Can Women Pastor ?

[Sister Alvear]

Well.... those were copied with the name of author....however evidence is all the same...the Roman Catholic church tampered with lots of things...baptism, women in ministry....and hundreds of other things....

[Sister Alvear]

notice what encyclopedias and histroy say about baptism....



The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263, says, "The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century."

Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, 1963, page 1015, says, "The Trinity... is not demonstrable by logic or by Scriptural proofs,...The term Trias was first used by Theophilus of Antioch (c AD 180), ...(The term Trinity) is not found in Scripture."

The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275, says, "It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the ipsissima verba [exact words] of Jesus, but...a later liturgical addition."

In "A Collection of Evidence Against the Traditional Wording of Matthew 28:19," Clinton D. Willis quotes from The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics to expose how Matthew 28:19 "...is the central piece of evidence for the traditional (Trinitarian) view. If it were undisputed, this would, of course, be decisive, but its trustworthiness is impugned on grounds of textual criticism, literary criticism and historical criticism." "The obvious explanation of the silence of the New Testament on the triune name, and the use of another [Jesus' name baptismal] formula in Acts and Paul, is that this other formula was the earlier, and the triune formula is a later addition."

Edmund Schlink, in "The Doctrine of Baptism," page 28, says, "The baptismal command in its Matthew 28:19 form cannot be the historical origin of Christian baptism. At the very least, it must be assumed that the text has been transmitted in a form expanded by the [Catholic] church."

Wilhelm Bousset, in "Kyrios Christianity," page 295, says, "The testimony for the wide distribution of the simple baptismal formula [in the Name of Jesus] down into the second century is so overwhelming that even in Matthew 28:19, the Trinitarian formula was later inserted."

It is too conspicuous that once the Roman Catholic Church succeeded at supplanting Jesus' name baptism and institutionalized the false Trinitarian doctrine, (and thus effectively silenced the truth that the Father God was in Christ), the Roman Empire stopped fighting the church and began embracing it.

[Sister Alvear]

History Note: In 313 A.D., by the Edict of Milan, the Roman Emperor Constantine legalized Christanity).

In the years that followed, large churches were built in the major cities of the Empire and many men found a vocation in this new religion desirable.

The smaller house churches, as the founders died, were replaced by the larger churches subsidized by the state.

And as time went by, women were not allowed to have any official positions in any church. One way this was accomplished was by Church Council Ordinances:

Council of Orange(A.D.441)-Canon 26

“Let no one proceed to the ordination of Deaconesses anymore."

Council of Epaon(A.D.517)-Canon 21

“We abrogate completely in the entire Kingdom the consecration of widows who are named Deaconesses.”

Council of Orleans(A.D.533)

“No longer shall the blessing of women deaconesses be given, because of the weakness of their sex.” (The above information on Church Councils is from the book, Fore-Mothers:Women of the Bible by Janice Nunnally-Cox)

[Sister Alvear]

The Council of Orange
Dear readers, we will now start our discussion of canons and comments on church practices. We have seen from a few inscriptions that, although the evidence is scarce, women did serve as deacons and deaconesses.

Now, however, we are going to examine church councils and their attempts to stop the advancements of women in the early church. Our beginning council to start will be the Council of Orange. We are given the following information about the council by Madigan & Osiek:

“The Council of Orange was convoked in November 441…with seventeen bishops from three provinces in attendance, it produced thirty canons on a wide variety of matters. SEVERAL OF THESE deal with the STATUS AND CONDUCT OF WOMEN IN CONSECRATED OFFICE. For example, one decreed that widows should make a profession of chastity and wear the proper dress…finally, Canon 26 deals with deaconess, in particular the question of whether they should be ordained” (“Ordained Women in the Early Church: A Documentary History,” page 145).

We are now gonna look at Council of Orange Canon 26:

“Female deacons (Diaconae) are BY NO MEANS (omnimodis) TO BE ORDAINED (ordinandae). If there are any WHO HAVE ALREADY BEEN ORDAINED (si quae iam sunt), let them submit their heads to the benediction (benediction…capita submittant) that is granted to the laity (quae populo impenditur).”

Notice that the council seems to be adamantly against women’s ordination: “female deacons are by no means to be ordained.” This says that women are not to be ordained for any reason whatsoever. Then, the canon presupposes some women have been ordained: “If there are any who have already been ordained…” The fact that the Council of Orange presupposes a thing tells us that women’s ordination did exist even as late as the fifth century. Last but not least, the “ordained” women are to be placed among the masses: “let them submit their heads to the benediction that is granted to the laity.” Here we find that these women were to be demoted, pulled down, from their places of ordained authority.

Madigan and Osiek write regarding Canon 26:

“It seems quite likely that the forbidden practice [ordaining women] had been occurring in the early fifth century in Gaul. That would account both for the canon having been promulgated at all and for its force…the recommendation to receive the blessing given to the laity is thus intended as a ritual act intended to UNDO THEIR [deaconesses] ELEVATION TO THE CLERGY AND TO RESITUATE THEM WITH THE PEOPLE, where they belong” (145, 146).

Although this canon tells us of the ordaining of women in Gaul, it suggests a bigger problem than just that of the council’s disagreement with a certain church practice:

“The forbidding of ordinations in this Western province is of special interest because it is unambiguously clear from several sources that, in the East, female deacons WERE BEING ORDAINED PUBLICLY AT THE SAME TIME BY IMPOSITION OF HANDS AND PRAYER OF THE BISHOP and using prayers similar to those used in other sorts of ordinations. In other words, in the East female deacons were considered wholly part of the clergy in the fifth century—probably the very understanding the fathers at Orange were at pains to avert in the West” (146).

