think at the moment at least the bishops of Hobart and Darwin are Evangelical too.
@@willieclark2256 Christ told the Apostles that the Spirit would guide them "to all truth." So it would seem that Jesus intended for some men to have specific guidance on what is orthodox.
@@KingoftheJuice18 Christ gave particular men authority in the church and told them that "he who hears you, hears me." So it seems clear that if people in the early church listened to the right people, they would get the right information about things like salvation - and if they listened to the wrong people, they would not. He also gave the Apostles the specific authority to bind and loose, that is, to tell you what you must do, must not do, and what you may do. Heeding a person who claims that authority but doesn't have it is dangerous.
Would you please do a specific deep dive into the different jurisdictions of the Oriental Orthodox Communion? You’ve done videos on Oriental Orthodoxy before, but our jurisdictions are all so diverse that a deep dive into each would be very educational and entertaining. Thank you 🙂
I agree. Also, going deep into the theological and liturgical differences of the Oriental-Orthodox Churches would make a great series, in case he needs video material and content to upload lol
@@cjextreme because one bishop can’t tend to the whole flock, remember Moses dealing with Israel at first and then they ordained more leaders to ease his work load… wait is a Protestant advocating for one supreme bishop for all Christendom? I would believe you if you said you’re Catholic. Also why would an Egyptian Bishop tend to and Armenian congregation? Jurisdictions, because the people of the world aren’t all the same.
@@cjextreme ? I don’t think you get it dude. The oriental orthodox communion is one Church, made up of different local churches, each with their own presbytery, deacons, and presiding episcopate. We have held the same doctrine, and ministry since it was handed down to the Apostles by God Incarnate Himself. The thing about belonging to the original Church, is that we don’t have to figure out how to construct ourselves from scripture, the scripture bears testimony to how we are constructed, and we’ve only stayed faithful to that which was given to us by God. Stop being pretentious and talking past me, and actually read what I’m typing. If you just want to argue I have a woman a baby a full time job and a very full church life, I’m too busy walking to heaven with my family and God to argue about words and meaning of words.
The day your denomination decides to "study" a question that is unequivocally settled by scripture is the day you have lost the debate. Even if you end up being forced to do it, avoid actually calling it a "study" at all costs.
Welcome to the democratic process. This very process has allowed some of the most wicked things to fester. "Just keep calling for a vote, and eventually we'll get it."
This video dropped two days before the SBC will be voting to consider Rick Warren's appeal on this very subject! It'll be interesting to see what the even more conservative denomination decides to do on this.
This. I attended for one a year a Cooperative Baptist church that left the SBC over women’s ordination. It was a great place but like the history I learned about Baptist women from the beginnings versus what conservative Baptist teach. Different. And then you have Black Baptists. Some ordain women and others are just as conservative as the SBC, and a part of it. I’m not Baptist but I think the history is fascinating.
Fascinating! I didn't know that, but I know it doesn't stand much of a chance. Personally I grew up conservative and baptist. And I have now, reluctantly come to the conclusion, that women are allowed to preach. I don't like that I have and I understand why it's been a tug of war!
@@sackettfamily4685 While women could publicly pray and prophesy in church (1 Cor. 11:1-16), they could not teach or have authority over a man (1 Tim. 2:11-14), since these were two essential functions of the clergy. Nor could women publicly question or challenge the teaching of the clergy (1 Cor. 14:34-38). The early Church Fathers rejected women’s ordination, not because it was incompatible with Christian culture, but because it was incompatible with Christian faith. Thus, together with biblical declarations, the teaching of the Fathers on this issue formed the tradition of the Church that taught that priestly ordination was reserved to men. This teaching has not changed. Further, in 1994 Pope John Paul II formally declared that the Church does not have the power to ordain women. He stated, “Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force. Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Luke 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful” (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis 4). And in 1995 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in conjunction with the pope, ruled that this teaching “requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium 25:2)” (Response of Oct. 25, 1995).
Scriptures are reasonably clear that the "silence in church" clause is not to be taken literally but pertaining to ordination, church leadership, authoritative preaching. This would not have prohibited women from teaching, giving a profession of faith, making news announcements, etc. But the scriptures are also silent on women ordination with no woman being made an apostle in Christ's company, none ordained to be a bishop, and the cultural environment in which the scriptures were written. Furthermore, the spiritual roles of men and women are clear with men taking on a protective leadership role and women taking on a more nurturing role. Finally, while the scriptures are infallible, their interpretation by the Presbyterian Church is not, and they do not even claim to be. There's no need to take this fallible decision seriously intellectually or as a member of the Presbyterian congregation. The Presbyterian Church has no authority to make infallible spiritual declarations of heresy upon the conscience of any Christian believer's own interpretation of scripture, including mine. The modern-day Presbyterian Church has condemned centuries of its own church leaders/members to be in error on this issue.
Where in scripture do we find the ordination of anyone in the church other than that of the apostles (by Christ Himself) and those whom the apostles ordained (καθίστημι) as Paul assigned to Titus to "ordain elders" in the assemblies of Crete? Elders and deacons are the only scriptural ecclesiastical offices in the church. The seminal text for ordination of elders/bishops) is Acts 20:17 & 28 "From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders (πρεσβύτερος) of the church [saying] Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made (ordained) you overseers (ἐπίσκοπος), to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood." Who ordains men in the church for this office? Why, that would be the Holy Spirit. The church recognizes who the Holy Spirit ordains and follows who He has ordained.
I am uncertain how this reply is relevant to my post. Are you trying to imply the Holy Spirit ordains the clergy and therefore women could be ordained? Is that your point? The context of 1 Timothy 3 seems obvious to me that Paul is giving Timothy instructions on how bishops and deacons should be appointed. Otherwise, he would have just appointed every bishop and deacon himself. It's also obvious that by creating qualifications for Timothy to judge, it doesn't allow for anyone and everyone to appoint themselves a bishop that feels called by the Holy Spirit to be so. And the Early Church continued apostolic succession in accordance with 1 Timothy 3 after the apostolic age because it was logical to do so. Even Protestant churches that don't subscribe to apostolic succession still use 1 Timothy 3 as their guide requiring people to apply and be accepted by the already existing clergy. It is true that there are many passages in scripture that are merely descriptive to today but the appointment to ordained clergy is not one of them. Finally, the Holy Spirit will not ordain a woman in clear violation of scripture nor is there any divine revelation that the Holy Spirit would if this passage were merely descriptive to this time period. You will need to qualify why 1 Timothy 3 is descriptive while other passages are prescriptive.
Where does the NT speak of ordination? It does speak of spiritual gifts & qualifications for elder. Why do you not accept the plain meaning in 1 Corinthians 14? not permitted for them to speak! But given that the passage going back to 1 Cor 11 speaks about behavior when Christians "come together" (assemble for a church meeting), I take it that this silence pertains to addressing the group & public speaking.
@@steveempire4625 No you miss my point. The Holy Spirit ordains elders (not the church) and the Holy Spirit only ordains men. That is precisely what the apostle Paul is saying in Acts 20. "Shepard the flock of God over whom the Holy Spirit has made/appointed/ordained you elders." The active Agent is the Holy Spirit not other men (or women for that matter).
you should do this study on women in the SDA Church to elders and Pastor. I love to see the time line of this adding in the idea of Mrs White working for the church. to see both side of the SDA history on women ordained in the church
Every church I’ve ever been to where women are not allowed to be ministers or elders still have women teaching Sunday School. If that isn’t evidence that it isn’t genuinely about a handful of passages in Scripture, I don’t know what is.
The thing I find ironic is everyone saying in the comments, they follow "the word of Christ" on this issue. And then quote 1 Cor. And 1 Timothy. Both authored or claimed to be authored by Paul... Who isnt a divine being....
As a Christian woman (non-denominational) I hate seeing the world's attitudes pervading the church. I am not a man in a dress, I am a woman, with a different role in life than my husband. Equal value in God's eyes, but God set him in authority over me. Does my flesh want to usurp his authority? Oh, you bet ya! Flesh is like that. And that's why we're instructed (repeatedly) to walk after the spirit and not the flesh. My husband leads, and I follow. If I don't follow, he won't be able to fulfill his role fully. If he doesn't lead, I won't be able to fulfill my role fully. It's a beautiful but difficult dance, through which God teaches us both many lessons. If marriage has such rules, how much more do the larger flocks need to follow God's rules?
A first question: Why should you be led by your husband rather than by God? Why can't everyone, men and women, walk after God in the spirit? As a Christian, do you need another mediator between yourself and God besides Jesus? A second question: Why can't you two be full-fledged partners? That would not diminish your differences, but it would acknowledge that sometimes you might have the right answer or the better insight and sometimes he might. Or perhaps the way to spiritual wisdom is for you to combine your God-given gifts. Genesis 2 says that you two together are one flesh, and that your husband should cling to YOU. That doesn't sound like "He's in charge."
@@KingoftheJuice18 There is a hierarchy given by God. Ephesians 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. And the reasoning. Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. As it was written of Sara in 1 Peter 3:1-8 1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; 2 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. 3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; 4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. 5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: 6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement. 7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered. 8 Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous: This is for us to understand and cherish, that we may honor God as we honor each other.
@@KingoftheJuice18 The new testament is quite clear on the roles in marriage. My part is easy, I am to honor and obey my husband in all things in the Lord. Note that last part - the church (that's both of us, we're believers) are, as you pointed out, subject to Christ. That implies that I am to be well enough versed in the word of God (and I am) to both notice and explain why I'm not following, if my husband leads us into anything ungodly. I am, after all, the help God made for him. Helpers gonna help. In all other things, I am also to assist where I can, but, when he makes a decision, right or wrong, that's that. There's a reason I pray for wisdom for my husband - he leads us well, because he's doing his best to follow God. Ephesians 5:22-24 - Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. My husband's role, on the other hand, includes loving me as Christ did the church. Christ died for the church, remember? My husband's role is to stand between me and anyone or anything that would harm me, spiritually or physically. He's to study long and hard, so as to lead us both into true doctrine. I study a lot, he studies more. He is gentle, loving and sacrifices his own needs for mine. And if he does accidentally lead me astray, the chastisement of the Lord, gentle as it usually is, falls on him and not me. Your second question is a perfect illustration of how the world thinks. You asked why we couldn't be full-fledged partners. We are! Different does not mean unequal! Authority does not equate to value - we have equal value but different authority. Does a general matter more than a private? No. Does a child matter less than a mother? No. But the mother has authority over her child, and someone has to lead an army, or they would lose every battle. When we study, he listens to me, and I listen to him. When we talk, we stop and listen to the other. We do combine our God given gifts. When we make decisions he consults with me, I remind, suggest, and make my wishes known. Then he makes a choice, and that's what we do. We are, as you point out, one flesh. A single person has just one mind in their body. We have two minds in two bodies, but we live as one unit, a marriage. lol Someone has to lead, and God pegged Adam as head over all creation, and Eve as his helper, remember? This system God set up puzzles the non-believer, and even the believers who are steeped in the world's values, but it works and works very well. I'm not the doormat you might imagine - I'm a very happy biblical wife. I came out of the world, and it took me a while to fully step into my role as wife. I am so glad I did, though! The gospel of grace puzzles the world too, but without believing in Christ they shall perish. Giving God's way a try is always a good thing. God bless you. :)
Time 23:17 - 24 John 1:12 (KJV) 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he POWER to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Over a century focused on one subject. Please elect REPENTANCE as you can still find it in the text of your “favorite” translation copy of the Bible.
