Do We Also Have Bible-Based Doctrines That Are Wrong? Is There a Case for Women as Pastors?

[Dr. Robert S. Morley]

3 hours ago, BrotherTony said:

These verses still are not talking about women as pastors. It's talking about the speaking in tongues and prophesying and the order of things. So, I see you are still trying to push an interpretation that simply is not there.  And as far as Deborah is concerned, again, she was a judge, not a pastor. This has in no way proven your point. God's word doesn't contradict itself, and using your interpretation of scripture would lead us to do just that.

1 Timothy 2:11-12 are the go-to verses used to forbid women from teaching or having pastoral authority. It says, "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."

However, 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 says, "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?"

Clearly, 1 Timothy 2:11-12 is not understood by complementarians.

Edited June 5, 2023 by Dr. Robert S. Morley
added: Clearly, 1 Timothy 2:11-12 is not understood by complementarians.

[Dr. Robert S. Morley]

4 hours ago, BrotherTony said:

And as far as Deborah is concerned, again, she was a judge, not a pastor. This has in no way proven your point. God's word doesn't contradict itself, and using your interpretation of scripture would lead us to do just that.

"For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression" (1 Tim. 2:13-14) are understood by complementarians as principal reasons why a woman cannot lead a man. But that belief is clearly incorrect as it contradicts how God's used Deborah as a judge and leader of Barak.

[TheGloryLand]

25 minutes ago, Dr. Robert S. Morley said:

"For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression" (1 Tim. 2:13-14) are understood by complementarians as principal reasons why a woman cannot lead a man. But that belief is clearly incorrect as it contradicts how God's used Deborah as a judge and leader of Barak.

God can use whoever He pleases, and never contradict Himself. Neither His Word nor the Bible. 

[BrotherTony]

2 hours ago, Dr. Robert S. Morley said:

1 Timothy 2:11-12 are the go-to verses used to forbid women from teaching or having pastoral authority. It says, "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."

However, 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 says, "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?"

Clearly, 1 Timothy 2:11-12 is not understood by complementarians.

Apparently it's not understood by others as well. I know what a complementarian is, but others don't Why not be like the Apostle Paul and use plainness of speech. I particularly dislike the use of what many I know call "college words." It always comes across as haughty and puffed up with pride.

1 hour ago, Dr. Robert S. Morley said:

"For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression" (1 Tim. 2:13-14) are understood by complementarians as principal reasons why a woman cannot lead a man. But that belief is clearly incorrect as it contradicts how God's used Deborah as a judge and leader of Barak.

Again with the college words, Doc. Plain speech. As far as I am concerned you can keep your "labels." It comes across as more of an adjustment hominem attack to many. Plain speech. I'm neither a complemantarian nor an egalitarian. I'm a Christian who studies his Bible and follows its teaching, not the opinion of a man.

Edited June 5, 2023 by BrotherTony

[Jim_Alaska]

3 hours ago, Dr. Robert S. Morley said:

But that belief is clearly incorrect as it contradicts how God's used Deborah as a judge and leader of Barak.

Context is King. Your beliefs and assertions are out of context. The context in this thread is limited to women as Pastors, as verified by your own words in the title of your thread.

Women leading in any other capacity is a completely different subject, and deserving of its own thread.

[DaveW]

This is a wrong statement, but it shows again the attitude of this man. 

"Do We Also Have Bible-Based Doctrines That Are Wrong? Is There a Case for Women as Pastors?"

To even ask this question shows that this man has no regard for biblical truth. If a doctrine is Bible-Based, then it is not wrong. If it is wrong, then it is not Bible-Based.

The things that he references in his original post that he says were wrong, were...... not biblically based, but corrupted. Or he has taken them out of context.

A simple reading of the relevant Scriptures makes it plain that there is no biblical case for women pastors.

[BrotherTony]

12 minutes ago, DaveW said:

This is a wrong statement, but it shows again the attitude of this man. 

"Do We Also Have Bible-Based Doctrines That Are Wrong? Is There a Case for Women as Pastors?"

To even ask this question shows that this man has no regard for biblical truth. If a doctrine is Bible-Based, then it is not wrong. If it is wrong, then it is not Bible-Based.

The things that he references in his original post that he says were wrong, were...... not biblically based, but corrupted. Or he has taken them out of context.

A simple reading of the relevant Scriptures makes it plain that there is no biblical case for women pastors.

We've been dealing with this twisting of scripture for some time now. Some just seem naturally inclined to follow mans opinions over what scripture teaches.

[Dr. Robert S. Morley]

10 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

Context is King. Your beliefs and assertions are out of context. The context in this thread is limited to women as Pastors, as verified by your own words in the title of your thread.

Women leading in any other capacity is a completely different subject, and deserving of its own thread.

I've shown by perfectly acceptable hermeneutics that nothing in God's word forbids female pastors and that the weight of scripture confirms that women can teach men and have authority equal them. I've also shown how the proof texts used against women pastors don't say what many think they do.

