I just had a thought about that (which was probably obvious to everyone else already).
Is anything whatsoever prohibited?
How bad is too bad?
- Thread starter JennyG
- Start date
- Status
I just had a thought about that (which was probably obvious to everyone else already).
Is anything whatsoever prohibited?
Andres
Puritan Board Doctor
Yes, everything not commanded is prohibited. For example, since God doesn't command that drama be a part of worship, then it's it prohibited.
Tripel
Puritan Board Senior
As I said before, I don't consider it "evil" when a gospel-centered church has a female pastor. If it were the only option where the gospel is preached and lived out, I'd certainly attend.
And I don't buy the argument that "if they are unbiblical in this one area, how can you trust them on anything?" There are people on this very board that I think are unbiblical in regards to baptism, but I would gladly attend their churches if they were the only good options.
And I don't buy the argument that "if they are unbiblical in this one area, how can you trust them on anything?" There are people on this very board that I think are unbiblical in regards to baptism, but I would gladly attend their churches if they were the only good options.
can anyone tell me anything about how that happened? I mean, about the circumstances surrounding it. I may be wrong but I think it might have been in the 70s - at any rate, before I was a member. I've asked C of S people about whether thwre was a lot of opposition, how the discussions went, whether many people left the Kirk as a result, etc - no-one seems to know. Pathological suppressed memory syndrome??
---------- Post added at 02:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:06 PM ----------
yes, I take your point. That's the Regulative principle. But I mean that if any church upheld the normative principle, they could use it to justify absolutely anything at all. That explains a lot, actually
toddpedlar
Iron Dramatist
If you think it's ok to be involved with a church with no shepherd, then that's certainly your prerogative. I would be VERY shocked to hear of a woman-led church that actually has sound preaching - but even if it did, you still have the issue of having no legitimate leadership and oversight. I cannot understand how anyone who has a reformed understanding of the church and Scripture could ever countenance attending a church whose leadership is, in effect, a middle finger upward and extended toward God's Holy Word.
Here's Dabney on the public preaching of woman.
Discussions - Google Books
Discussions - Google Books
Andres
Puritan Board Doctor
The scriptures are perfectly clear that women are not given the role of pastor in the church. If a church has a woman pastor, then either one of two things has occured: 1) they are completely ignorant of what the Word of God teaches 2) they are in rebellion to what the Word of God teaches
Both cases are unacceptable as the woman and the church acting contrary to God's Word. If #1 is the case, then the solution could be simple: point out the woman's error and she should be willing to repent and step down. #2 is a different story and it is the case with the majority of churches with women pastors. The PCUSA, UMC, Episcopal church all at one point only ordained men, so they can't plead ignorance. Instead they chose to rebel against the authority of scripture and do things the way they want. Evil and unacceptable. And if a church does not respect the authority of God's Word, how can they possibly be sound?
Tripel
Puritan Board Senior
or 3) for one reason or another, they believe that restriction on pastors is culturally-based.
It's not ignorance and it's not rebellion.
We have had many debates on the PB about certain laws or teachings in the Bible and whether or not they should carry over into our culture. Take head coverings for example -- Many here disagree about the necessity of head coverings for women in church. I, for one, don't think they are necessary. I'm not taking that stance out of ignorance or rebellion. I have read what is plainly stated in Scripture about the matter, but I believe it is a cultural thing and not necessary to be applied today. And I admit that I could be wrong. But even if I am wrong, I don't think I am being evil in that instance.
I'm NOT making the case that head coverings and male elders are equal issues. I think the latter is much more important. But what I am trying to say is that it's not necessarily evil to look at a passage and come to a faulty conclusion on its application.
Tripel
Puritan Board Senior
I haven't met anyone who made such an interpretation without also denying the gospel, so "evil" would likely be appropriate.
ericfromcowtown
Puritan Board Sophomore
What about a church with an openly-homosexual "pastor," who otherwise preached the gospel and was otherwise orthodox in his doctrine. Hard to imagine, but for sake of argument... How does that differ from a church with a female "pastor?" Could not that church similarly claim that the prohibition on homosexuals was culturally-based and fit into your category 3? Would they also be not ignorant and not in rebellion?
Eric,
You do point out that there are problems with Category 3 but the issue becomes who can decide which issues violate the Gospel or fit into category 3.
The question becomes, "who is the arbiter?" The Confession doesn't address the issue, though if pressed I would argue that the argument for female ministers is more convincing than for allowing openly homosexual men. I believe one is symptomatic of an unhealthy church and the other is the symptom of a dead church. Neither position is preferable, but one is more severe than the other.
The reality is that in some Reformed churches the ecclesiastical climate requires that these judgment be made (or else that these people leave said denomination). Some may disagree with my judgments and perceptions, but I believe that Reformation requires patience. Not passively enduring suffering, but instead actively. If someone finds themselves in a consistory with a female pastor who stands against open homosexual practice in the church and who is Gospel centered (ToddK, you are affirming that you find it hard for a church that has a woman pastor to be Gospel centered because of its ordination of a woman, and not because of her make-up as a woman I'm assuming) then for the health of the church I would rather work with this person than with a man who is supporting a homosexual lifestyle. A woman minister is not inherently in danger of hell-fire. An unrepentant homosexual is.