Paul, interestingly enough, never silences women who he acknowledges in ministry and women as his co-workers. Romans 16 shows us this to be true. In fact, Paul actually acknowledges women who prophesied and prayed aloud in church. What Paul is doing in certain contexts is keeping order in a church environment and correcting those issues. Paul’s letter is written in response to a verbal report from Chloe’s people. Paul is addressing what is going on, and what issues are being raised. Paul calls for order and “silence” is used three different times: verses 28, 30 and 34. Paul’s call of “silence” in v28 and 30 is not gender-specific, but is for all members in this context. Obviously, silence is called for in specific situations within the church meeting. But, what we find with the 1 Cor. 14:34-35 passage (regarding only women) seems not original to the text or to what Paul is addressing. It is a moving text that in certain other manuscripts are added after verse 40. Some scholars hold it as interpolation, perhaps added into the text by a scribe. It might even have been the quotation from that particular church that Paul was addressing and correcting. Thus, either a non-Pauline marginal note was later added, or a false teaching was noted that Paul is here correcting from that community. Whatever has happened, the passage is spurious to some scholars and it is a moveable text without a home. Also at v36, this passage actually begins with an exclamation such as “What?!” As there’s no English exact equivalent that is sometimes translated as simply “Or”. However, if one reads the passage in full without v34-35 it flows directly from v33 to v36 without interrupting Paul’s argument for orderly worship and the speaking in tongues. It also would account for the way it differs and doesn’t fit with Paul’s directive in the surrounding verses. Another point is the reference to “the law” (ho nomos) mentioned in verse 34. But, nowhere in the Hebrew Bible, often referred to in the New Testament as “the Law” (ho nomos), does it command or instruct women to be silent. We need be cautious then about building any barriers for spreading the Great Commission that Christ commands of all believers. And as seen in the Scripture itself, women are ministers and called apostle, even a woman judge who led God’s army! So, as Paul commends women in church leadership as minister (diakonos), church planters, with these early communities meeting in women’s house churches and supporting the church to even Paul’s own mission work, women are his coworkers in ministry. But what we also see in these letters of Paul, nowhere does he ever silence women in ministry or in the church. Yet, if there are any women or men interrupting the church meeting with questions or babble, then it is understood they must be kept quiet and learn. And that in itself within this era was a very important factor in Paul’s legacy. He understood the importance of Christ teaching men and women. He was breaking ground to say, hey allow women to learn! We must then remember that Jesus first called the women to be His apostles to the apostles. And finally, we are a royal priesthood of believers, all called by the Holy Spirit with spiritual gifts and must minister to the world in the Great Commission. Let us all remember Gal. 3:26-29. Shalom 🕊️
Very well said. It is important to read the scripture within the context of its writing. Those letters were the answer to something, not written out of nowhere. About the submission, in the ephesians about the marriage. First, let us not forget these were letters, they did not had the separations and little tittles and we have today. And in that 4:22, the verse right before talks about submission to one another in the fear of God. This could be between the bethren or already concerning the marriage part. In either way, i doubt submission would simply imply one above the other. Christ as the head of the church means how we Christians should bear and model ourselves. If we have Christ above our heads, we talk to him, we respect him, we rolemodel him. And not to forget that Christ had all the church at the same level, not one over the other. So, the husband being the head of the wife can also be applied in a similar manner as it downstream compares. It says women be submitted to your husbands and husbands love your wives as your own bodies. If we have to love them as we love our bodies (ourselves), and it ends with the reverence for the husband. Its an exchange with equal responsability between one and the other, not one over the other (I doubt Christ would simply command his church without understanding for the members, as well as the members are responsible for how the church is presented to Christ and, therefore, to the outside). About the woman in ministeries. If we look with the eyes of the flesh, we see man and woman, but in the eyes of the spirit there is no sex. I might be wrong but in Galatians it is only refered as individuals of spiritual worth, without distinction. Also, Paul incentive the women to learn, which is a major point here (the submissive learning is appliable to all types of studentships... How much will you learn if you don't hear your teacher or think you know more than him or her?). So all students at the time, mainly allowed for males already knew that. Without learning in silence and submission you don't learn. For women, they are not allowed to learn, and that was mostly a novelty that Paul introduced. If woman could learn, their teachers would have to be men. But the verses goes as following: "let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor usurpe authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed; then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman (...)". Reading like this there is no indication they could not teach. This is the equivalent of you saying to your kid: listen to your teacher at school, don't think you know more than him, he has been at this for longer than you, so thinking you know more than your teacher might lead you to more mistakes later on. This is an advice to someone who is going to start to learn, hardly a prohibition.. And also, it is the man (singular) not the men (plural). So, again, it does seem a reference to the one teaching (as there would be no woman teaching at the time). In ordering the positions, by the look at the time, it would probably be ridiculed by outsiders to have women in leadership (officially). Although, Jesus had women among the disciples, despite their worth in society being around zero in terms of spiritual authority. Also, the Roman world was based around the men, they were the ones the should always be on top, no matter the circunstance. And the Pauline Letters were written in that world. Having a church lead by women would mean being ridiculed by the authorities and the society. And also, they just had authorization to learn. So I see it as a useful way to keep the church more acceptable to the society they were in as well as prepare women for something. I mean why even bother to allow someone to learn and instruct on how to do it if you have no interest on having that person play some role in the future? Also not to forget the already mentioned thanks Paul give to quite some women, from leaders of churches to preachers. And of course why bother to ressurect Thabita for her ministry, if she should be better to just stay silent... Just some thoughts. Cheers.
My thoughts on interpreting the Scriptural prohibitions against women speaking in the church is to look at authorial intent: Did the author of those books mean what he said? Did he mean to have it practiced universally? Are we the audience for his instructions? Those who want to ordain women as ministers must recontextualize heavily. They say we are not the audience of those books, that the author was speaking to a particular, isolated group, that he did not mean what he actually wrote. The most contorted recontextualizing I have come across is the claim that there was some sort of temple to Athena in the same city and the prohibition was to response to the temple's practices. Huh? I have seen that spoken boldly by women who operate channels here. We have Scripture, handed down to us. Those passages in the Bible have not changed, over the many translations over many centuries. Those whose practices are contrary to those passages could not be called a church that holds to Sola Scriptura. As a layman, I wonder how I could ever have a leader above me who would hold onto a view that violates clear guidance from the Bible.
And what about 1st cor. 11? The bible is clearly saying that all women have to cover their heads when they pray. And the bible clearly encourages random unceasing prayer. I've heard it argued from straight scripture and I never felt confident in the opinions. Until, I read about the cultural contexts. And then it made sense! I mean it's stuck in with completely other topics....that always made me wonder.
Tell me in detail about the Artemis of Ephesus cult that Paul had to deal with 24-7 for years. That's where those "tough sayings of Paul" come from and addressed to. Paul's not grabbing stuff from thin air like John Calvin liked to do. If you don't understand the Artemis cult behavior and teaching you will NEVER understand Paul in 1Corinthians. Its a huge topic so maybe that's why its never been tackled.
@@sackettfamily4685 The head covering was a pagan practice. The head was to be covered by the person acting as the intercessor for the group they were with. Only the acting intercessor could present the sacrifice to the god. There are plenty of carvings from the Roman era showing this procedure.
@@Baltic_Hammer6162 so why then was scripture, in the basic reading of it, telling females to cover the head? What's your opinion on it? Mine is that, for the new testament, cultural contexts matter. The simple explanation is that women were feeling freedom in Christ and taking it culturally a little bit too far. Uncovered heads in the culture, notes a whore for hire, and being covered signaled a good woman. Paul was telling the women that they needed stay covered and keep their reputations. But if you are claiming that covering, is pagan....why was Paul directly telling them to?
Well done. I think Phoebe would say the same. Most never mention the church that met at her house. This is the same Phoebe entrusted to bring g Paul’s letter to the Romans. I wonder how she did that if Paul constrained her not to speak in the Church or about the Church. Clearly, the historical evidence after the initial Church is led by men. Interesting too, is the fact that the Holy Spirit fell in men and women at the very birth of the Church in the Upper Room. This was attended by Mary. This was attended by Peter. Peter’s speach afterward did not delve into restrictions. When asked “What shall we do?” Peter’s instructions are for them to “repent and be baptized everyone of you.” Paul was not yet a member of the Church. Interesting too, these men and women were all Jewish. The evangelist Phillip had four daughters who prophesied. To whom did they protect to? Just women and kids? Maybe. But there is no evidence either way. Therefore, an argument from silence cannot support either view here. However, it seems more logical that a spirit imbued believer, whether male or female, should be able to preach and teach those who are not yet in the church. How did Phoebe evolve to have a church that met in her house in Cenchrea? Granted, the men are seen through the Patristic era as the priests of the faith. But we see no priests in the New Testament. I’d not each believer a priest in their own right because of the Holy Spirit’s call who does only what is instructed Him by Jesus Himself? Ironically, the first person Jesus spoke publicly to about who He was-the Messiah-was the Samaritan women at the well. She believed!! She then spoke and told the entire town who was in their midst. She was an evangelist. This was prior to Saul of Tarsus. Therefore, are we all missing something in what Paul is saying. Are Paul’s words normative for the entire church or prescriptive to a region that had religious cults led by female priests? The controversies continues…
There is no controversy. To support the claim that women can be ordained you have to make inferences and logical gymnastics, all of that to avoid the clear teachings in the Bible and the incontrovertible fact that Jesus chose 12 men as his disciples. Unless some are saying that Jesus was also following cultural norms.
All we have to do is to see what Churches (and entire religions) led by women have become sooner or later: either dust or in the process of becoming dust. Not a single one survived. Not one. PS: Please don't shoot the messenger
Thanks for a very clear presentation of a complex issue. As I was raised in the Methodist Church, I have always taken the ordination or licensing of women to preach or serve as pastors for granted. In fact in my youth, in the 1940s some of our most effective preachers and teachers were women -- not infrequently outshining some of the men in similar roles. During my 60 year ministry in Methodist, UCC, and Protestant Episcopal churches, I have been impressed by the high quality and effectiveness of many of my female colleagues, and have often served comfortably with them in parish and academic or administrative roles. As far as I can see, God makes no distinction in this regard; and any appeal to the time-tied opinions of St. Paul suggests we also bring back slavery, because he considered it normal two millennia ago!
That Paul said that is debatable in its own right, Paul work with women as missionaries so he wasn't opposed to them being missionaries but he was opposed to women being like The pagan sybyls or prophetesses like the prophetesses of Apollo😮
@@Rexponsibility 2 Timothy is not a letter to a church like Corinthians, it's a letter to a pastor giving instructions on how to be a pastor. Thus its contents can be generalized to the pastoral ministry in all situations. Just like we still expect pastors to be chaste, the husband of one wife, to confront false teachers, etc. to this day and don't say those admonotions were just talking about a specific cultural context. Deborah was a civic leader. Her office was not akin to the pastorate. And even when applying her story to the question of whether women can hold lay leadership positions in the church, we should remember that there was an aspect of divine judgement against the men of Israel that God put them under the authority of a woman when it wasn't normative. The prophetesses in the OT were not "female prophets." Some women were given the gift of prophecy, but there is no example in the OT of a woman holding the type of role given to Abraham, Moses, Elijah, etc. I find no evidence in the Bible that Saint Priscilla was a "teacher". Being a notable confessor of the faith does not make you a minister or a "teacher of Christians". It's just like how people trying to defend women's "ordination" claim Saint Phoebe was a "leader" without evidence just because Paul held her in high esteem. Esteem and authority may be roughly equivelant to the world, but not to the church.
@@Rexponsibility I'll just respond briefly to a couple points for the sake of anyone else reading this text: 3. There is a distinction in the OT between "Big P Prophets" and "prophets" who were merely given the gift of prophecy, such as those who made up the "companies of prophets" in Elisha's day. The office of "Prophet" with a Big P was several roles integrated into one position. One of these was prophecy, but it also included the crucial roles of directly preparing the way of the Messiah and holding the priests and kings to account, things which not even Deborah really did. 4. Your math is simply bad here. Martin Luther's wife Katharina Von Bora was well known throughout the churches of the German Reformation, despite not having any formal leadership role. At my church, everyone knows and respects the elderly wife of our pastor emiritus, who is also our organist. That doesn't make her a church "leader". Again, your importing modern ideas of leadership being equal to respect into the text where it doesn't belong. Finally, when it comes to how harshly we condemn those who push for women's ordination as "some kind of heretics", I find it necessary to point out that Christendom was virtually united in opposition to women even preaching for 1700 years, and to ordaining women for even longer. Even Methodists, who allowed women to preach from the beginning, did not start consistenly ordaining women until the 1950s. If you look at the history of women being ordained in large denominations, even ones that to this day are still socially conservative, it was universally the result of those denominations losing the "battle for the Bible" that took place in the 20th century. It was always the theological liberals who got it done, not people diving deep into the New Testament and "discovering" that the church was wrong about female pastors for over a milennium and a half. The people pushing it were people who just didn't care what Paul had to say, not people who thought Paul was being taken out of context, although such people were recruited as water carriers under false pretenses by the liberals. You know the meme about today's so-called conservative extremist being yesterday's super-leftist who just jumped off the train after the left's latest moral innovation? That's how I see "theologically conservative" churches that ordain women.
@@Rexponsibility While women could publicly pray and prophesy in church (1 Cor. 11:1-16), they could not teach or have authority over a man (1 Tim. 2:11-14), since these were two essential functions of the clergy. Nor could women publicly question or challenge the teaching of the clergy (1 Cor. 14:34-38). The early Church Fathers rejected women’s ordination, not because it was incompatible with Christian culture, but because it was incompatible with Christian faith. Thus, together with biblical declarations, the teaching of the Fathers on this issue formed the tradition of the Church that taught that priestly ordination was reserved to men. This teaching has not changed. Further, in 1994 Pope John Paul II formally declared that the Church does not have the power to ordain women. He stated, “Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force. Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Luke 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful” (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis 4). And in 1995 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in conjunction with the pope, ruled that this teaching “requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium 25:2)” (Response of Oct. 25, 1995).
For context, in Australia the revokation of the ordination of women happened around the time of the split in the Presbyterian Church in Australia (PCA), between the liberals and moderates mostly joining the Uniting Church (a union between Presbyterians, Methodists and Congregational churches), and the conservative and traditionalist remaining Presbyterian. In addition, quite a number of Free Presbyterian and Reformed churches have sprung up in regions where the PCA alamgamated, holding closely to one of the old confessional standards (mostly Westminster Confession, but many have also amalgamated with Continental Reformed churches, who are likewise firmly in the conservative side if Christianity). As a result, the PCA today remains very conservative and firmly confessional. The Uniting Church of Australia is very divided between liberal and conservative Christianity, which incorporates many of the same arguments and debates today that had existed in the PCA in the 1970's. The Uniting Church continues to ordain both men and women, whereas all the Presbyterian denominations in Australia are male-only ordination.
While women could publicly pray and prophesy in church (1 Cor. 11:1-16), they could not teach or have authority over a man (1 Tim. 2:11-14), since these were two essential functions of the clergy. Nor could women publicly question or challenge the teaching of the clergy (1 Cor. 14:34-38). The early Church Fathers rejected women’s ordination, not because it was incompatible with Christian culture, but because it was incompatible with Christian faith. Thus, together with biblical declarations, the teaching of the Fathers on this issue formed the tradition of the Church that taught that priestly ordination was reserved to men. This teaching has not changed. Further, in 1994 Pope John Paul II formally declared that the Church does not have the power to ordain women. He stated, “Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force. Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Luke 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful” (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis 4). And in 1995 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in conjunction with the pope, ruled that this teaching “requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium 25:2)” (Response of Oct. 25, 1995).
