Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Epley
Apostle Paul reemphasized the Lord's supper and there is a record where the early church observed it. That is what you need Dan and sorry you don't have it and honestly you have the opposite the prohibition in Paul's writings and the qualifications which are gender restrictive and NO example in the NT of women preaching in public assemblies to MEN! Women preached as every saint preaches in their public witnessing but NOT as a five-fold ministry to public assemblies to MEN. If so where? What was her name again?
|
Bro Epley
Let me get your thoughts on this if I may...
I have always felt, and still do to an extent, that as much as Paul's writings were insprired by God, they also often reflected the culture of his day. (For example, Paul says “greet all the brothers with a holy kiss” (
1 Thess 5:26), but this is something we almost never do today. We understand that that verse reflected the cultural norms of Paul’s day)
So in that male-dominated culture, the leaders, preachers, etc would naturally have been male anyway. Thus when he says a Bishop "must be the husband of one wife" etc, he is speaking based on the culturally accepted concept that the preacher would be a man. This is not, however stating that she
couldn't be a woman. Paul never explicitly stated that the preacher could not be a woman -- he spoke as if it was taken for granted that the preacher would be a man, but he never taught on any specific
gender requirement to be a preacher or bishop. (Did he speak in terms of moral requirements and leadership requirements?, yes. Gender requirements? no)
Also, if we were to use the same line of argument you and others use... based on the unwritten assumptions in Paul's writing on this, we might say
a single man cant be a pastor/bishop. Why? Paul
did say that a bishop must be "the husband of one wife".
Is being a husband then a requirement to be a bishop? I think we'd all agree it's not. Paul wasn't speaking in terms of marriage being a
requirement of a bishop, but it was merely a generally implied assumption among those he was writing to, since generally speaking, most bishops
were married.
Thus if Paul speaking of the bishop
being married was just an implied understanding or assumption, but
not a requirement per se, could we not also make the case that his speaking of
male bishops and preachers was also
based on an assumption of maleness, while not necessarily speaking of maleness being a requirement or condition to be a preacher?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Epley
the prohibition in Paul's writings and the qualifications which are gender restrictive and NO example in the NT of women preaching in public assemblies to MEN!
|
You refer to his language as gender restrictive. Rather Paul seems to be using what would be called "
presumptive language" , not restrictive.
Restrictive language would require that he is specifically ruling women out of pulpit ministry, which he never did. My 2 cents...
Looking forward to your thoughts on this, sir (or anyone else who would care to comment on this particular issue)
Linear Mode