Please let me reiterate, I'm not advocating either position. I am however; convinced that having a female minister is an indication of an unhealthy church whereas a church where a practicing homosexual is ordained shows blatant disdain for the Law of God.
You do point out that there are problems with Category 3 but the issue becomes who can decide which issues violate the Gospel or fit into category 3.
The question becomes, "who is the arbiter?" The Confession doesn't address the issue, though if pressed I would argue that the argument for female ministers is more convincing than for allowing openly homosexual men. I believe one is symptomatic of an unhealthy church and the other is the symptom of a dead church. Neither position is preferable, but one is more severe than the other.
The reality is that in some Reformed churches the ecclesiastical climate requires that these judgment be made (or else that these people leave said denomination). Some may disagree with my judgments and perceptions, but I believe that Reformation requires patience. Not passively enduring suffering, but instead actively. If someone finds themselves in a consistory with a female pastor who stands against open homosexual practice in the church and who is Gospel centered (ToddK, you are affirming that you find it hard for a church that has a woman pastor to be Gospel centered because of its ordination of a woman, and not because of her make-up as a woman I'm assuming) then for the health of the church I would rather work with this person than with a man who is supporting a homosexual lifestyle. A woman minister is not inherently in danger of hell-fire. An unrepentant homosexual is.
Please let me reiterate, I'm not advocating either position. I am however; convinced that having a female minister is an indication of an unhealthy church whereas a church where a practicing homosexual is ordained shows blatant disdain for the Law of God.
Damon Rambo
Puritan Board Sophomore
But what do you do with people like myself, who think that infant Baptism is just as clearly prohibited? Is there not some issues on which we can disagree? I was always under the impression, and most pastors I have spoken to in the reformed camp have agreed with me, that the basis for cooperation is a proper understanding of the gospel, the deity of Christ, etc. (the fundamentals of the faith), and that other things, such as leadership structures, views on baptism, the Lord's Supper, etc., were secondary issues on which we could "agree to disagree." I certainly agree that male leadership is clearly taught, but it is no more clearly taught, in my opinion, than Credobaptism, Historic Premillennialism, local church autonomy, etc. I just believe some of you are being highly inconsistent.
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
Jenny G
It's when a declaratory act was passed saying that in subscribing to the WCF, CofS office bearers were only subscribing to "the substance of the Reformed faith" that the doctrine, ethics and discipline of the CofS descended into subjectivity and carte-blanche was given to liberal theology/neo-orthodoxy. When did this happen?
It seems by at the latest 1921:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scotland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_Declaratory_of_the_Constitution_of_the_Church_of_Scotland
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Articles_Declaratory_of_the_Constitution_of_the_Church_of_Scotland
Certain people like Andrew McGowan spoke up about female ordination in the 1980s (& 1970s?). No doubt others did at the time it was accepted. I don't know how many, if any, left. Many evangelicals or neo-evangelicals accepted female ordination.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordination_of_women_in_the_Church_of_Scotland
It's when a declaratory act was passed saying that in subscribing to the WCF, CofS office bearers were only subscribing to "the substance of the Reformed faith" that the doctrine, ethics and discipline of the CofS descended into subjectivity and carte-blanche was given to liberal theology/neo-orthodoxy. When did this happen?
It seems by at the latest 1921:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Scotland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_Declaratory_of_the_Constitution_of_the_Church_of_Scotland
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Articles_Declaratory_of_the_Constitution_of_the_Church_of_Scotland
Certain people like Andrew McGowan spoke up about female ordination in the 1980s (& 1970s?). No doubt others did at the time it was accepted. I don't know how many, if any, left. Many evangelicals or neo-evangelicals accepted female ordination.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordination_of_women_in_the_Church_of_Scotland
Last edited:
timmopussycat
Puritan Board Junior
Be careful to think matters through before using this argument in discussions with supporters of women "pastors" or the ladies themselves.
Why?
Because it starts at the wrong place by presuming that the other party is ignoring Scripture which may not be true particular cases. Some advocates of women in unrestricted teaching ministries have built exegetical cases purporting to demonstrate (on the basis of comparing Scripture with Scripture) that the prohibitions of women in unrestricted teaching ministries are temporary and localized rather than God's eternal standard for all churches. (For those ignorant of such cases, probably the most widely known one is found in Gordon Fee's commentaries on the Pastoral Epistles on 1 Tim 2:11-15 and 1 Corinthians on 14:34,35.) If you presume that your hearers are simply ignoring Scripture rather than holding a different understanding of its intended teaching, you risk coming across as a blind traditionalist and receiving an instant rejection. I notice that when I start by referencing and showing the holes in the advocates case for the practice, my hearers go away thinking rather than automatically rejecting my concerns.
Last edited:
- Status