@@richlopez5896 it may come as some surprise, but the Presbyterian Church is rooted in the long-standing opponents of Vatican authority - indeed, groups such as the Covenanters (who fought for separation of church and state, particularly the independence of the Church in it's sole loyalty to Christ as King of the Church, not as co-sovereign), but also more recent examples still causing controversy in Ireland, Northern Ireland and Scotland. The name comes from the Presbyterian system of church government (rule by elders, the regional collective of which is called a presbytery, hence Presbyterian), but it's theology (both historically, and for conservative and traditional contemporaries) is firmly Reformed, all of which hold to one or other of the Reformed Confessions of Faith (usually Westminster for Presbyterians, although ones that have amalgamated with Continental Reformed can also hold to continental equivalents such as the Canons of Dort, Heidelberg Confession, Belgic Confession, etc).
"But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you." 1 Corinthians 7:28 KJB
"ordained to the ministry". Is there such a thing as "ordination" in the NT? And is there such a thing as "the ministry", minister being some office in the church? I find elders & pastor-teacher (once in Eph 4 only) as a spiritual gift. Is the distinction between ruling elder & minister Biblical? Minister seems to be a general term which could apply to anyone serving the Lord, not some special office.
1 Timothy 5 has a section on ordaining elders, in which Paul warns Timothy not to be too hasty to “lay hands on” a man, with that phrase referring to the mechanism of ordination.
Hi Hebrews 13,17 and 13,24 talk of prelates and Titus 1,5 "ordianing presbyters in every city" and Titus 1,7" For a bishop must be without crime " The Church had these offices from the start .
@@jackemmakemthat's taking Avery loose definition of preach my brother. She told the Apostles, period. Unless I'm mistaken that was her involvement. Please correct if wrong.
At least one group took the time to consider what God’s Word actually says and use that as a basis for their view. The others must feel that they get to determine it on their own. 😢
This is so foreign and confusing to me. Women in my faith have been teaching since the beginning. I can't even imagine the loss of knowledge women have taught the millions in my church. The passion and love a daughter of God can bestow to all who will hear is immense. Women are leaders of the second oldest charity organization on earth. They hold positions in the hierarchy and are relied on in every aspect. Their calling is not to hold the priesthood but to magnify it through their faith and support of those that do.
While women could publicly pray and prophesy in church (1 Cor. 11:1-16), they could not teach or have authority over a man (1 Tim. 2:11-14), since these were two essential functions of the clergy. Nor could women publicly question or challenge the teaching of the clergy (1 Cor. 14:34-38). The early Church Fathers rejected women’s ordination, not because it was incompatible with Christian culture, but because it was incompatible with Christian faith. Thus, together with biblical declarations, the teaching of the Fathers on this issue formed the tradition of the Church that taught that priestly ordination was reserved to men. This teaching has not changed. Further, in 1994 Pope John Paul II formally declared that the Church does not have the power to ordain women. He stated, “Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force. Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Luke 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful” (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis 4). And in 1995 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in conjunction with the pope, ruled that this teaching “requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium 25:2)” (Response of Oct. 25, 1995).
@@Good100 if it were that the story of Eve was complete, then we would know of a surety that is why women are. But let us consider what Jesus taught, that the truth will be declared by 2 witnesses. Taking the 3 verses strictly from the Bible leaves us with to much room for speculation. Thankfully we have far more records that reveal Eve's true purpose to bring forth the plan of salvation. Read the story in both the apocrypha and Jasher (for two examples) that God came to Adam and forbade him to eat of the tree, but said unto Eve, take of the tree and give unto your help meet that you may know good from evil. There had to be a fall! There had to be a separation between man and God. But it had to be under the law of free agency. Our greatest gift next to life itself. 2 commandments were given, one to stay innocent for eternity and know no progression or to freely disobey God that mankind is. My religion teaches that Eve had a complete understanding of the consequences to her actions, we are equally sure that the decision was not made easily but the strength that was in her and the humility to obey God over her help meet was immense. Once explained to Adam, by Eve, Adam ate the apple! The beginning of mortality! The beginning of us! Now you may disagree with this statement and that's ok, I'm just sharing with you how wonderful and amazing our first mother truly is. If her role was taught how it really was, then peace would rain triumphant between the sexes. Sadly, what we get dealt with today in this growing battle that is so far from righteousness I don't know where to find peace. When my good woman died, life ended for me. For so long I hid away from love. Then when I decided to try again, all of the women I met had changed and were so foreign to me, I just threw in the cards and forfeited the pot.
As a woman in the PCUSA I have been ordained a deacon. Look at the structure of any PC Sunday School. Most have classes from Nursery to Sr. Adults. I know I wss taught mainly by women And I taught Sunday School in most of the children's classes. Men didn't worry about women being silent. Women taught Bible classes to other women was acceptable. We had a hard time getting a man to help in any of the classs, it was woman's work. So very many jobs in the church are done by women. But so many of those who oppose women as ministers elders,and second fail to acknowledge women as the first people to teach our children and young people. Also as a woman if I must defer to my husband and follow him, what happens if he leads us into sin. Does he take my punishment for me, or am I held responsible for my actions?
I don't want to get involved in the discussion of women as elders or pastors. Instead, I make this post to say that the arguments made by Lousia Woosley in her defense of this practice seem to rely heavily on church practice rather than Scripture. That's not to say that such a defense can't be made based solely on Scripture, just that she does not do this. It would be much better for her to try to argue that Paul's instructions were applicable only for the period in which he lived (contextual) rather than to say that our choirs would be devoid of women's voices if we followed his instructions. One defense is Scriptural, the other is not. My caution to all my brothers and sisters in Christ, especially those in the various flavors of Presbyterianism, is to carefully examine all church doctrines and practices against Scripture. Having formerly been a member of an OPC church, which jokingly refers to itself as the "Only Pure Church", I find that Presbyterians are good at using formal language to justify their beliefs when no such language appears in the Bible. Presbyterian leaders often grant themselves great authority by referencing the "keys to the kingdom" (Matt 16:19) and "do things in good order" (1 Cor 14:40), yet they do not look at the context of Scripture when making these claims. Instead, church leaders are to bring us God's word (Heb 13:7) which does not happen when they make things up, no matter what fancy words or rulebooks they invent. Please remember that so long as we profess that Jesus is God Incarnate, come to save us from our sins, that we are all a part of one body (1 John 4 - the entire chapter)
20th century expressions of Christianity are fascinating in their optimism and sometimes loose approach to scripture, and dedication to man’s modern problems. But in hindsight it is clear that ordaining woman is excluded by the apostolic founders: equally by the gentile and Jewish parts since the start. The historic record sufficiently reveals that this exclusion was considered dogmatic.
16:50 to 18:10 focuses too heavily on women's sin in this dynamic. The push for women to lead in the church is equally the result of men sinfully abdicating their responsibilities. When Paul said women are not to teach or have authority in the church because Eve was tempted first, that's not supposed to be taken as a curse upon the daughters of Eve for leading Adam into sin. Rather it's a reminder to the sons of Adam that Adam caused the situation by letting his wife do all the talking to the serpent while he cowared in the bushes. Men in the church thrusting women in front of them to "lead" in spiritual warfare then gives them the opportunity when they are caught in sin to echo the protest of Adam: "the woman you gave me caused me to do this."
If you believe that Genesis 3 prohibits women from any position of authority relative to men (which also should include all political offices or roles as bosses in companies, etc.), then you should also believe that it's forbidden for women in childbirth to use any type of anesthetic (e.g., epidural) or any other method to make the experience less difficult, since it states in the very same verse, "I will make your suffering in childbearing very severe; in pain shall you bear children" (3:16). For that matter, every man would have to do sweat-inducing agricultural labor (see verses 17-19 there)! But no, this is all a misunderstanding of Scripture. The statements made to Adam and Eve are not ideal constructions of society, not commandments of God. They are punishments and challenges to be overcome. Otherwise, stop using fertilizer and other techniques to make the land prosperous and abundant since God said, "Thorns and thistles shall it sprout for you" (v. 18).
bro are you dumb? The point god made was that childbirth would be painful which it always is. Nothing wrong with alleviating the pain. Same with men working. You can try to avoid the worst kinds of work but you will have to work at some point
It baffles me as an atheist, that women are excluded from ordination, just because Paul wrote 2000 years ago, that he does want women to shut up in church. Paul was obviously full with resentment against women and even jews, why does his opinion matter so much, two millenia latter? And please, spare me with Paul being "inspired by good", that's complety bonkers.
This confuses me as a Catholic how some protestants even entertain debate on the matter. Even with Vatican II, sacred tradition still stands and anybody who ordains a woman gets excommunicated along with said woman.
It's a product of the "great awakening" with methodists, SDA "prophetess", Aimee simple McPherson, etc. Eventually the churches that denied the gospel added it as a social issue.
Dear RTH, Thank you once again for a well developed and presented piece of work. Forgetting for a moment the much larger and deeper issue of just how important should the writings of Paul of Tarsus have ever been to the understanding of the teachings of Jesus The Nazarene? Or how the explicit, present, obvious, and undeniable "...Word Of God..." of The Bible are "clearly" understood by 100 different people, in at least 100 different ways, what I find interesting ( as a thought experiment ) is to re-write the various written positions of the various Presbyterian Denominations over the intervening decades regarding the status of Women, and to substitute the word "Women" for the term "Slavery". Excluding the references to specific passages, when done what emerges is a fascinating dichotomic understanding, however since "Belief" is an issue of feeling and not one of understanding ( or logic ), the results of such an experiment have little to no bearing.
Please present the context of the book for each woman, than the historical, cultural, political context, who? Where? What? Why? Was it a single event? Was it an event that occurred from the circumstances or a rule?
"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, as also saith the law." 1 Corinthians 14:34 KJB
Since leaving a very radical Reformed denomination I've take a more open view on allowing women to preach. Our Baptist Church doesn't allow it either but I'm OK with it either way now. I can't see splitting a church over the issue.
While women could publicly pray and prophesy in church (1 Cor. 11:1-16), they could not teach or have authority over a man (1 Tim. 2:11-14), since these were two essential functions of the clergy. Nor could women publicly question or challenge the teaching of the clergy (1 Cor. 14:34-38). The early Church Fathers rejected women’s ordination, not because it was incompatible with Christian culture, but because it was incompatible with Christian faith. Thus, together with biblical declarations, the teaching of the Fathers on this issue formed the tradition of the Church that taught that priestly ordination was reserved to men. This teaching has not changed. Further, in 1994 Pope John Paul II formally declared that the Church does not have the power to ordain women. He stated, “Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force. Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Luke 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful” (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis 4). And in 1995 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in conjunction with the pope, ruled that this teaching “requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium 25:2)” (Response of Oct. 25, 1995).
I find it to be strange how those who are for men exclusively being in offices of pastor and elder to use 1 Cor. 14. The Bible verbatum says women should not SPEAK. The context is not about preaching, but ORDER. If men are in chaos in a church they need to be quiet and listen to the sermons. That is just obvious. Having said those we NEED to use 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. They say VERBATUM only men can be pastors and elders. I am saying it is one thing to have a doctrine correct, it is another thing to use correct passages in context to support it. As a sidenote I am for men being pastors, elders, head of home exclusively
What about a woman leading the singing of hymns during mass while the rest of us women in the sanctuary are choosing to make sure that our voices do not stand out in the congregation in contrast to hers at the microphone while singing too? I am sure that everyone in the church where I attend mass would be protesting if the woman who sings with perfect pitch while leading everyone singing in the sanctuary along with those in the choir too were to be told by our local bishop that she could no longer work in that ministry. Our priest can sing in perfect pitch too however given how many masses he must lead if he had to do so by himself chances are he could lose his voice sometimes because he is only human too.
I'm a confessional Lutheran and sometimes listen to a RC service on the radio on the way home. Usually the cantor is a woman and you hear her voice more than you do the voice of the priest. I think the RCC is going down the wrong road - woman cannot be pastors.
Maybe Professor Josh, you could talk about the pushes for female priestood and decenesship in Catholicism? Because their were and are some in my chiruch.
Im not surprised. A denomination would have to far ignore scripture so heavily to get to such a point, that it becomes something that serves the individual for the sake of doing so and not serving the Word. It becomes a statement to be excercised and not a true act of service. Every man, even those who profess to support it, and their male way of thinking who reads the scripture knows quite well that it is not according to the Word. Why would men be so attracted to christian service in a denomination that so blatantly ignores scripture? Women leadership becomes a statement of entitlement, which is an untenable environment for the rational male.
This is really excellent stuff. As a Presbyterian, I am encouraged by the wise, careful, and Biblical arguments put forth by the position papers cited in the video. Though I am conversely discouraged by the comment section here, which seems to see each commenter rushing to their own entrenched view while castigating fellow believers of a different mind for doing the same.
No controversy in the "Body of Christ" either you ignore the commandment of the Lord or do what you want.... BUT there will be a JUDGEMENT! 1Co 14:34-38 "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, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant. " So the Word of God let's you be ignorant . God will reward those those that willingly obey. Are you really a Christian if you can ignore such an easy to understand instruction? You can be a Presbyterian and NOT be a Christian! Easily.... thousand have. Many will say in that day Lord, Lord, have we not done many works in your name. he'll say depart from me ye workers of iniquity, I NEVER knew you.
Jesus made sure to love and support the women around Him. He listened to them and ignored human-invented rules that would've prevented women from following Him or speaking with Him. He first publicly declared His role as Messiah to the woman at the well, and He first showed that He was resurrected to a woman. He instructed a woman to be the first to testify of His Resurrection. Regardless of the roles that women do or don't play in church polity, what Jesus would do is listen respectfully and treat them with the love that all humans deserve.
@@axeSyntax In all seriousness, I completely agree with your answer. Jesus taught a radical departure from many of the orthodox teachings of His day, but He also taught that obedience to God's commandments was even more important than family relationships (Matthew 10:37-38). He taught that it was better to remove your own eye than to risk eternal damnation (Matthew 5:29-30). In the case of the woman caught in adultery, He mercifully gave her another chance, but He never once implied that what she had done was in any way okay (John 8:2-11). Jesus showed by example that radical love and forgiveness are possible without condoning sin or being wishy-washy about God's commandments. It's a hard balance for us mortals to strike, especially in today's increasingly polarized world.