The Spirit confirmed this then and He still does. For example, in his latest Tweet, Rick Warren writes:

HYPOCRISY: The 2023 SBC will kick out churches for having a woman preach WHILE honoring Charles Stanley, SBC President who was saved through a WOMAN PREACHING!  "As Mrs. Wilson preached,the Spirit struck me to the core! When she gave the invitation I was the first down" Stanley

[BrotherTony]

21 minutes ago, Dr. Robert S. Morley said:

I've shown by perfectly acceptable hermeneutics that nothing in God's word forbids female pastors and that the weight of scripture confirms that women can teach men and have authority equal them. I've also shown how the proof texts used against women pastors don't say what many think they do.

The Spirit confirmed this then and He still does. For example, in his latest Tweet, Rick Warren writes:

HYPOCRISY: The 2023 SBC will kick out churches for having a woman preach WHILE honoring Charles Stanley, SBC President who was saved through a WOMAN PREACHING!  "As Mrs. Wilson preached,the Spirit struck me to the core! When she gave the invitation I was the first down" Stanley

You've twisted scripture to fit your ideology. God can use anyone he chooses, and the mentioned case was the exception to the rule. There is no "hypocrisy" in that, and, to be honest, I for one am really tired of your slams against others here and elsewhere in the Baptist churches. You're on a Baptist forum, and your lack of respect and Christian grace has been shown time and time again. This is a FORMAL, public complaint to the administrators and moderators on this continued behavior from you.

Edited June 6, 2023 by BrotherTony

[Dr. Robert S. Morley]

26 minutes ago, BrotherTony said:

You're on a Baptist forum.

Let me echo Rick Warren's concern for the Baptists.

As a Southern Baptist pastor with multi-generations of pastors in my family, my life has been shaped and nurtured by the SBC.

I’m writing this open letter for two reasons:

First, I’m deeply concerned about our denomination’s 17 years of decline and the loss of a half million members just last year. No denomination can sustain that kind of loss.

Second, many have asked me to explain why Saddleback Church is appealing an Executive Committee ruling at our annual meeting in New Orleans in two weeks.

The Southern Baptist Convention is a mosaic of many kinds of Baptist “tribes” who came together to cooperate on the Great Commission. We are general Baptists (the original founding Baptists of 1609), revival Baptists, fundamentalist Baptists, Calvinist Baptists and many other varieties of Baptists.

From the start, our unity has always been based on a common mission, not a common confession. For the first 80 years of the SBC, we did not even have a confession because the founders were adamantly opposed to having one. (You can read the founding documents at www.sbcstand.com). They knew we never could get 100% of Baptists to agree 100% on 100% of every interpretation of Scripture.

“They knew we never could get 100% of Baptists to agree 100% on 100% of every interpretation of Scripture.”

That’s why every version of the Baptist Faith and Message has called itself a “consensus of opinion,” and it repeatedly warns us it is not a creed to be used to enforce doctrinal uniformity or exclude members of our denominational family. Your own family members often hold opposing opinions, but you don’t disown them for that. You still love them in spite of disagreements.

“Consensus” means “generally agreed on.” It doesn’t mean “universally or unanimously agreed on.” 

For example, none of the messengers from our churches who voted against the changes made in the revised Baptist Faith and Message 2000 have been kicked out, even though they disagreed with some of the statements. That’s the Baptist way. We have never demanded every Baptist agree on every interpretation.

In fact, for 178 years, Southern Baptists have agreed to disagree on dozens and dozens of doctrinal differences so we could cooperate for the gospel.

The current ruling of the Executive Committee will open a Pandora’s box of unintended consequences unless we reject it. It will fundamentally destroy four historic Southern Baptist distinctives upon which the convention was organized by our founders.

It will:

Change the basis of our cooperation.
Change the basis of our identity.
Centralize power in the Executive Committee and take away autonomy from the churches.
Turn our confession into a creed, which Baptists always have opposed. We all grew up with the slogan “We have no book but the Bible, and we have no creed but Christ!”

Taken from the Baptist News Global article by Rick Warren, An open letter to all Southern Baptists.

Edited June 6, 2023 by Dr. Robert S. Morley

[BrotherTony]

18 minutes ago, Dr. Robert S. Morley said:

Let me echo Rick Warren's concern for the Baptists.

As a Southern Baptist pastor with multi-generations of pastors in my family, my life has been shaped and nurtured by the SBC.

I’m writing this open letter for two reasons:

First, I’m deeply concerned about our denomination’s 17 years of decline and the loss of a half million members just last year. No denomination can sustain that kind of loss.

Second, many have asked me to explain why Saddleback Church is appealing an Executive Committee ruling at our annual meeting in New Orleans in two weeks.

The Southern Baptist Convention is a mosaic of many kinds of Baptist “tribes” who came together to cooperate on the Great Commission. We are general Baptists (the original founding Baptists of 1609), revival Baptists, fundamentalist Baptists, Calvinist Baptists and many other varieties of Baptists.