The practice of ordaining women was making its way from the East, and this likely would have terrified the Council to write to the churches to stop this practice. The fact that the Council responded this way tells us that women’s ordination was a real thing in the West (and the East).

Funny, but, isn’t this different from what we’ve ALWAYS heard about women’s ordination? Isn’t it amazing that it’s been called a “liberal” practice, a “work of the feminists,” but, yet, it was also a practice of the early church? Most of you, my readers, have probably never even read of something like this before. It seems that conservative Christians are not very aware of their church history; for, if they were, they wouldn’t make such claims about the practice of ordaining women. The fact that conservative Christians know very little of this information does not mean that it does not exist, or that Madigan’s and Osiek’s information is wrong—rather, it demonstrates an attempt to suppress the information.
(MEN AND WOMEN INTHE CHURCH)

[Sister Alvear]

Beware...beware lest we fall into romes dark steps...sometimes without knowing it...

[Sister Alvear]

One translation of Psalm 68:11, a prophetic song of victory, indicates that there will be a large "company" of women who will proclaim, or preach, God's word after he makes an announcement. We do know that women joined the male disciples in the upper room in the ten days between when Jesus ascended into Heaven and when the wind and the tongues of fire initiated the first street preaching in Jerusalem. We also know that women were among the people who were commanded by Jesus in Mark 16:15 to go into all the world and "preach the Gospel."

[Sister Alvear]

Who would say "Nay--O Woman, keep to thyself thy message and let the heathen perish"?

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear

1 Cor. 12:4-11

4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit.

5 And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord.

6 And there are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all {persons}.

Here he teaches that both men and women are given manifestation of the Holy Spirit-- spiritual gifts-- for the benefit of the entire church, not just for their own benefit.

7 But to each one[ii] is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.

8 For to one is given the word of wisdom through the Spirit, and to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit;

9 to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit,

10 and to another the effecting of miracles, and to another prophecy, and to another the distinguishing of spirits, to another {various} kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues.

11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one[iii] individually just as He wills.

Paul is going out of his way to enforce that "each one" is given a spiritual gift/ role or part to play in God's Church. God gives these roles as He desires-- only God can decide what spiritual gift is given to each man and woman! Paul does not say anything to indicate that "these public roles are the male gifts, and these private roles are the female gifts" as some teach.

Paul is making it PLAIN that he does not wish to exclude anyone or anyone's spiritual gift, but verses 2 and 3 show us that someone-- possibly a woman-- has said, "Jesus be cursed", and this was not from God's Spirit! Paul warns them of the error of this message, yet also defends the rights of all true believers-- both male and female-- to participate in church services
(copied)

So I Cor. 12 means what it says [written to the "brethren" by the way], but I Cor. 14:34 doesn't mean what it says??????

Anyway, the gifts of the Spirit are expositions from Scripture! Sheeeeesh, I think I'll take Simplyme's advice!

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear

Women are given spiritual gifts by God to use for the common good of the people of God. Paul did not take away the right of women to use these spiritual gifts in services-- a woman with a gift of encouragement must be allowed to encourage. A woman with a gift of faith must be allowed to offer a prayer of faith. A woman with a word of wisdom must be allowed to publicly share her wisdom with the congregation. A woman with a musical gift must be allowed to lead joyful songs of praise. A woman with a gift of teaching must be allowed to teach truth. God does NOT limit His women. God sees women as equal to serve Him with whatever gifts He has given them to use for the common good.

If women are unable to participate during church services, then many are unable to contribute the gift God has given to them. Each spiritual gift is given for the benefit of the church as a whole-- the inability to participate in church services is like God giving a woman a beautifully wrapped, expensive gift--a present that would help her entire church-- and then telling her that she cannot open it! Would God do such a thing? No, He does not. Neither must men. To quote the words of Craig S. Keener, "...it is a dangerous thing to turn people from their call, or to oppose their call if it is genuinely from God.[xiii]

God is the one who inspired I Tim. 2:11-15 & I Cor. 14:34...try again!

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Sister Alvear

Jesus tells us "...whoever practices and teaches these commands (the Ten Commandments), will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Matt. 5:19. Jesus put no gender restrictions on teaching, but said "whoever" and promises greatness for both men and women who teach the commandments. Women who practice and teach the Ten Commandments of God look forward to greatness! That is a promise from Jesus himself!

Paul was not in opposition to Jesus Christ! He was not dealing with dedicated Christian women teaching the true gospel-- he repeatedly praised such women! He was dealing with false teachers teaching myths and pagan ideas learned from the religion of Artemis and Gnostic false doctrines.

Where does I Tim. 2 & I Cor. 14 state this:_________? Sorry, I'll not allow women to explain away the Bible!

Jesus praised the woman of Samaria that publicly preached the words of Jesus to the men and women of her village. He did not tell her to stop teaching the men because she was a woman! Jesus praised her and told the disciples that they were harvesting where she had sowed. As a result, "Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman's testimony, ...." John 4:39. Her public witness --her teaching-- resulted in conversions, and Jesus praised her and held her up as an example for the disciples!

The words of Jesus are clear commands for all of us to teach the true gospel, and we must never be misled by anyone who contradicts Jesus Christ

Respectfully Sis. Alvear [& I honestly mean that], I'm wasting my time here. You just plod along w/ prophecy verses, when I've given the Lexical definition to prophecy ad nauseum, yet you just ignore it & persist to torture the meaning to include expositing from the Scriptures. Sorry, it means no such thing.

Did the woman at the well "preach sermons" to believers, or did she witness about the Christ to sinners????

Believe what you will, but I'm sticking to the clear declarations of Scripture.