Its only complicated because nobody in the "church" apparently has taken the ambition to research WHY Paul is saying what he does. Certainly somebody in the "church system" has researched this besides me. I've tried to open the eyes to the truth of Paul's writings numerous times but.... surprise... surprise...nobody wants to hear the truth. Yeh, its been a problem with "christians" for a long time. Sometimes I really believe the so-called "christians" are the worst enemy of Christ's church. They love their traditions, man-made doctrines, self interpretations because it fits what THEY want it to. Why should I be shocked? I've been told this for years, but now I'm moved to a more active role and now I know the exasperation of messengers whose words fell on deaf ears and blind eyes. Utterly amazing.!!
Quite a few, for example, most of Pentecostalism like the Assemblies of God or Foursquare Church, also many conservative Methodists like the Evangelical Methodist Church and Bible Methodist Connection. Also the Evangelical Covenant Church seems to be an example of allowing Women pastors but still kicking out congregations that have LGBT clergy.
@Ready to Harvest So how do most of those denomination interpret 1Timothy3, where Paul is talking about both office's but with different requirements? Or maybe you already did a video on this that you can point me too. Thanks
Maybe you can put the fact is the church is by the church I mean all of all the various denominations of Christendom have always found some some chocolate they like and some chocolate they don't conservatives and liberals both engage in it all the time
If you agree with Louisa Woosley’s arguments in the beginning of the video, and yet still want to listen to Paul, then you logically have to conclude that women can’t preach. Women have 3 possible types of speech in church: 1.) singing, 2.) Confessing/witnessing, and 3.) teaching. If Woosley convinces you that it would be ridiculous to ban #1 and #2, but yet Paul is still banning something, then it must be #3.
This shouldn’t be an issue. The Bible is clear on who can pastor/preach. Every denomination that ordains women doesn’t care about what the Bible says. I’m a woman and I don’t understand why a lot of men don’t need the Lord in their lives, especially those who claim to know Jesus Christ. When did this become a thing? Why should Christian women like myself have to stay single just because we can’t find a godly man who values church attendance/membership as important (Hebrews 10:25) ?
First you have to understand WHY and to WHO about problems from a specific cult. Paul is not sitting around grabbing stuff from the air because ..Hey we need some rules to keep women shut up. Quite the very opposite. Why does Paul address hair or hair length?? Where in nature does it teach its a shame for man to have long hair??? There are NO examples in nature that teach that, so WHERE is Paul getting his "nature teaches"?? Do you know? I do but I want to see if you do. Its a good example where "plain reading" as some like to say, has no basis on its face at all.
I wouldn't want a man that's careless in the faith/not living a godly life. If more women end up single cause of it then it's just a product of sin and something God will work out. Pray for that renewal on the male side. All you can do is trust Him and work on your part.
*Unless the woman is possessed by the Holy Ghost 👻* The Holy Ghost 👻 *is male,* with he/his pronouns in the Bible ✝. That makes he and the woman form a *male/female hybrid entity,* which makes the rule not apply, due to the point of it.
Since a woman’s husband would have to submit to her authority as overseer, it ought to be disallowed. It’s evil to make a wife the head of her husband.
"Shall Women Preach" Did the Bible say Deborah was a man? Was Isaiah's prophet wife a man? Was Moses' sister "prophet" a man? Were those daughters mentioned in Acts, also men? People are sick in the head if they think a prophet mentioned in the Bible couldn't "teach" or "preach" what God told them because they were a woman. I have heard women speak quite a few times. I don't have a problem with it. My problem stems from linguistics. The word pastor has male connotations. Call these women speakers something else and let them speak.
This comment section is depressing. Arguments like this is why people are losing faith in the American Church. We should be looking to see does the minister (male or female) exhibit fruits of the Holy Spirit in their lives and are effective in helping others to deepen their faith. A pastor is a shepherd, and there are male and female shepherds. Do we really think a true lost sheep is going to worry about the shepherd being a male or a female? No! The only thing the are going to care about is if the shepherd can bring them safety back into the fold. Making "sex" the sole qualifier for the role of pastor has only created tons of issues for both liberal and conservative churches.
If we ordain women to the priesthood, that not only would go against centuries of tradition, but it would only worsen matters in the Church. Many among us Catholic laity would be correctly at unease with such a change and perceive it as irrefutable proof that something deeply wrong has infiltrated the Church. Even Vatican II never implemented that. Also as it stands anybody who attempts to give ordain a woman as a priest gets excommunicated. There’s an argument to be made for women in the diaconate as that has existed prior with little issue, but not for women in the priesthood. Not even all men are called to the priesthood. Few are and even fewer become bishops
Looking forward to your response to the SBC new stance on women in leadership roles. As I understand the SNC says women cannot teach a Sunday school class. Our church claims to be SBC and CBF. Our family personally do not believe in the CBF. We are trying to find somewhere to give our tithe to. The preacher at this church has never done a sermon on sin. His does powder puff sermons to cater the the CBF members. Since the CBF allows same sex preachers and other liberal groups. We are looking for a more bible based church.
Catholic? Sadly, while your faith may not have changed, your church has. There are bishops, archbishops and even at least one cardinal who have been open to homosexuality. Not just the disposition, but the practice. Half the western church has already gone that way, wait a few more popes and you may get rainbow coloured smoke coming out of the Vatican.
@@Baltic_Hammer6162 While women could publicly pray and prophesy in church (1 Cor. 11:1-16), they could not teach or have authority over a man (1 Tim. 2:11-14), since these were two essential functions of the clergy. Nor could women publicly question or challenge the teaching of the clergy (1 Cor. 14:34-38). The early Church Fathers rejected women’s ordination, not because it was incompatible with Christian culture, but because it was incompatible with Christian faith. Thus, together with biblical declarations, the teaching of the Fathers on this issue formed the tradition of the Church that taught that priestly ordination was reserved to men. This teaching has not changed. Further, in 1994 Pope John Paul II formally declared that the Church does not have the power to ordain women. He stated, “Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force. Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Luke 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful” (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis 4). And in 1995 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in conjunction with the pope, ruled that this teaching “requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium 25:2)” (Response of Oct. 25, 1995).
@@alessandrorossi1294 My Faith is as Unchanging as Christ is. No matter the detractors, the meddling of kings, Christ has already Won. Hristos Voskrese!
I'm from a methodist denomination so I'm a little biased, but there have been many women put into leadership roles in the early church. It would make sense that Paul's letters were taking on specific problems in specific churches, like what Paul talks about in 1 Timothy 2:1-10.
@@paisleepunk Mentally ill people exist and so do doctors who will exploit their illness and butcher them for a dollar. Frankenstein inventions are lesser support of trans existence than the stitching a rhinoceros horn on a donkey proves that unicorns exist.
Ordain women and watch church attendance drop. This issue has advanced as church membership has plunged. Is there an association? Thank you for a great discussion.
"For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man." 1 Corinthians 11:7 KJB
Since Christianity is a monotheistic religion which only worships the god, also called "father sky" only men should be able to preach. If Christianity also worshiped the goddess "mother earth" then there would be priestesses devoted to her.
While women could publicly pray and prophesy in church (1 Cor. 11:1-16), they could not teach or have authority over a man (1 Tim. 2:11-14), since these were two essential functions of the clergy. Nor could women publicly question or challenge the teaching of the clergy (1 Cor. 14:34-38). The early Church Fathers rejected women’s ordination, not because it was incompatible with Christian culture, but because it was incompatible with Christian faith. Thus, together with biblical declarations, the teaching of the Fathers on this issue formed the tradition of the Church that taught that priestly ordination was reserved to men. This teaching has not changed. Further, in 1994 Pope John Paul II formally declared that the Church does not have the power to ordain women. He stated, “Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force. Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Luke 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful” (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis 4). And in 1995 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in conjunction with the pope, ruled that this teaching “requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium 25:2)” (Response of Oct. 25, 1995).
Emmanuel: *doesn't say anything about women preaching* Saul of Tarsus: "Blah blah blah women preaching is le bad because I said so that's why." Just goes to show that as usual, corporate 'christians' prefer Saul's schlock over the wisdom of the person who is their ONE and ONLY Savior.
Who is Paul to tell anyone to not listen to GOD? How many women throughout history have turned away from GOD's calling on their lives because of what Paul said. I'm pretty sure that is not what he intended. We forget that even the apostles had opinions and biases. If it were such an offense in sure Jesus Christ himself would have declared so himself.
@@Lorrainecats The good news is that it's okay to ask questions (Matthew 7:7-11) and to not be sure about, or even agree with, everything. The important thing is to press forward with faith in Christ even when we don't understand exactly why Paul said what he said. At the end of the day, the question of salvation depends on, "Am I right with God," not, "Do I like what Paul said?".
@@axeSyntax Truth is it's a lot deeper, the whole of the enlightenment is a failed project really. In America at least many of the traditional social standards actually fell apart in the 20's and were exported worldwide by GI's in the 40's.
I hold to an Enlightenment vision of egalitarianism and I'm glad ECO distinguished it from postmodern feminism. That was some good scholarship there from them. :)
Obviously, we could also reverse your argument. When men dominated society, Churches proclaimed that no woman could be a minister. So the Church also reflected broader society back then.
Not to be rude, but that is a truly awful argument for woman’s ordination by the first female pastor in the PCUSA. No one is saying you have to be silent at all times (Paul instructs women about speaking prophecy for example) but in the context of preaching he is explicit that women should not preach.
Most of y’all don’t even believe in real presence in the Eucharist, in anything from the Sermon on the Mount, or in the Nicene Creed, yet fundamentalists have the audacity to accuse us of not being Christians.
"There will always be a church [that is faithful to God's will.] It's just not going to be us."
This whole video was very well done. Thank you! As a scientist by training, I especially applaud your disclaimer at the end about the limitations of your presentation. The more transparent we are about our methods and reasoning, the easier it will be for others to see the truth for what it is independent of our own presentation or biases.
Well I can tell you this. If you were to ask the founder of the Presbyterian church, John Knox, if women were to be ordained as elders and pastors he would not cast a vote. It would have been a vehement NO! But that was where he stood according the plain and i would say obvious reading of Paul's writings.
As an Aussie who watches your videos regularly, it was great to hear you speak about some Australian denominations in this episode. Thanks, Joshua
Sydney Anglicans should be a subject on its own on how Evangelical it is compared to the rest of the Anglican dioceses in Australia, most of which are very liberal.
Hi 5! I'm Aussie too.
@@anyanyanyanyanyany3551 Aye, there's a whole fascinating history behind it that goes back to the founding of the cities. Although I think at the moment at least the bishops of Hobart and Darwin are Evangelical too.
It’s a pretty strange ecclesiology that considers the question “Is this person qualified to be an authority in the Church?” to be non-essential.
I think it’s more of a question of Paul’s pope-ishness. All orthodoxy set by anyone other than Christ himself is equally invalid
@@willieclark2256do only the red letters in the Bible have authority?
Doesn't that mean it's non-essential relative to the question of the fate of one's eternal soul via their relationship with God?
@@willieclark2256 Christ told the Apostles that the Spirit would guide them "to all truth." So it would seem that Jesus intended for some men to have specific guidance on what is orthodox.
@@KingoftheJuice18 Christ gave particular men authority in the church and told them that "he who hears you, hears me." So it seems clear that if people in the early church listened to the right people, they would get the right information about things like salvation - and if they listened to the wrong people, they would not. He also gave the Apostles the specific authority to bind and loose, that is, to tell you what you must do, must not do, and what you may do. Heeding a person who claims that authority but doesn't have it is dangerous.
I think the Study Panel of Free Church of Scotland at 16:49 did a great job of using Scripture to provide clarity on this issue.
Absolutely
Would you please do a specific deep dive into the different jurisdictions of the Oriental Orthodox Communion? You’ve done videos on Oriental Orthodoxy before, but our jurisdictions are all so diverse that a deep dive into each would be very educational and entertaining. Thank you 🙂
I agree. Also, going deep into the theological and liturgical differences of the Oriental-Orthodox Churches would make a great series, in case he needs video material and content to upload lol
If he wants a comments flame war he can cover the Patriarch & Catholicate split in the Indian Syrian Orthodox church
@@cjextreme because one bishop can’t tend to the whole flock, remember Moses dealing with Israel at first and then they ordained more leaders to ease his work load… wait is a Protestant advocating for one supreme
bishop for all Christendom? I would believe you if you said you’re Catholic. Also why would an Egyptian Bishop tend to and Armenian congregation? Jurisdictions, because the people of the world aren’t all the same.
@@cjextreme ? I don’t think you get it dude. The oriental orthodox communion is one Church, made up of different local churches, each with their own presbytery, deacons, and presiding episcopate. We have held the same doctrine, and ministry since it was handed down to the Apostles by God Incarnate Himself. The thing about belonging to the original Church, is that we don’t have to figure out how to construct ourselves from scripture, the scripture bears testimony to how we are constructed, and we’ve only stayed faithful to that which was given to us by God.
Stop being pretentious and talking past me, and actually read what I’m typing. If you just want to argue I have a woman a baby a full time job and a very full church life, I’m too busy walking to heaven with my family and God to argue about words and meaning of words.
The day your denomination decides to "study" a question that is unequivocally settled by scripture is the day you have lost the debate.
Even if you end up being forced to do it, avoid actually calling it a "study" at all costs.
They always say, "we just want to have a conversation."
I like how they just kept voting until they got the result they wanted
A very common practice. Steadfastness is a long term project as the enemy never gives up his attacks.
@@mkshffr4936 doctrines of truth shouldn't be decided by votes
And the voting stops once you get the result you want
Always remember Christ did not found a democracy.
He founded a Kingdom.
