The Ordination of Women, the Marks of the True Church, and Validity of Ordinations

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sam Jer

Puritan Board Sophomore
Can a church that ordains women to the ministry be called a true church? If all else was still in order - would these ordinations alone render it lacking in the mark of discipline?

In a somewhat related question, what of ordinations made, even in part, by female officers? Would that calling be invalid? What of descisions such officers were involved in (such as the Synods and Presbyteries of such churches)?
Would any of that be diffrent in the case of men that are scripturally unqulified? If the office in question is the diaconate rather than Elders?
 
Can a church that ordains women to the ministry be called a true church? If all else was still in order - would these ordinations alone render it lacking in the mark of discipline?

In a somewhat related question, what of ordinations made, even in part, by female officers? Would that calling be invalid? What of descisions such officers were involved in (such as the Synods and Presbyteries of such churches)?
Would any of that be diffrent in the case of men that are scripturally unqulified? If the office in question is the diaconate rather than Elders?
I've never heard of a church that ordains women and is otherwise orthodox. Besides that such churches naturally have a very low view of the Bible and its authority, sheologians tend to be guided by their emotions and rebellious spirit to some manner of heresy. (Please note I'm not saying all women are given to heresy, but women that seek to rule over their families and churches and are not subject to the instruction of their husbands and pastors certainly are).
So these churches, by virtue of having rebellious heretic female preachers are naturally devoid of the true preaching of the word. From what I've seen, at best they're Trinitarian but pelagian, as is the case for many UMC churches, the AoG, etc. A complete loss of church discipline and tolerance of sin is common as well. And the gospel that is preached generally sounds very little like the Apostle Paul's formulations.
 
When is a person "dead?" Is it when the heart stops? When brain activity is nil? We know what death is, we know where the bodies are buried, but when shall we pronounce a person to be dead? What if there isn't a body? It comes down to legal definitions, as well as an individual's and a society's acceptance of both certain facts or claims, and the official declaration--often by a doctor, a pathologist, a medical examiner--Person X is dead.

The first question above is similar. Just as there are marks of life, there are marks of a true church. Deficiency in the marks leads to doubt about viability clinging to a human body or a church body. A church that validates women-in-office is a health-compromised church. It's habit of life has some component of a serious disease. The church may limp along for some time, but without radical treatment or surgery the patient will die--of this issue or possibly of some related complication.

The underlying issue is blockage of or resistance to biblical truth, truth serum, spiritual nourishment. One manifestation is allowance of a practice that is black-and-white forbidden by the mouth of God. Just as people will argue that the one poison they ingest will not kill their robust system; they ignore the long term toll. Or, the skeletal system and muscular system are maintained at high fitness levels, while the lungs are blackened or the brain is addled.

A denomination of the church may allow women's ordination--to their overall detriment; while a local congregation refuses to accept the allowance (but does not separate from the larger union). Among the problems for outsiders as well as insiders, is that the presenting problem wasn't there at one time but has now manifested. As soon as the symptom is visible, is the person "terminal?" How long does the cancer grow before it kills the patient? Does the whole body "die" all at once?

The ordination of women is a symptom of church that has turned in a serious decline from biblical authority. It is irregularity of a most serious kind (as plenty of actual, real world evidence now shows). As final, biblical authority is shut down in one area, cracks are made that will allow biblical authority to be overridden in other areas as well, when it is found expedient. But the church limps along, not dead yet, perhaps not yet a thoroughgoing synagogue of Satan. A fatal weakness of constitution has been introduced, and it will harm and in due time kill the body off if it is not healed.

If Presbyterians can recognize that Baptists have "true churches," despite their irregularity (a serious one, in our view) as to sacramental administration, then it is likely conservative Presbyterians will continue to recognize the CRC (for example) as a true church, despite women's ordination in that church. Each of those parties (the Baptist and the CRC) have a different condition, and a different prognosis; but the point of viability is still granted. Yet, our willingness to recommend one particular congregation of either is contingent on particular acquaintance, if that site is toxic or a graveyard of souls already.