From the start, our unity has always been based on a common mission, not a common confession. For the first 80 years of the SBC, we did not even have a confession because the founders were adamantly opposed to having one. (You can read the founding documents at www.sbcstand.com). They knew we never could get 100% of Baptists to agree 100% on 100% of every interpretation of Scripture.

“They knew we never could get 100% of Baptists to agree 100% on 100% of every interpretation of Scripture.”

That’s why every version of the Baptist Faith and Message has called itself a “consensus of opinion,” and it repeatedly warns us it is not a creed to be used to enforce doctrinal uniformity or exclude members of our denominational family. Your own family members often hold opposing opinions, but you don’t disown them for that. You still love them in spite of disagreements.

“Consensus” means “generally agreed on.” It doesn’t mean “universally or unanimously agreed on.” 

For example, none of the messengers from our churches who voted against the changes made in the revised Baptist Faith and Message 2000 have been kicked out, even though they disagreed with some of the statements. That’s the Baptist way. We have never demanded every Baptist agree on every interpretation.

In fact, for 178 years, Southern Baptists have agreed to disagree on dozens and dozens of doctrinal differences so we could cooperate for the gospel.

The current ruling of the Executive Committee will open a Pandora’s box of unintended consequences unless we reject it. It will fundamentally destroy four historic Southern Baptist distinctives upon which the convention was organized by our founders.

It will:

Change the basis of our cooperation.
Change the basis of our identity.
Centralize power in the Executive Committee and take away autonomy from the churches.
Turn our confession into a creed, which Baptists always have opposed. We all grew up with the slogan “We have no book but the Bible, and we have no creed but Christ!”

Taken from the Baptist News Global article by Rick Warren, An open letter to all Southern Baptists.

And Rick Warren has proven time and again that his only interest is in what he thinks and his financial gains. He cares very little about the Baptists. He's been a renegade for years. He's not in fellowship with SBC affiliated churches. So, basically, your attempt to use him and his opinions, which pretty much line up with yours, as leverage has fallen flat.

Edited June 6, 2023 by BrotherTony

[Dr. Robert S. Morley]

1 hour ago, BrotherTony said:

God can use anyone he chooses, and the mentioned case was the exception to the rule. There is no "hypocrisy" in that,

Complementarian theology hinders people from experiencing so-called exceptions.

Apollos is another man who was taught by a woman. In Acts, Luke writes, "[Paul] found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and came unto them "(Acts 18:2).

Later, he writes, "And [Apollos] began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, THEY took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly" (Acts 18:26). Note that this couple both taught and shepherded Apollos.

Paul mentions them in three letters.

"The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house" (1 Cor. 16:19).

"Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 16:3).

"Salute Prisca and Aquila, and the household of Onesiphorus" (2 Tim. 4:19).

By placing Priscilla's name ahead of her husband's in his later epistles, Paul appears to esteem her ahead of Aquila as a co-worker.

[Dr. Robert S. Morley]

2 hours ago, DaveW said:

This is a wrong statement, but it shows again the attitude of this man. 

"Do We Also Have Bible-Based Doctrines That Are Wrong? Is There a Case for Women as Pastors?"

To even ask this question shows that this man has no regard for biblical truth. If a doctrine is Bible-Based, then it is not wrong. If it is wrong, then it is not Bible-Based.

The things that he references in his original post that he says were wrong, were...... not biblically based, but corrupted. Or he has taken them out of context.

A simple reading of the relevant Scriptures makes it plain that there is no biblical case for women pastors.

Many churches and denominations have different doctrines from one another that are based on their interpretation of the Bible. They, consequently, consider these doctrines to be Bible-based. This is true of each of us here, too, who esteem God’s word above all else. We don't all agree on everything and yet we believe our doctrines are Bible-based.

[BrotherTony]

38 minutes ago, Dr. Robert S. Morley said:

Complementarian theology hinders people from experiencing so-called exceptions.

Apollos is another man who was taught by a woman. In Acts, Luke writes, "[Paul] found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and came unto them "(Acts 18:2).

Later, he writes, "And [Apollos] began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, THEY took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly" (Acts 18:26). Note that this couple both taught and shepherded Apollos.

Paul mentions them in three letters.

"The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house" (1 Cor. 16:19).

"Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 16:3).

"Salute Prisca and Aquila, and the household of Onesiphorus" (2 Tim. 4:19).

By placing Priscilla's name ahead of her husband's in his later epistles, Paul appears to esteem her ahead of Aquila as a co-worker.

First, just because she is mentioned before her husband in no way means she was the shepherd of that particular flock. And, even if she was, this would have been an exception to the rule. "Appearances" are not facts. So, you're still trying to shove your opinion in there. And as far as "complementarian" goes, I have told you my opinion of your LABELS. So, strike three, Doc.

[Dr. Robert S. Morley]

51 minutes ago, BrotherTony said:

And as far as "complementarian" goes, I have told you my opinion of your LABELS.

You appear unaware that the terms complementarian and egalitarian are very commonly used in everyday commentary on this topic. They are helpful terms for discussion in that they carry a lot of meaning in a word.