Welcome to the democratic process.
This very process has allowed some of the most wicked things to fester.
"Just keep calling for a vote, and eventually we'll get it."
This video dropped two days before the SBC will be voting to consider Rick Warren's appeal on this very subject! It'll be interesting to see what the even more conservative denomination decides to do on this.
This. I attended for one a year a Cooperative Baptist church that left the SBC over women’s ordination. It was a great place but like the history I learned about Baptist women from the beginnings versus what conservative Baptist teach. Different. And then you have Black Baptists. Some ordain women and others are just as conservative as the SBC, and a part of it. I’m not Baptist but I think the history is fascinating.
Fascinating! I didn't know that, but I know it doesn't stand much of a chance.
Personally I grew up conservative and baptist. And I have now, reluctantly come to the conclusion, that women are allowed to preach. I don't like that I have and I understand why it's been a tug of war!
@@sackettfamily4685 While women could publicly pray and prophesy in church (1 Cor. 11:1-16), they could not teach or have authority over a man (1 Tim. 2:11-14), since these were two essential functions of the clergy. Nor could women publicly question or challenge the teaching of the clergy (1 Cor. 14:34-38).
The early Church Fathers rejected women’s ordination, not because it was incompatible with Christian culture, but because it was incompatible with Christian faith. Thus, together with biblical declarations, the teaching of the Fathers on this issue formed the tradition of the Church that taught that priestly ordination was reserved to men. This teaching has not changed.
Further, in 1994 Pope John Paul II formally declared that the Church does not have the power to ordain women. He stated, “Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force. Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Luke 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful” (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis 4).
And in 1995 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in conjunction with the pope, ruled that this teaching “requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium 25:2)” (Response of Oct. 25, 1995).
@@richlopez5896 as the 39 Articles say, “the bishop of Rome hath no Jurisdiction in this realm of England”.
@@richlopez5896❤
Scriptures are reasonably clear that the "silence in church" clause is not to be taken literally but pertaining to ordination, church leadership, authoritative preaching. This would not have prohibited women from teaching, giving a profession of faith, making news announcements, etc. But the scriptures are also silent on women ordination with no woman being made an apostle in Christ's company, none ordained to be a bishop, and the cultural environment in which the scriptures were written. Furthermore, the spiritual roles of men and women are clear with men taking on a protective leadership role and women taking on a more nurturing role. Finally, while the scriptures are infallible, their interpretation by the Presbyterian Church is not, and they do not even claim to be. There's no need to take this fallible decision seriously intellectually or as a member of the Presbyterian congregation. The Presbyterian Church has no authority to make infallible spiritual declarations of heresy upon the conscience of any Christian believer's own interpretation of scripture, including mine. The modern-day Presbyterian Church has condemned centuries of its own church leaders/members to be in error on this issue.
indeed
Where in scripture do we find the ordination of anyone in the church other than that of the apostles (by Christ Himself) and those whom the apostles ordained (καθίστημι) as Paul assigned to Titus to "ordain elders" in the assemblies of Crete? Elders and deacons are the only scriptural ecclesiastical offices in the church. The seminal text for ordination of elders/bishops) is Acts 20:17 & 28 "From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders (πρεσβύτερος) of the church [saying] Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made (ordained) you overseers (ἐπίσκοπος), to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood." Who ordains men in the church for this office? Why, that would be the Holy Spirit. The church recognizes who the Holy Spirit ordains and follows who He has ordained.
I am uncertain how this reply is relevant to my post. Are you trying to imply the Holy Spirit ordains the clergy and therefore women could be ordained? Is that your point?
The context of 1 Timothy 3 seems obvious to me that Paul is giving Timothy instructions on how bishops and deacons should be appointed. Otherwise, he would have just appointed every bishop and deacon himself. It's also obvious that by creating qualifications for Timothy to judge, it doesn't allow for anyone and everyone to appoint themselves a bishop that feels called by the Holy Spirit to be so. And the Early Church continued apostolic succession in accordance with 1 Timothy 3 after the apostolic age because it was logical to do so. Even Protestant churches that don't subscribe to apostolic succession still use 1 Timothy 3 as their guide requiring people to apply and be accepted by the already existing clergy.
It is true that there are many passages in scripture that are merely descriptive to today but the appointment to ordained clergy is not one of them. Finally, the Holy Spirit will not ordain a woman in clear violation of scripture nor is there any divine revelation that the Holy Spirit would if this passage were merely descriptive to this time period. You will need to qualify why 1 Timothy 3 is descriptive while other passages are prescriptive.
Where does the NT speak of ordination? It does speak of spiritual gifts & qualifications for elder. Why do you not accept the plain meaning in 1 Corinthians 14? not permitted for them to speak! But given that the passage going back to 1 Cor 11 speaks about behavior when Christians "come together" (assemble for a church meeting), I take it that this silence pertains to addressing the group & public speaking.
@@steveempire4625 No you miss my point. The Holy Spirit ordains elders (not the church) and the Holy Spirit only ordains men. That is precisely what the apostle Paul is saying in Acts 20. "Shepard the flock of God over whom the Holy Spirit has made/appointed/ordained you elders." The active Agent is the Holy Spirit not other men (or women for that matter).
Thank you,Joshua.🌹🌹🌹🌹
you should do this study on women in the SDA Church to elders and Pastor. I love to see the time line of this adding in the idea of Mrs White working for the church. to see both side of the SDA history on women ordained in the church
Every church I’ve ever been to where women are not allowed to be ministers or elders still have women teaching Sunday School. If that isn’t evidence that it isn’t genuinely about a handful of passages in Scripture, I don’t know what is.
The thing I find ironic is everyone saying in the comments, they follow "the word of Christ" on this issue.
And then quote 1 Cor. And 1 Timothy. Both authored or claimed to be authored by Paul... Who isnt a divine being....
As a Christian woman (non-denominational) I hate seeing the world's attitudes pervading the church. I am not a man in a dress, I am a woman, with a different role in life than my husband. Equal value in God's eyes, but God set him in authority over me. Does my flesh want to usurp his authority? Oh, you bet ya! Flesh is like that. And that's why we're instructed (repeatedly) to walk after the spirit and not the flesh. My husband leads, and I follow. If I don't follow, he won't be able to fulfill his role fully. If he doesn't lead, I won't be able to fulfill my role fully. It's a beautiful but difficult dance, through which God teaches us both many lessons. If marriage has such rules, how much more do the larger flocks need to follow God's rules?
A first question: Why should you be led by your husband rather than by God? Why can't everyone, men and women, walk after God in the spirit? As a Christian, do you need another mediator between yourself and God besides Jesus?
A second question: Why can't you two be full-fledged partners? That would not diminish your differences, but it would acknowledge that sometimes you might have the right answer or the better insight and sometimes he might. Or perhaps the way to spiritual wisdom is for you to combine your God-given gifts. Genesis 2 says that you two together are one flesh, and that your husband should cling to YOU. That doesn't sound like "He's in charge."
@@KingoftheJuice18 There is a hierarchy given by God. Ephesians 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
And the reasoning. Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
As it was written of Sara in 1 Peter 3:1-8
1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
2 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:
6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.
7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.
8 Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous:
This is for us to understand and cherish, that we may honor God as we honor each other.
@@KingoftheJuice18 The new testament is quite clear on the roles in marriage. My part is easy, I am to honor and obey my husband in all things in the Lord. Note that last part - the church (that's both of us, we're believers) are, as you pointed out, subject to Christ. That implies that I am to be well enough versed in the word of God (and I am) to both notice and explain why I'm not following, if my husband leads us into anything ungodly. I am, after all, the help God made for him. Helpers gonna help. In all other things, I am also to assist where I can, but, when he makes a decision, right or wrong, that's that. There's a reason I pray for wisdom for my husband - he leads us well, because he's doing his best to follow God.
Ephesians 5:22-24 - Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
My husband's role, on the other hand, includes loving me as Christ did the church. Christ died for the church, remember? My husband's role is to stand between me and anyone or anything that would harm me, spiritually or physically. He's to study long and hard, so as to lead us both into true doctrine. I study a lot, he studies more. He is gentle, loving and sacrifices his own needs for mine. And if he does accidentally lead me astray, the chastisement of the Lord, gentle as it usually is, falls on him and not me.
Your second question is a perfect illustration of how the world thinks. You asked why we couldn't be full-fledged partners. We are! Different does not mean unequal! Authority does not equate to value - we have equal value but different authority. Does a general matter more than a private? No. Does a child matter less than a mother? No. But the mother has authority over her child, and someone has to lead an army, or they would lose every battle.
When we study, he listens to me, and I listen to him. When we talk, we stop and listen to the other. We do combine our God given gifts. When we make decisions he consults with me, I remind, suggest, and make my wishes known. Then he makes a choice, and that's what we do. We are, as you point out, one flesh. A single person has just one mind in their body. We have two minds in two bodies, but we live as one unit, a marriage. lol Someone has to lead, and God pegged Adam as head over all creation, and Eve as his helper, remember?
This system God set up puzzles the non-believer, and even the believers who are steeped in the world's values, but it works and works very well. I'm not the doormat you might imagine - I'm a very happy biblical wife.
I came out of the world, and it took me a while to fully step into my role as wife. I am so glad I did, though!
The gospel of grace puzzles the world too, but without believing in Christ they shall perish. Giving God's way a try is always a good thing. God bless you. :)
@Jeannine Praise the Lord! It is always good to find a woman who knows her place.
@@AldrickTanith Amen, and I bless the Lord that I married a man who knows his! lol
Time 23:17 - 24
John 1:12 (KJV)
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he POWER to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Over a century focused on one subject. Please elect REPENTANCE as you can still find it in the text of your “favorite” translation copy of the Bible.
Paul, interestingly enough, never silences women who he acknowledges in ministry and women as his co-workers. Romans 16 shows us this to be true. In fact, Paul actually acknowledges women who prophesied and prayed aloud in church. What Paul is doing in certain contexts is keeping order in a church environment and correcting those issues.
Paul’s letter is written in response to a verbal report from Chloe’s people. Paul is addressing what is going on, and what issues are being raised. Paul calls for order and “silence” is used three different times: verses 28, 30 and 34. Paul’s call of “silence” in v28 and 30 is not gender-specific, but is for all members in this context. Obviously, silence is called for in specific situations within the church meeting. But, what we find with the 1 Cor. 14:34-35 passage (regarding only women) seems not original to the text or to what Paul is addressing. It is a moving text that in certain other manuscripts are added after verse 40. Some scholars hold it as interpolation, perhaps added into the text by a scribe. It might even have been the quotation from that particular church that Paul was addressing and correcting. Thus, either a non-Pauline marginal note was later added, or a false teaching was noted that Paul is here correcting from that community. Whatever has happened, the passage is spurious to some scholars and it is a moveable text without a home. Also at v36, this passage actually begins with an exclamation such as “What?!” As there’s no English exact equivalent that is sometimes translated as simply “Or”. However, if one reads the passage in full without v34-35 it flows directly from v33 to v36 without interrupting Paul’s argument for orderly worship and the speaking in tongues. It also would account for the way it differs and doesn’t fit with Paul’s directive in the surrounding verses.
Another point is the reference to “the law” (ho nomos) mentioned in verse 34. But, nowhere in the Hebrew Bible, often referred to in the New Testament as “the Law” (ho nomos), does it command or instruct women to be silent. We need be cautious then about building any barriers for spreading the Great Commission that Christ commands of all believers. And as seen in the Scripture itself, women are ministers and called apostle, even a woman judge who led God’s army! So, as Paul commends women in church leadership as minister (diakonos), church planters, with these early communities meeting in women’s house churches and supporting the church to even Paul’s own mission work, women are his coworkers in ministry. But what we also see in these letters of Paul, nowhere does he ever silence women in ministry or in the church. Yet, if there are any women or men interrupting the church meeting with questions or babble, then it is understood they must be kept quiet and learn. And that in itself within this era was a very important factor in Paul’s legacy. He understood the importance of Christ teaching men and women. He was breaking ground to say, hey allow women to learn! We must then remember that Jesus first called the women to be His apostles to the apostles. And finally, we are a royal priesthood of believers, all called by the Holy Spirit with spiritual gifts and must minister to the world in the Great Commission. Let us all remember
Gal. 3:26-29.
Shalom 🕊️
Very well said. It is important to read the scripture within the context of its writing. Those letters were the answer to something, not written out of nowhere. About the submission, in the ephesians about the marriage. First, let us not forget these were letters, they did not had the separations and little tittles and we have today. And in that 4:22, the verse right before talks about submission to one another in the fear of God. This could be between the bethren or already concerning the marriage part. In either way, i doubt submission would simply imply one above the other. Christ as the head of the church means how we Christians should bear and model ourselves. If we have Christ above our heads, we talk to him, we respect him, we rolemodel him. And not to forget that Christ had all the church at the same level, not one over the other. So, the husband being the head of the wife can also be applied in a similar manner as it downstream compares. It says women be submitted to your husbands and husbands love your wives as your own bodies. If we have to love them as we love our bodies (ourselves), and it ends with the reverence for the husband. Its an exchange with equal responsability between one and the other, not one over the other (I doubt Christ would simply command his church without understanding for the members, as well as the members are responsible for how the church is presented to Christ and, therefore, to the outside).
About the woman in ministeries. If we look with the eyes of the flesh, we see man and woman, but in the eyes of the spirit there is no sex.