As to the other question, we may relate that issue to the question of whether a falsely "elected" secular president is THE President. Of course he is; he took the oath of office, and the government apparatus continued as if all is in order. The only time when the fraud was liable to correction was prior to the moment of taking office. After that moment, the only reasonable method of "correction" is by a "reformation" of sorts. (Unfortunately, there are also unreasonable methods of "correction" as well, which Christians should generally avoid, in my opinion.)

To retroactively invalidate all the labors of that president throws into doubt even the ordinary activities of his administration in all bureaucratic functions. Did he really appoint certain judges or Justices? What about the decisions those persons rendered? What about the laws passed by a congress of legislators, and enacted over his signature? Do they have force? Of course they do, because by whatever route he took office (orderly or underhandedly) he did take the office. Trying to sweep away that era or memory is a radical and revolutionary act.

Women irregularly ordained (and there aren't any other kind) are yet ordained in those bodies that have approved this error. In our own body, we are not obliged to approve the ordination of any person merely on their say so, or even on the say so of their ecclesiastical communion. Their jurisdiction is limited, just as our own boundaries establish where our ministers and elders have power and our rulings have force. In general, our concern is not the persons who have ruled, or acted as minister or other officer; but what the legal effect of the act or ruling is within that body.

Has a person been excommunicated or otherwise disciplined by that body? That ruling should carry weight, similar to how the secular government of one land should care if a person made a criminal by some other country is found within their borders. What they may do in this or that situation could depend on the relations between the countries, but who the judge was or the policeman does not loom so large. Likewise, if a person was baptized by an ordained woman, although the incident is irregular the greater concern is the question: did the church legally authorize and recognize this administration. This is an act of the church through its minister. The issue thus is related to the fallout of the Donatist controversy.
 
The "ordination" of women is really the result of falling prey to not only the world but popery. If a church ordains women then they follow the Catholic Synagogue of Satan.
Could you explain what you mean? I have to admit I'm a little puzzled by this since the Roman Church doesn't ordain women.
 
What of churches that have generally headed in a more Biblical / conservative direction? As, for example, Australia's PCA, which has tended to become more, not less, confessional in recent years. While then-current female elders and pastors were "grandfathered" in, and while at least one presbytery still allows female elders, on the whole, that denomination has moved towards a male-only view of church leadership in recent decades.

I only mention this because in America the thinking seems to be that churches only become more liberal, never the other way around, and that notion of trajectory somewhat shapes how such errors are viewed.
 
When is a person "dead?" Is it when the heart stops? When brain activity is nil? We know what death is, we know where the bodies are buried, but when shall we pronounce a person to be dead? What if there isn't a body? It comes down to legal definitions, as well as an individual's and a society's acceptance of both certain facts or claims, and the official declaration--often by a doctor, a pathologist, a medical examiner--Person X is dead.

The first question above is similar. Just as there are marks of life, there are marks of a true church. Deficiency in the marks leads to doubt about viability clinging to a human body or a church body. A church that validates women-in-office is a health-compromised church. It's habit of life has some component of a serious disease. The church may limp along for some time, but without radical treatment or surgery the patient will die--of this issue or possibly of some related complication.

The underlying issue is blockage of or resistance to biblical truth, truth serum, spiritual nourishment. One manifestation is allowance of a practice that is black-and-white forbidden by the mouth of God. Just as people will argue that the one poison they ingest will not kill their robust system; they ignore the long term toll. Or, the skeletal system and muscular system are maintained at high fitness levels, while the lungs are blackened or the brain is addled.

A denomination of the church may allow women's ordination--to their overall detriment; while a local congregation refuses to accept the allowance (but does not separate from the larger union). Among the problems for outsiders as well as insiders, is that the presenting problem wasn't there at one time but has now manifested. As soon as the symptom is visible, is the person "terminal?" How long does the cancer grow before it kills the patient? Does the whole body "die" all at once?

The ordination of women is a symptom of church that has turned in a serious decline from biblical authority. It is irregularity of a most serious kind (as plenty of actual, real world evidence now shows). As final, biblical authority is shut down in one area, cracks are made that will allow biblical authority to be overridden in other areas as well, when it is found expedient. But the church limps along, not dead yet, perhaps not yet a thoroughgoing synagogue of Satan. A fatal weakness of constitution has been introduced, and it will harm and in due time kill the body off if it is not healed.

