| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 Deacons (diakonos) must be men, right? |
Quiet Wyatt |
| 1 Tim 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12817
11/1/11 8:51 pm
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
| It's obviously cut and dried, just like earlier in the same passage where a bishop must be the husband of one wife, correct? |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12817
11/1/11 9:11 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
| Quiet Wyatt wrote: | | It's obviously cut and dried, just like earlier in the same passage where a bishop must be the husband of one wife, correct? |
Are you going to spring that verse on us about a deaconess (or the deacon's wives) ruling their houses well?
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
11/1/11 9:15 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Deacons (diakonos) must be men, right? |
Link |
| Lord Chancellor wrote: | | Quiet Wyatt wrote: | | 1 Tim 3:12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. |
And according to this verse, a deacon must be a married man with children and a house as well. |
What about overseers? Should they be married with children? How does that apply to the pastorate today?
I'm a thread hijacker. Just cooperate and no one will get hurt.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
11/1/11 9:16 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
| (Just wanting to make sure we all see that the scriptural argument for bishops being only married men is precisely the same as that for deacons/diakonos being exclusively men). |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12817
11/1/11 9:17 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
Link, no, I wasn't going to spring that verse on you.  |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12817
11/1/11 9:18 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
| Pretty sure we can put you down as being solidly in the "women can't be deacons/diakonos camp," right, Link? |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12817
11/1/11 9:22 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Cojak |
| Lord Chancellor wrote: | Yes, a deacon must be a man.
And a deaconess must be a woman. |
Now we are stating FACTS! 
_________________
Some facts but mostly just my opinion!
jacsher@aol.com
http://shipslog-jack.blogspot.com/ |
01000001 01100011 01110100 01110011
Posts: 24285
11/1/11 10:45 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
| Cojak wrote: | | Lord Chancellor wrote: | Yes, a deacon must be a man.
And a deaconess must be a woman. |
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Now we are stating FACTS! 8) |
That would be a relevant observation if the English word "deaconess" had an equivalent in biblical Greek. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12817
11/1/11 11:02 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
| In Romans 16:1, Paul refers to Phoebe as a deacon/servant/minister (diakonos) of the church in Cenchreae. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12817
11/1/11 11:09 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
mytimewillcome |
Proof texting is a late addition to theological study. I'm not sure why you all continue to think it is the standard.
If it were not for women leading in the church when men wouldn't step up, the COG and many other denominations would not be here. |
Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3658
11/1/11 11:10 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| I am FOR women in leadership. |
Quiet Wyatt |
I am simply showing that though Paul in one place appears to restrict women from being deacons, in another recognizes a woman as a deacon.
The supposed scriptural case against women being bishops is precisely the same as that which would by the same token forbid women from being deacons/ministers/servants in the church.
The anti-women-in-leadership view requires us to believe the inspired Apostle Paul flatly contradicts himself between Romans 16 and 1 Timothy 3. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12817
11/1/11 11:26 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: I am FOR women in leadership. |
mytimewillcome |
| Quiet Wyatt wrote: | I am simply showing that though Paul in one place appears to restrict women from being deacons, in another recognizes a woman as a deacon.
The supposed scriptural case against women being bishops is precisely the same as that which would by the same token forbid women from being deacons/ministers/servants in the church.
The anti-women-in-leadership view requires us to believe the inspired Apostle Paul flatly contradicts himself between Romans 16 and 1 Timothy 3. |
It doesn't contradict. It is easy to explain. Paul's letters were intended for specific churches in specific locations. Each church is unique in its needs and issues. |
Golf Cart Mafia Underboss
Posts: 3658
11/2/11 12:02 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Randy Johnson |
| mytimewillcome wrote: | Proof texting is a late addition to theological study. I'm not sure why you all continue to think it is the standard.
If it were not for women leading in the church when men wouldn't step up, the COG and many other denominations would not be here. |
Ah, so the antidote to proof texting is pragmatism.
_________________
Randy Johnson, Pastor
Ickesburg Church of God
85 Tuscarora Path
Ickesburg, Pennsylvania |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5431
11/2/11 12:28 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Link |
| Quiet Wyatt wrote: | | Pretty sure we can put you down as being solidly in the "women can't be deacons/diakonos camp," right, Link? |
Actually, no. One can be in a position of service without being in authority over the men.
_________________
Link |
Acts-perienced Poster
Posts: 11849
11/2/11 4:17 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: I am FOR women in leadership. |
Quiet Wyatt |
| mytimewillcome wrote: | | Quiet Wyatt wrote: | I am simply showing that though Paul in one place appears to restrict women from being deacons, in another recognizes a woman as a deacon.
The supposed scriptural case against women being bishops is precisely the same as that which would by the same token forbid women from being deacons/ministers/servants in the church.
The anti-women-in-leadership view requires us to believe the inspired Apostle Paul flatly contradicts himself between Romans 16 and 1 Timothy 3. |
It doesn't contradict. It is easy to explain. Paul's letters were intended for specific churches in specific locations. Each church is unique in its needs and issues. |
That is basically the same point I was trying to make from a different direction. For some reason many will take 1 Tim 3 as the universal rule and then conveniently choose to ignore the implications of passages like Rom. 16 and Acts 18:24-28. They also seem to have a Roman Catholic sort of view of spiritual authority roughly analogous to papal 'authority'.
Truly biblical spiritual authority (like Jesus exemplified for us all) is about servanthood. The kind of 'authority' Jesus said the Gentiles exercise over each other is precisely the kind of 'authority' much of the Christian church has bought into over the years. I mean really, if a pastor tried to boss his people around and tried to make them do what he said, never questioning him on anything, never allowing any real freedom of dissent, we would not hesitate to call that sort of leadership cultish. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12817
11/2/11 12:20 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
diakoneo |
Regardless of how you like to interpret the scripture, the fact remains there is a large difference in the way that male and females think and act. In case you haven't noticed Men for the most part use one part of the brain, while women use the other. Our differences are very important. Those differences are used to determine the way God set things in order. When we use the order that God ordained all will be well, but when we refuse....chaos ensues!
It seems, in his letter to Timothy, Paul goes clear back to Adam and Eve with the purpose to give a quick explanation of WHY things should be the way they are.
1 Timothy 2:11. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 15. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
It is not to degrade women...plain and simple! 1 Peter 3:7. 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.
Rather we give honour to women and put not such a burden as superintendence! We are heirs together having our differences, each complimenting the other. |
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3382
11/2/11 1:16 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
In my secular career, I have had at least as many good experiences with women supervisors/bosses as I've had bad experiences with men supervisors.
That said, if the question is one of spiritual giftedness, humanistic psychological theory is really inconsequential. Can a woman have the spiritual gift of pastor? The CoG already says she can and has allowed women to be pastors for years. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12817
11/2/11 1:22 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Good article on women in leadership... |
Quiet Wyatt |
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Good article on women in leadership... |
Poimen |
| Quiet Wyatt wrote: | | http://www.actscelerate.com/viewtopic.php?t=66093 |
It was a good article, but biased IMO. If one starts out with a foregone conclusion it is natural that they end up with an explanation that fits it. Of course, that works both ways.  
_________________
Poimen
Bro. Christopher
Singing: "Let us then be true and faithful -- trusting, serving, everyday. Just one glimpse of Him in glory will the toils of life repay." |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5657
11/2/11 1:36 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