I might be wrong but in Galatians it is only refered as individuals of spiritual worth, without distinction. Also, Paul incentive the women to learn, which is a major point here (the submissive learning is appliable to all types of studentships... How much will you learn if you don't hear your teacher or think you know more than him or her?). So all students at the time, mainly allowed for males already knew that. Without learning in silence and submission you don't learn. For women, they are not allowed to learn, and that was mostly a novelty that Paul introduced. If woman could learn, their teachers would have to be men. But the verses goes as following: "let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor usurpe authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed; then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman (...)". Reading like this there is no indication they could not teach. This is the equivalent of you saying to your kid: listen to your teacher at school, don't think you know more than him, he has been at this for longer than you, so thinking you know more than your teacher might lead you to more mistakes later on. This is an advice to someone who is going to start to learn, hardly a prohibition.. And also, it is the man (singular) not the men (plural). So, again, it does seem a reference to the one teaching (as there would be no woman teaching at the time). In ordering the positions, by the look at the time, it would probably be ridiculed by outsiders to have women in leadership (officially). Although, Jesus had women among the disciples, despite their worth in society being around zero in terms of spiritual authority. Also, the Roman world was based around the men, they were the ones the should always be on top, no matter the circunstance. And the Pauline Letters were written in that world. Having a church lead by women would mean being ridiculed by the authorities and the society. And also, they just had authorization to learn. So I see it as a useful way to keep the church more acceptable to the society they were in as well as prepare women for something. I mean why even bother to allow someone to learn and instruct on how to do it if you have no interest on having that person play some role in the future? Also not to forget the already mentioned thanks Paul give to quite some women, from leaders of churches to preachers. And of course why bother to ressurect Thabita for her ministry, if she should be better to just stay silent...
Just some thoughts.
Cheers.
The discussion at 16:40 is quite blunt!
My thoughts on interpreting the Scriptural prohibitions against women speaking in the church is to look at authorial intent: Did the author of those books mean what he said? Did he mean to have it practiced universally? Are we the audience for his instructions?
Those who want to ordain women as ministers must recontextualize heavily. They say we are not the audience of those books, that the author was speaking to a particular, isolated group, that he did not mean what he actually wrote. The most contorted recontextualizing I have come across is the claim that there was some sort of temple to Athena in the same city and the prohibition was to response to the temple's practices. Huh? I have seen that spoken boldly by women who operate channels here.
We have Scripture, handed down to us. Those passages in the Bible have not changed, over the many translations over many centuries. Those whose practices are contrary to those passages could not be called a church that holds to Sola Scriptura. As a layman, I wonder how I could ever have a leader above me who would hold onto a view that violates clear guidance from the Bible.
And what about 1st cor. 11? The bible is clearly saying that all women have to cover their heads when they pray. And the bible clearly encourages random unceasing prayer. I've heard it argued from straight scripture and I never felt confident in the opinions. Until, I read about the cultural contexts. And then it made sense! I mean it's stuck in with completely other topics....that always made me wonder.
Tell me in detail about the Artemis of Ephesus cult that Paul had to deal with 24-7 for years. That's where those "tough sayings of Paul" come from and addressed to. Paul's not grabbing stuff from thin air like John Calvin liked to do. If you don't understand the Artemis cult behavior and teaching you will NEVER understand Paul in 1Corinthians. Its a huge topic so maybe that's why its never been tackled.
@@sackettfamily4685 The head covering was a pagan practice. The head was to be covered by the person acting as the intercessor for the group they were with. Only the acting intercessor could present the sacrifice to the god. There are plenty of carvings from the Roman era showing this procedure.
@@Baltic_Hammer6162 so why then was scripture, in the basic reading of it, telling females to cover the head? What's your opinion on it?
Mine is that, for the new testament, cultural contexts matter. The simple explanation is that women were feeling freedom in Christ and taking it culturally a little bit too far. Uncovered heads in the culture, notes a whore for hire, and being covered signaled a good woman. Paul was telling the women that they needed stay covered and keep their reputations.
But if you are claiming that covering, is pagan....why was Paul directly telling them to?
@@Baltic_Hammer6162 Please, share your insightful historical research with your Dungeons and Dragons group. I am sure they will be intrigued.
Well done. I think Phoebe would say the same. Most never mention the church that met at her house. This is the same Phoebe entrusted to bring g Paul’s letter to the Romans.
I wonder how she did that if Paul constrained her not to speak in the Church or about the Church.
Clearly, the historical evidence after the initial Church is led by men. Interesting too, is the fact that the Holy Spirit fell in men and women at the very birth of the Church in the Upper Room. This was attended by Mary. This was attended by Peter. Peter’s speach afterward did not delve into restrictions. When asked “What shall we do?” Peter’s instructions are for them to “repent and be baptized everyone of you.”
Paul was not yet a member of the Church. Interesting too, these men and women were all Jewish.
The evangelist Phillip had four daughters who prophesied. To whom did they protect to? Just women and kids? Maybe. But there is no evidence either way. Therefore, an argument from silence cannot support either view here. However, it seems more logical that a spirit imbued believer, whether male or female, should be able to preach and teach those who are not yet in the church. How did Phoebe evolve to have a church that met in her house in Cenchrea?
Granted, the men are seen through the Patristic era as the priests of the faith. But we see no priests in the New Testament. I’d not each believer a priest in their own right because of the Holy Spirit’s call who does only what is instructed Him by Jesus Himself? Ironically, the first person Jesus spoke publicly to about who He was-the Messiah-was the Samaritan women at the well. She believed!! She then spoke and told the entire town who was in their midst. She was an evangelist. This was prior to Saul of Tarsus. Therefore, are we all missing something in what Paul is saying. Are Paul’s words normative for the entire church or prescriptive to a region that had religious cults led by female priests?
The controversies continues…
There is no controversy. To support the claim that women can be ordained you have to make inferences and logical gymnastics, all of that to avoid the clear teachings in the Bible and the incontrovertible fact that Jesus chose 12 men as his disciples. Unless some are saying that Jesus was also following cultural norms.
All we have to do is to see what Churches (and entire religions) led by women have become sooner or later: either dust or in the process of becoming dust. Not a single one survived. Not one.
PS: Please don't shoot the messenger
Thanks for a very clear presentation of a complex issue. As I was raised in the Methodist Church, I have always taken the ordination or licensing of women to preach or serve as pastors for granted. In fact in my youth, in the 1940s
some of our most effective preachers and teachers were women -- not infrequently outshining some of the men in similar roles. During my 60 year ministry in Methodist, UCC, and Protestant Episcopal churches, I have been impressed by the high quality and effectiveness of many of my female colleagues, and have often served comfortably with them in parish and academic or administrative roles. As far as I can see, God makes no distinction in this regard; and any appeal to the time-tied opinions of St. Paul suggests we also bring back slavery, because he considered it normal two millennia ago!
What are the differences between the Presbyterian offices of evangelist, minister, and elder?
That Paul said that is debatable in its own right, Paul work with women as missionaries so he wasn't opposed to them being missionaries but he was opposed to women being like The pagan sybyls or prophetesses like the prophetesses of Apollo😮
he specifically said that women should not be leaders in church. There is no debate on this
2 Timothy 2:12 "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet."
@@Rexponsibility 2 Timothy is not a letter to a church like Corinthians, it's a letter to a pastor giving instructions on how to be a pastor. Thus its contents can be generalized to the pastoral ministry in all situations. Just like we still expect pastors to be chaste, the husband of one wife, to confront false teachers, etc. to this day and don't say those admonotions were just talking about a specific cultural context.
Deborah was a civic leader. Her office was not akin to the pastorate. And even when applying her story to the question of whether women can hold lay leadership positions in the church, we should remember that there was an aspect of divine judgement against the men of Israel that God put them under the authority of a woman when it wasn't normative.
The prophetesses in the OT were not "female prophets." Some women were given the gift of prophecy, but there is no example in the OT of a woman holding the type of role given to Abraham, Moses, Elijah, etc.
I find no evidence in the Bible that Saint Priscilla was a "teacher". Being a notable confessor of the faith does not make you a minister or a "teacher of Christians". It's just like how people trying to defend women's "ordination" claim Saint Phoebe was a "leader" without evidence just because Paul held her in high esteem. Esteem and authority may be roughly equivelant to the world, but not to the church.
@@Rexponsibility I'll just respond briefly to a couple points for the sake of anyone else reading this text:
3. There is a distinction in the OT between "Big P Prophets" and "prophets" who were merely given the gift of prophecy, such as those who made up the "companies of prophets" in Elisha's day. The office of "Prophet" with a Big P was several roles integrated into one position. One of these was prophecy, but it also included the crucial roles of directly preparing the way of the Messiah and holding the priests and kings to account, things which not even Deborah really did.
4. Your math is simply bad here. Martin Luther's wife Katharina Von Bora was well known throughout the churches of the German Reformation, despite not having any formal leadership role.
At my church, everyone knows and respects the elderly wife of our pastor emiritus, who is also our organist. That doesn't make her a church "leader".
Again, your importing modern ideas of leadership being equal to respect into the text where it doesn't belong.
Finally, when it comes to how harshly we condemn those who push for women's ordination as "some kind of heretics", I find it necessary to point out that Christendom was virtually united in opposition to women even preaching for 1700 years, and to ordaining women for even longer. Even Methodists, who allowed women to preach from the beginning, did not start consistenly ordaining women until the 1950s.
If you look at the history of women being ordained in large denominations, even ones that to this day are still socially conservative, it was universally the result of those denominations losing the "battle for the Bible" that took place in the 20th century. It was always the theological liberals who got it done, not people diving deep into the New Testament and "discovering" that the church was wrong about female pastors for over a milennium and a half. The people pushing it were people who just didn't care what Paul had to say, not people who thought Paul was being taken out of context, although such people were recruited as water carriers under false pretenses by the liberals.
You know the meme about today's so-called conservative extremist being yesterday's super-leftist who just jumped off the train after the left's latest moral innovation? That's how I see "theologically conservative" churches that ordain women.
@@Rexponsibility While women could publicly pray and prophesy in church (1 Cor. 11:1-16), they could not teach or have authority over a man (1 Tim. 2:11-14), since these were two essential functions of the clergy. Nor could women publicly question or challenge the teaching of the clergy (1 Cor. 14:34-38).
The early Church Fathers rejected women’s ordination, not because it was incompatible with Christian culture, but because it was incompatible with Christian faith. Thus, together with biblical declarations, the teaching of the Fathers on this issue formed the tradition of the Church that taught that priestly ordination was reserved to men. This teaching has not changed.
Further, in 1994 Pope John Paul II formally declared that the Church does not have the power to ordain women. He stated, “Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force. Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Luke 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful” (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis 4).
And in 1995 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in conjunction with the pope, ruled that this teaching “requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium 25:2)” (Response of Oct. 25, 1995).
For context, in Australia the revokation of the ordination of women happened around the time of the split in the Presbyterian Church in Australia (PCA), between the liberals and moderates mostly joining the Uniting Church (a union between Presbyterians, Methodists and Congregational churches), and the conservative and traditionalist remaining Presbyterian. In addition, quite a number of Free Presbyterian and Reformed churches have sprung up in regions where the PCA alamgamated, holding closely to one of the old confessional standards (mostly Westminster Confession, but many have also amalgamated with Continental Reformed churches, who are likewise firmly in the conservative side if Christianity). As a result, the PCA today remains very conservative and firmly confessional. The Uniting Church of Australia is very divided between liberal and conservative Christianity, which incorporates many of the same arguments and debates today that had existed in the PCA in the 1970's. The Uniting Church continues to ordain both men and women, whereas all the Presbyterian denominations in Australia are male-only ordination.
While women could publicly pray and prophesy in church (1 Cor. 11:1-16), they could not teach or have authority over a man (1 Tim. 2:11-14), since these were two essential functions of the clergy. Nor could women publicly question or challenge the teaching of the clergy (1 Cor. 14:34-38).
The early Church Fathers rejected women’s ordination, not because it was incompatible with Christian culture, but because it was incompatible with Christian faith. Thus, together with biblical declarations, the teaching of the Fathers on this issue formed the tradition of the Church that taught that priestly ordination was reserved to men. This teaching has not changed.
Further, in 1994 Pope John Paul II formally declared that the Church does not have the power to ordain women. He stated, “Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force. Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Luke 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful” (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis 4).
And in 1995 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in conjunction with the pope, ruled that this teaching “requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium 25:2)” (Response of Oct. 25, 1995).
@@richlopez5896 it may come as some surprise, but the Presbyterian Church is rooted in the long-standing opponents of Vatican authority - indeed, groups such as the Covenanters (who fought for separation of church and state, particularly the independence of the Church in it's sole loyalty to Christ as King of the Church, not as co-sovereign), but also more recent examples still causing controversy in Ireland, Northern Ireland and Scotland. The name comes from the Presbyterian system of church government (rule by elders, the regional collective of which is called a presbytery, hence Presbyterian), but it's theology (both historically, and for conservative and traditional contemporaries) is firmly Reformed, all of which hold to one or other of the Reformed Confessions of Faith (usually Westminster for Presbyterians, although ones that have amalgamated with Continental Reformed can also hold to continental equivalents such as the Canons of Dort, Heidelberg Confession, Belgic Confession, etc).
"But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you." 1 Corinthians 7:28 KJB
Excellent historical and theological treatment of a thorny issue among Christians.
"ordained to the ministry". Is there such a thing as "ordination" in the NT? And is there such a thing as "the ministry", minister being some office in the church? I find elders & pastor-teacher (once in Eph 4 only) as a spiritual gift. Is the distinction between ruling elder & minister Biblical? Minister seems to be a general term which could apply to anyone serving the Lord, not some special office.
1 Timothy 5 has a section on ordaining elders, in which Paul warns Timothy not to be too hasty to “lay hands on” a man, with that phrase referring to the mechanism of ordination.
Hi Hebrews 13,17 and 13,24 talk of prelates and Titus 1,5 "ordianing presbyters in every city" and Titus 1,7" For a bishop must be without crime "
The Church had these offices from the start .
When the Israelites tried to ordain ministers from among themselves they were vaporised
Yes, Elders and Deacons are appointed in the NT.