If Presbyterians can recognize that Baptists have "true churches," despite their irregularity (a serious one, in our view) as to sacramental administration, then it is likely conservative Presbyterians will continue to recognize the CRC (for example) as a true church, despite women's ordination in that church. Each of those parties (the Baptist and the CRC) have a different condition, and a different prognosis; but the point of viability is still granted. Yet, our willingness to recommend one particular congregation of either is contingent on particular acquaintance, if that site is toxic or a graveyard of souls already.

As to the other question, we may relate that issue to the question of whether a falsely "elected" secular president is THE President. Of course he is; he took the oath of office, and the government apparatus continued as if all is in order. The only time when the fraud was liable to correction was prior to the moment of taking office. After that moment, the only reasonable method of "correction" is by a "reformation" of sorts. (Unfortunately, there are also unreasonable methods of "correction" as well, which Christians should generally avoid, in my opinion.)

To retroactively invalidate all the labors of that president throws into doubt even the ordinary activities of his administration in all bureaucratic functions. Did he really appoint certain judges or Justices? What about the decisions those persons rendered? What about the laws passed by a congress of legislators, and enacted over his signature? Do they have force? Of course they do, because by whatever route he took office (orderly or underhandedly) he did take the office. Trying to sweep away that era or memory is a radical and revolutionary act.

Women irregularly ordained (and there aren't any other kind) are yet ordained in those bodies that have approved this error. In our own body, we are not obliged to approve the ordination of any person merely on their say so, or even on the say so of their ecclesiastical communion. Their jurisdiction is limited, just as our own boundaries establish where our ministers and elders have power and our rulings have force. In general, our concern is not the persons who have ruled, or acted as minister or other officer; but what the legal effect of the act or ruling is within that body.

Has a person been excommunicated or otherwise disciplined by that body? That ruling should carry weight, similar to how the secular government of one land should care if a person made a criminal by some other country is found within their borders. What they may do in this or that situation could depend on the relations between the countries, but who the judge was or the policeman does not loom so large. Likewise, if a person was baptized by an ordained woman, although the incident is irregular the greater concern is the question: did the church legally authorize and recognize this administration. This is an act of the church through its minister. The issue thus is related to the fallout of the Donatist controversy.
Your reply is mostly helpful, but that raises another question: when on the trajectory of apostasy is it time for schism? It seems some have taken this issue as such, for example the schism of the URC and CRC.
 
Your'e reply is mosyly helpful, but that raises another question: when on the trajectory of apostasy is it time for schism? It seems some have taken this issue as such, for example the schism of the URC and CRC.
It's never time for schism. When a body of professing believers apostasizes, they are the schismatics.
 
It's never time for schism. When a body of professing believers apostasizes, they are the schismatics.
Okay, so when on the trajectory of apostasy is it time for the faithful to seperate and declare that church to be apostate?
 
Your reply is mostly helpful, but that raises another question: when on the trajectory of apostasy is it time for schism? It seems some have taken this issue as such, for example the schism of the URC and CRC.
Individual Christians, particular congregations, and even larger church-bodies must make difficult decisions, conscience decisions to follow Christ faithfully even at the cost of earthly connections. As JP points out, whatever it looks like in the visible world, the real schismatics are those who force the split by denying Christ, by putting their wills ahead of simple submission to divine authority bound to the divine word written. The decision to walk is not one that ought ever be taken lightly, but our conscience is forever captive to the word of God.

If one is cast out, as some faithful have been, the decision in a sense has been done for him; he has been freed to follow Christ by the formal power of the faithless. It is a more deliberative and weighty matter when a congregation or a group of churches must decide if the stakes have become too high because the breach between Christ's commands and the false direction of the mother-body has passed the point where standing up for truth within the walls where rebellion has taken root does the most good, or could bring reformation to the whole.
 
Okay, so when on the trajectory of apostasy is it time for the faithful to seperate and declare that church to be apostate?
I tend to think there's honor in being kicked out for refusing to compromise, but I only say that as a general statement and not as a hard-and-fast rule.
 
What of churches that have generally headed in a more Biblical / conservative direction? As, for example, Australia's PCA, which has tended to become more, not less, confessional in recent years. While then-current female elders and pastors were "grandfathered" in, and while at least one presbytery still allows female elders, on the whole, that denomination has moved towards a male-only view of church leadership in recent decades.