@@Phill0old Bishop's too ,the Church had decons, presbyters and bishop's from the start.
Another great truly in depth video
There's no controversy if it's not Biblical.
Mary Magdalene was the first to preach the resurrection so why limit women to laity
@@jackemmakemthat's taking Avery loose definition of preach my brother. She told the Apostles, period. Unless I'm mistaken that was her involvement. Please correct if wrong.
@@jackemmakem women can evangelize. That's not the issue, the issue is can she have a place of high authority in the Church aka be an Elder.
@@ABLEARCno it’s not taking anything to Loose. You’re trying to change it up your way.
Stillwell waiting for more than man's opinion. Weird how not a single viewpoint is being supported by verses
Thorough and sane coverage of this touchy issue.
The scripture is pretty clear. There does not seem to be any biblical justification for it. This is a very thorough breakdown of the timeline.
At least one group took the time to consider what God’s Word actually says and use that as a basis for their view. The others must feel that they get to determine it on their own. 😢
Is "church court" their way of calling a session?
I think it refers to all their jursidictional echelons, so session, presbytery, general conference, etc.
This is so foreign and confusing to me.
Women in my faith have been teaching since the beginning.
I can't even imagine the loss of knowledge women have taught the millions in my church.
The passion and love a daughter of God can bestow to all who will hear is immense.
Women are leaders of the second oldest charity organization on earth.
They hold positions in the hierarchy and are relied on in every aspect.
Their calling is not to hold the priesthood but to magnify it through their faith and support of those that do.
If they could eat of all the trees in the garden, they would still take the one they could not have.
While women could publicly pray and prophesy in church (1 Cor. 11:1-16), they could not teach or have authority over a man (1 Tim. 2:11-14), since these were two essential functions of the clergy. Nor could women publicly question or challenge the teaching of the clergy (1 Cor. 14:34-38).
The early Church Fathers rejected women’s ordination, not because it was incompatible with Christian culture, but because it was incompatible with Christian faith. Thus, together with biblical declarations, the teaching of the Fathers on this issue formed the tradition of the Church that taught that priestly ordination was reserved to men. This teaching has not changed.
Further, in 1994 Pope John Paul II formally declared that the Church does not have the power to ordain women. He stated, “Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force. Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Luke 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful” (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis 4).
And in 1995 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in conjunction with the pope, ruled that this teaching “requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium 25:2)” (Response of Oct. 25, 1995).
@@Good100 if it were that the story of Eve was complete, then we would know of a surety that is why women are.
But let us consider what Jesus taught, that the truth will be declared by 2 witnesses.
Taking the 3 verses strictly from the Bible leaves us with to much room for speculation.
Thankfully we have far more records that reveal Eve's true purpose to bring forth the plan of salvation.
Read the story in both the apocrypha and Jasher (for two examples) that God came to Adam and forbade him to eat of the tree, but said unto Eve, take of the tree and give unto your help meet that you may know good from evil.
There had to be a fall!
There had to be a separation between man and God. But it had to be under the law of free agency. Our greatest gift next to life itself.
2 commandments were given, one to stay innocent for eternity and know no progression or to freely disobey God that mankind is.
My religion teaches that Eve had a complete understanding of the consequences to her actions, we are equally sure that the decision was not made easily but the strength that was in her and the humility to obey God over her help meet was immense.
Once explained to Adam, by Eve, Adam ate the apple!
The beginning of mortality! The beginning of us!
Now you may disagree with this statement and that's ok, I'm just sharing with you how wonderful and amazing our first mother truly is.
If her role was taught how it really was, then peace would rain triumphant between the sexes.
Sadly, what we get dealt with today in this growing battle that is so far from righteousness I don't know where to find peace.
When my good woman died, life ended for me.
For so long I hid away from love. Then when I decided to try again, all of the women I met had changed and were so foreign to me, I just threw in the cards and forfeited the pot.
Elders, husband of one wife
1 Timothy 3:2
This is the way.
As a woman in the PCUSA I have been ordained a deacon. Look at the structure of any PC Sunday School. Most have classes from Nursery to Sr. Adults. I know I wss taught mainly by women And I taught Sunday School in most of the children's classes. Men didn't worry about women being silent. Women taught Bible classes to other women was acceptable. We had a hard time getting a man to help in any of the classs, it was woman's work. So very many jobs in the church are done by women. But so many of those who oppose women as ministers elders,and second fail to acknowledge women as the first people to teach our children and young people. Also as a woman if I must defer to my husband and follow him, what happens if he leads us into sin. Does he take my punishment for me, or am I held responsible for my actions?
I don't want to get involved in the discussion of women as elders or pastors. Instead, I make this post to say that the arguments made by Lousia Woosley in her defense of this practice seem to rely heavily on church practice rather than Scripture. That's not to say that such a defense can't be made based solely on Scripture, just that she does not do this. It would be much better for her to try to argue that Paul's instructions were applicable only for the period in which he lived (contextual) rather than to say that our choirs would be devoid of women's voices if we followed his instructions. One defense is Scriptural, the other is not.
My caution to all my brothers and sisters in Christ, especially those in the various flavors of Presbyterianism, is to carefully examine all church doctrines and practices against Scripture. Having formerly been a member of an OPC church, which jokingly refers to itself as the "Only Pure Church", I find that Presbyterians are good at using formal language to justify their beliefs when no such language appears in the Bible. Presbyterian leaders often grant themselves great authority by referencing the "keys to the kingdom" (Matt 16:19) and "do things in good order" (1 Cor 14:40), yet they do not look at the context of Scripture when making these claims. Instead, church leaders are to bring us God's word (Heb 13:7) which does not happen when they make things up, no matter what fancy words or rulebooks they invent.
Please remember that so long as we profess that Jesus is God Incarnate, come to save us from our sins, that we are all a part of one body (1 John 4 - the entire chapter)
20th century expressions of Christianity are fascinating in their optimism and sometimes loose approach to scripture, and dedication to man’s modern problems.
But in hindsight it is clear that ordaining woman is excluded by the apostolic founders: equally by the gentile and Jewish parts since the start. The historic record sufficiently reveals that this exclusion was considered dogmatic.
Once again good job. Too the point and matter of fact description
16:50 to 18:10 focuses too heavily on women's sin in this dynamic.
The push for women to lead in the church is equally the result of men sinfully abdicating their responsibilities.
When Paul said women are not to teach or have authority in the church because Eve was tempted first, that's not supposed to be taken as a curse upon the daughters of Eve for leading Adam into sin. Rather it's a reminder to the sons of Adam that Adam caused the situation by letting his wife do all the talking to the serpent while he cowared in the bushes.
Men in the church thrusting women in front of them to "lead" in spiritual warfare then gives them the opportunity when they are caught in sin to echo the protest of Adam: "the woman you gave me caused me to do this."
Do you have plans to do one on the Lutheran church as well?
If you believe that Genesis 3 prohibits women from any position of authority relative to men (which also should include all political offices or roles as bosses in companies, etc.), then you should also believe that it's forbidden for women in childbirth to use any type of anesthetic (e.g., epidural) or any other method to make the experience less difficult, since it states in the very same verse, "I will make your suffering in childbearing very severe; in pain shall you bear children" (3:16). For that matter, every man would have to do sweat-inducing agricultural labor (see verses 17-19 there)!
But no, this is all a misunderstanding of Scripture. The statements made to Adam and Eve are not ideal constructions of society, not commandments of God. They are punishments and challenges to be overcome. Otherwise, stop using fertilizer and other techniques to make the land prosperous and abundant since God said, "Thorns and thistles shall it sprout for you" (v. 18).
bro are you dumb? The point god made was that childbirth would be painful which it always is. Nothing wrong with alleviating the pain. Same with men working. You can try to avoid the worst kinds of work but you will have to work at some point
Good thing the JST has the word "speak" replaced with "rule" Thank heavens for the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.
It baffles me as an atheist, that women are excluded from ordination, just because Paul wrote 2000 years ago, that he does want women to shut up in church. Paul was obviously full with resentment against women and even jews, why does his opinion matter so much, two millenia latter? And please, spare me with Paul being "inspired by good", that's complety bonkers.
This confuses me as a Catholic how some protestants even entertain debate on the matter. Even with Vatican II, sacred tradition still stands and anybody who ordains a woman gets excommunicated along with said woman.
23:00
"Not letting women be pastors is paganism"
-Theological feminists who will say anything to get their way.
good stuff, I am reformed presbyterian
When did this first happen in the UCC or it's predecessors?
It's a product of the "great awakening" with methodists, SDA "prophetess", Aimee simple McPherson, etc.
Eventually the churches that denied the gospel added it as a social issue.
Dear RTH, Thank you once again for a well developed and presented piece of work. Forgetting for a moment the much larger and deeper issue of just how important should the writings of Paul of Tarsus have ever been to the understanding of the teachings of Jesus The Nazarene? Or how the explicit, present, obvious, and undeniable "...Word Of God..." of The Bible are "clearly" understood by 100 different people, in at least 100 different ways, what I find interesting ( as a thought experiment ) is to re-write the various written positions of the various Presbyterian Denominations over the intervening decades regarding the status of Women, and to substitute the word "Women" for the term "Slavery". Excluding the references to specific passages, when done what emerges is a fascinating dichotomic understanding, however since "Belief" is an issue of feeling and not one of understanding ( or logic ), the results of such an experiment have little to no bearing.
"There are only eleven women that the Bible specifically called a prophetess. Nine of them were true prophetesses."
Please present the context of the book for each woman, than the historical, cultural, political context, who? Where? What? Why? Was it a single event? Was it an event that occurred from the circumstances or a rule?
Men changing Gods ways to suit their own ways, men knowing evil as good, and good as evil. Shalom
Hello I would appreciate if you made a video covering Christian scientist church
Is is biblical to take a vote on anything?
Doesn't Jhn.19.14,31,42 say Messiah was crucified on the eve of Passover, not the day before the weekly Sabbath ?
"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, as also saith the law." 1 Corinthians 14:34 KJB
Since leaving a very radical Reformed denomination I've take a more open view on allowing women to preach. Our Baptist Church doesn't allow it either but I'm OK with it either way now. I can't see splitting a church over the issue.
While women could publicly pray and prophesy in church (1 Cor. 11:1-16), they could not teach or have authority over a man (1 Tim. 2:11-14), since these were two essential functions of the clergy. Nor could women publicly question or challenge the teaching of the clergy (1 Cor. 14:34-38).
The early Church Fathers rejected women’s ordination, not because it was incompatible with Christian culture, but because it was incompatible with Christian faith. Thus, together with biblical declarations, the teaching of the Fathers on this issue formed the tradition of the Church that taught that priestly ordination was reserved to men. This teaching has not changed.
Further, in 1994 Pope John Paul II formally declared that the Church does not have the power to ordain women. He stated, “Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force. Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Luke 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful” (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis 4).
And in 1995 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in conjunction with the pope, ruled that this teaching “requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium 25:2)” (Response of Oct. 25, 1995).
Our College principal was charged and convicted of heresy about this issue.
Hersey is always creeping. Compromise begets compromise, until you are completely astray
I find it to be strange how those who are for men exclusively being in offices of pastor and elder to use 1 Cor. 14. The Bible verbatum says women should not SPEAK. The context is not about preaching, but ORDER. If men are in chaos in a church they need to be quiet and listen to the sermons. That is just obvious.
Having said those we NEED to use 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. They say VERBATUM only men can be pastors and elders. I am saying it is one thing to have a doctrine correct, it is another thing to use correct passages in context to support it. As a sidenote I am for men being pastors, elders, head of home exclusively
What about a woman leading the singing of hymns during mass while the rest of us women in the sanctuary are choosing to make sure that our voices do not stand out in the congregation in contrast to hers at the microphone while singing too? I am sure that everyone in the church where I attend mass would be protesting if the woman who sings with perfect pitch while leading everyone singing in the sanctuary along with those in the choir too were to be told by our local bishop that she could no longer work in that ministry. Our priest can sing in perfect pitch too however given how many masses he must lead if he had to do so by himself chances are he could lose his voice sometimes because he is only human too.
I'm a confessional Lutheran and sometimes listen to a RC service on the radio on the way home. Usually the cantor is a woman and you hear her voice more than you do the voice of the priest. I think the RCC is going down the wrong road - woman cannot be pastors.
This is why only tonsured readers or cantors should chant in the Churches, which, of course, can only be men.
Maybe Professor Josh, you could talk about the pushes for female priestood and decenesship in Catholicism? Because their were and are some in my chiruch.
As a Presbyterian for decades, most congregations would prefer a man, but there seems to be a dearth of men willing to serve
Im not surprised.
A denomination would have to far ignore scripture so heavily to get to such a point, that it becomes something that serves the individual for the sake of doing so and not serving the Word. It becomes a statement to be excercised and not a true act of service.
Every man, even those who profess to support it, and their male way of thinking who reads the scripture knows quite well that it is not according to the Word. Why would men be so attracted to christian service in a denomination that so blatantly ignores scripture?
Women leadership becomes a statement of entitlement, which is an untenable environment for the rational male.
This is really excellent stuff. As a Presbyterian, I am encouraged by the wise, careful, and Biblical arguments put forth by the position papers cited in the video.
Though I am conversely discouraged by the comment section here, which seems to see each commenter rushing to their own entrenched view while castigating fellow believers of a different mind for doing the same.
Paul is the only Saint that Protestants worship.
No controversy in the "Body of Christ" either you ignore the commandment of the Lord or do what you want.... BUT there will be a JUDGEMENT!
1Co 14:34-38 "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, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant. "
So the Word of God let's you be ignorant . God will reward those those that willingly obey.
Are you really a Christian if you can ignore such an easy to understand instruction?
You can be a Presbyterian and NOT be a Christian! Easily.... thousand have.
Many will say in that day Lord, Lord, have we not done many works in your name. he'll say depart from me ye workers of iniquity, I NEVER knew you.
WWJD?
Well it was just men preaching in the temple during his time and he didn't seem to say anything against it being only men.
He’d make it clear what the proper role of women is, as he did.
Jesus made sure to love and support the women around Him. He listened to them and ignored human-invented rules that would've prevented women from following Him or speaking with Him. He first publicly declared His role as Messiah to the woman at the well, and He first showed that He was resurrected to a woman. He instructed a woman to be the first to testify of His Resurrection. Regardless of the roles that women do or don't play in church polity, what Jesus would do is listen respectfully and treat them with the love that all humans deserve.
@@axeSyntax WWJD occasionally involves flipping tables and chasing people out of your father's house with a whip.
@@axeSyntax In all seriousness, I completely agree with your answer. Jesus taught a radical departure from many of the orthodox teachings of His day, but He also taught that obedience to God's commandments was even more important than family relationships (Matthew 10:37-38). He taught that it was better to remove your own eye than to risk eternal damnation (Matthew 5:29-30). In the case of the woman caught in adultery, He mercifully gave her another chance, but He never once implied that what she had done was in any way okay (John 8:2-11). Jesus showed by example that radical love and forgiveness are possible without condoning sin or being wishy-washy about God's commandments. It's a hard balance for us mortals to strike, especially in today's increasingly polarized world.
what a complicated situation
Very complicated
Its only complicated because nobody in the "church" apparently has taken the ambition to research WHY Paul is saying what he does. Certainly somebody in the "church system" has researched this besides me. I've tried to open the eyes to the truth of Paul's writings numerous times but.... surprise... surprise...nobody wants to hear the truth. Yeh, its been a problem with "christians" for a long time.
Sometimes I really believe the so-called "christians" are the worst enemy of Christ's church. They love their traditions, man-made doctrines, self interpretations because it fits what THEY want it to. Why should I be shocked? I've been told this for years, but now I'm moved to a more active role and now I know the exasperation of messengers whose words fell on deaf ears and blind eyes. Utterly amazing.!!
@@axeSyntax yes
This is an honest question: Can anyone name a denomination that has women pastors that has not also now allowed gay pastors?
Quite a few, for example, most of Pentecostalism like the Assemblies of God or Foursquare Church, also many conservative Methodists like the Evangelical Methodist Church and Bible Methodist Connection. Also the Evangelical Covenant Church seems to be an example of allowing Women pastors but still kicking out congregations that have LGBT clergy.
@Ready to Harvest So how do most of those denomination interpret 1Timothy3, where Paul is talking about both office's but with different requirements? Or maybe you already did a video on this that you can point me too. Thanks
Is the Reformed Church in America for ordaining women or not?
First come the women preachers then come the gay male preachers then come the lesbian atheist preachers.
Yup every time like clockwork
Episcopal Church USA recently defrocked a woman for affirming the five pillars of Islam and we’ll do it again. Stop this slippery slope fallacy.
must be the husband of one wife pretty much excludes female pastors too.
yeah, in this case descriptive = prescriptive
Read a certain way, it would also disqualify Paul.
@@jdotoz Who by the way, was not an elder.
@@slamdancer1720 He was more than an elder, and like Peter, a fellow elder.
You can't treat the Bible like a box of chocolates only picking things you want.
Yet Christians do it all the time. Like working on the sabbath, or wearing clothes made of two kinds of material ...
Maybe you can put the fact is the church is by the church I mean all of all the various denominations of Christendom have always found some some chocolate they like and some chocolate they don't conservatives and liberals both engage in it all the time
except that's exactly what everyone does (including you and i), pretty hard not to
If you agree with Louisa Woosley’s arguments in the beginning of the video, and yet still want to listen to Paul, then you logically have to conclude that women can’t preach.
Women have 3 possible types of speech in church: 1.) singing, 2.) Confessing/witnessing, and 3.) teaching.
If Woosley convinces you that it would be ridiculous to ban #1 and #2, but yet Paul is still banning something, then it must be #3.
keep tabling the same issue over and over again until you get the vote you want! a history of the presbyterian church!!!
This shouldn’t be an issue. The Bible is clear on who can pastor/preach. Every denomination that ordains women doesn’t care about what the Bible says.
I’m a woman and I don’t understand why a lot of men don’t need the Lord in their lives, especially those who claim to know Jesus Christ. When did this become a thing? Why should Christian women like myself have to stay single just because we can’t find a godly man who values church attendance/membership as important (Hebrews 10:25) ?
First you have to understand WHY and to WHO about problems from a specific cult. Paul is not sitting around grabbing stuff from the air because ..Hey we need some rules to keep women shut up. Quite the very opposite. Why does Paul address hair or hair length?? Where in nature does it teach its a shame for man to have long hair??? There are NO examples in nature that teach that, so WHERE is Paul getting his "nature teaches"?? Do you know? I do but I want to see if you do.
Its a good example where "plain reading" as some like to say, has no basis on its face at all.
I wouldn't want a man that's careless in the faith/not living a godly life. If more women end up single cause of it then it's just a product of sin and something God will work out. Pray for that renewal on the male side. All you can do is trust Him and work on your part.
*Unless the woman is possessed by the Holy Ghost 👻*
The Holy Ghost 👻 *is male,* with he/his pronouns in the Bible ✝.
That makes he and the woman form a *male/female hybrid entity,* which makes the rule not apply, due to the point of it.
Since a woman’s husband would have to submit to her authority as overseer, it ought to be disallowed. It’s evil to make a wife the head of her husband.
"Shall Women Preach"
Did the Bible say Deborah was a man?
Was Isaiah's prophet wife a man?
Was Moses' sister "prophet" a man?
Were those daughters mentioned in Acts, also men?
People are sick in the head if they think a prophet mentioned in the Bible couldn't "teach" or "preach" what God told them because they were a woman.
I have heard women speak quite a few times. I don't have a problem with it.
My problem stems from linguistics. The word pastor has male connotations. Call these women speakers something else and let them speak.
No one is preventing them from speaking. They can't have an authoritative role in a church.
This comment section is depressing. Arguments like this is why people are losing faith in the American Church. We should be looking to see does the minister (male or female) exhibit fruits of the Holy Spirit in their lives and are effective in helping others to deepen their faith. A pastor is a shepherd, and there are male and female shepherds. Do we really think a true lost sheep is going to worry about the shepherd being a male or a female? No! The only thing the are going to care about is if the shepherd can bring them safety back into the fold. Making "sex" the sole qualifier for the role of pastor has only created tons of issues for both liberal and conservative churches.
If we ordain women to the priesthood, that not only would go against centuries of tradition, but it would only worsen matters in the Church. Many among us Catholic laity would be correctly at unease with such a change and perceive it as irrefutable proof that something deeply wrong has infiltrated the Church. Even Vatican II never implemented that.
Also as it stands anybody who attempts to give ordain a woman as a priest gets excommunicated. There’s an argument to be made for women in the diaconate as that has existed prior with little issue, but not for women in the priesthood. Not even all men are called to the priesthood. Few are and even fewer become bishops
And then there's option (d) neither Timothy was one of the seven
Looking forward to your response to the SBC new stance on women in leadership roles. As I understand the SNC says women cannot teach a Sunday school class. Our church claims to be SBC and CBF. Our family personally do not believe in the CBF. We are trying to find somewhere to give our tithe to. The preacher at this church has never done a sermon on sin. His does powder puff sermons to cater the the CBF members. Since the CBF allows same sex preachers and other liberal groups. We are looking for a more bible based church.
*Laughs in Unchanging Faith*
Don’t take it for granted
Catholic? Sadly, while your faith may not have changed, your church has. There are bishops, archbishops and even at least one cardinal who have been open to homosexuality. Not just the disposition, but the practice. Half the western church has already gone that way, wait a few more popes and you may get rainbow coloured smoke coming out of the Vatican.
Laugh in ignorance of the Apostle Paul.
@@Baltic_Hammer6162 While women could publicly pray and prophesy in church (1 Cor. 11:1-16), they could not teach or have authority over a man (1 Tim. 2:11-14), since these were two essential functions of the clergy. Nor could women publicly question or challenge the teaching of the clergy (1 Cor. 14:34-38).
The early Church Fathers rejected women’s ordination, not because it was incompatible with Christian culture, but because it was incompatible with Christian faith. Thus, together with biblical declarations, the teaching of the Fathers on this issue formed the tradition of the Church that taught that priestly ordination was reserved to men. This teaching has not changed.
Further, in 1994 Pope John Paul II formally declared that the Church does not have the power to ordain women. He stated, “Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force. Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Luke 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful” (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis 4).
And in 1995 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in conjunction with the pope, ruled that this teaching “requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium 25:2)” (Response of Oct. 25, 1995).
@@alessandrorossi1294
My Faith is as Unchanging as Christ is. No matter the detractors, the meddling of kings, Christ has already Won.
Hristos Voskrese!
It’s a case of authority not that a women should not teach men as one in authority
I'm from a methodist denomination so I'm a little biased, but there have been many women put into leadership roles in the early church. It would make sense that Paul's letters were taking on specific problems in specific churches, like what Paul talks about in 1 Timothy 2:1-10.
Exposure to sin causes one to become accustomed, and then to accept that sin. And, then they punish those who still oppose the sin.
My mother once told me that she will start preaching when men start having babies. Seems fair enough…
well that mother better get on that pulpit, because trans men exist
@@paisleepunk Mentally ill people exist and so do doctors who will exploit their illness and butcher them for a dollar. Frankenstein inventions are lesser support of trans existence than the stitching a rhinoceros horn on a donkey proves that unicorns exist.
Smart and wise from her
Ordain women and watch church attendance drop. This issue has advanced as church membership has plunged. Is there an association? Thank you for a great discussion.
I think you're spot on about the decline in attendance when women are pastors or ministers.
many of the "charismatic" denominations which are all about drawing large crowds have women ministers
"For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man." 1 Corinthians 11:7 KJB
Sounds like heresy to me.
Since Christianity is a monotheistic religion which only worships the god, also called "father sky" only men should be able to preach. If Christianity also worshiped the goddess "mother earth" then there would be priestesses devoted to her.
While women could publicly pray and prophesy in church (1 Cor. 11:1-16), they could not teach or have authority over a man (1 Tim. 2:11-14), since these were two essential functions of the clergy. Nor could women publicly question or challenge the teaching of the clergy (1 Cor. 14:34-38).
The early Church Fathers rejected women’s ordination, not because it was incompatible with Christian culture, but because it was incompatible with Christian faith. Thus, together with biblical declarations, the teaching of the Fathers on this issue formed the tradition of the Church that taught that priestly ordination was reserved to men. This teaching has not changed.
Further, in 1994 Pope John Paul II formally declared that the Church does not have the power to ordain women. He stated, “Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force. Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Luke 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful” (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis 4).
And in 1995 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in conjunction with the pope, ruled that this teaching “requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium 25:2)” (Response of Oct. 25, 1995).
Emmanuel: *doesn't say anything about women preaching*
Saul of Tarsus: "Blah blah blah women preaching is le bad because I said so that's why."
Just goes to show that as usual, corporate 'christians' prefer Saul's schlock over the wisdom of the person who is their ONE and ONLY Savior.
Well, Jesus was never shy about calling out hypocrisy or disobedience.
So if He didn't feel the need to correct us on women not preaching .... 🤔
The Old Testament Priesthood was all Male at Christ's Command.
The New Testament Priesthood is the Same.
Does John 3:16 lose meaning when proclaimed by a woman?
Who is Paul to tell anyone to not listen to GOD? How many women throughout history have turned away from GOD's calling on their lives because of what Paul said. I'm pretty sure that is not what he intended. We forget that even the apostles had opinions and biases. If it were such an offense in sure Jesus Christ himself would have declared so himself.
I have always had problems with these teachings of Paul, even way back in my teens in the 1960s.
"1960's" there found the issue.
@@axeSyntax Not saying there are errors, just saying I have problems with some of Paul's teachings.
@@Lorrainecats The good news is that it's okay to ask questions (Matthew 7:7-11) and to not be sure about, or even agree with, everything. The important thing is to press forward with faith in Christ even when we don't understand exactly why Paul said what he said. At the end of the day, the question of salvation depends on, "Am I right with God," not, "Do I like what Paul said?".
@@axeSyntax Truth is it's a lot deeper, the whole of the enlightenment is a failed project really. In America at least many of the traditional social standards actually fell apart in the 20's and were exported worldwide by GI's in the 40's.
I hold to an Enlightenment vision of egalitarianism and I'm glad ECO distinguished it from postmodern feminism. That was some good scholarship there from them. :)
I find it interesting how all churches agreed on this issue until feminism arose and suddenly, the Bible had to be reinterpreted to fit its message
The Orthodox Church has always ordained women to the diaconate. Also the Quakers and there were Baptist women preachers in the 1800s.
Mysterious that.
Obviously, we could also reverse your argument. When men dominated society, Churches proclaimed that no woman could be a minister. So the Church also reflected broader society back then.
@@trismegistus2881 the church was following god's word
@@axeSyntax yes
Saying a woman can be a pastor is as absurd as saying a woman can be a father. It is a sexed role.
Not to be rude, but that is a truly awful argument for woman’s ordination by the first female pastor in the PCUSA. No one is saying you have to be silent at all times (Paul instructs women about speaking prophecy for example) but in the context of preaching he is explicit that women should not preach.
Any denomination that ordains women cannot rightly be called Christian
Most of y’all don’t even believe in real presence in the Eucharist, in anything from the Sermon on the Mount, or in the Nicene Creed, yet fundamentalists have the audacity to accuse us of not being Christians.
@@frogtownroad9104 yes we do actually believe in the real presence thank you very much.
Hilarious that they depend for their misogyny on two books, the Timothies, that scholars say Paul didn't even author.