I only mention this because in America the thinking seems to be that churches only become more liberal, never the other way around, and that notion of trajectory somewhat shapes how such errors are viewed.

This seems to be the case with the Reformed Churches of Cuba. Although they've had women officers since at least very shortly after their founding (one year before the revolution, if my dates are accurate), their convictions against that have been getting stronger.
 
I've never heard of a church that ordains women and is otherwise orthodox.
Have you never heard of the RPCNA or are you saying they are not orthodox? "8. The permanent officers to be set apart by ordination are elders and deacons. The office of elder is restricted in Scripture to men. Women as well as men may hold the office of deacon. Ordination is a solemn setting apart to
a specific office by the laying on of the hands of a court of the Church and is not to be repeated. Installation is the official constitution of a relationship between one who is ordained and the congregation." 1 Tim. 2:12; 3:2; Titus 1:6." (RPCNA "Testimony" 25.8)
This seems to be the case with the Reformed Churches of Cuba. Although they've had women officers since at least very shortly after their founding (one year before the revolution, if my dates are accurate), their convictions against that have been getting stronger.
I have heard conflicting accounts of whether or not this (convictions against women officers have been getting stronger) is also true in the RPCNA.
 
Have you never heard of the RPCNA or are you saying they are not orthodox? "8. The permanent officers to be set apart by ordination are elders and deacons. The office of elder is restricted in Scripture to men. Women as well as men may hold the office of deacon. Ordination is a solemn setting apart to
a specific office by the laying on of the hands of a court of the Church and is not to be repeated. Installation is the official constitution of a relationship between one who is ordained and the congregation." 1 Tim. 2:12; 3:2; Titus 1:6." (RPCNA "Testimony" 25.8)

I have heard conflicting accounts of whether or not this (convictions against women officers have been getting stronger) is also true in the RPCNA.
Synod took up the issue in 2023 based on a position paper submitted. I believe they have formed a study committee to look into the issue further. I'm not sure where the congregation falls overall on their convictions on the matter, but it is significant that the issue has been taken up. I suppose we will see soon how the denomination feels about the issue.
 
Have you never heard of the RPCNA or are you saying they are not orthodox? "8. The permanent officers to be set apart by ordination are elders and deacons. The office of elder is restricted in Scripture to men. Women as well as men may hold the office of deacon. Ordination is a solemn setting apart to
a specific office by the laying on of the hands of a court of the Church and is not to be repeated. Installation is the official constitution of a relationship between one who is ordained and the congregation." 1 Tim. 2:12; 3:2; Titus 1:6." (RPCNA "Testimony" 25.8)

I have heard conflicting accounts of whether or not this (convictions against women officers have been getting stronger) is also true in the RPCNA.
I'm talking about ministers of the word.
 
Unfortunately, many denominations and/or branches within a specific denomination are falling prey to this idea of ordination of women.
 
Synod took up the issue in 2023 based on a position paper submitted. I believe they have formed a study committee to look into the issue further. I'm not sure where the congregation falls overall on their convictions on the matter, but it is significant that the issue has been taken up. I suppose we will see soon how the denomination feels about the issue.
It wasn't exactly a position paper. There were two papers: one detailing the history of female deacons in the church and what various views throughout church history, and the other paper examined four different positions, attempting to be objective in evaluating each without deliberately taking a position (but it was clear where the preponderance of the evidence was). Synod then formed a committee to study the matter further and report next year.

The committee began by soliciting any input and resources from the broader denomination. At one point they also posted an poll conducted among the current ruling and teaching elders.

The RPCNA currently has 29 out of 262 deacons that are female. This is in 17 of 91 congregations. So it's not particularly common in practice. I think it is important to note the RPCNA has been careful to derive their position from Scripture, but there definitely is good reason to re-evaluate that position.
 
This is a great argument in Biblical Theology. I was in this very argument on Friday and the person that was supporting gays and women ok in Ministry was saying that the Bible wasn't translated correctly (Because they said that) lol. So I said ok since the time that Jesus died till today everyone that has translated is incorrect and she got that funny face like oh no I messed up. I showed her in the Bible where these things can be found and she refused to look saying I will do my own research my come back was that has not worked up till now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top