The PuritanBoard - View Single Post

calgal · #56 (**permalink**) 04-12-2008, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ColdSilverMoon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brad

What's really just way cool about this is that obviously we are enjoying a period of new revelation! 2000 years of Church history has passed without the benefit of this new understanding that engenders (pun intended) the need for this discussion. Aren't we just so... so... blessedly progressive? No, its not a step towards Gomorrah, it must be a leap into the glorious light of human equality whose sun is the radiant glow of feminism!

Thanks for straightening me out, bro.

My friend, I think you really need to re-visit church history. There are multiple examples of female deacons in the early church, as found on tombstones and as noted by early church leaders and historians. Female deacons were considered essential in some Christian churches in Persia and Syria in order to physically interact with other women, to include baptism; it was considered taboo for a man to interact with women other than his wife in any context. There were numerous female deacons through the first 700 years or so of the church until the Roman Catholic Church made its major departures from Scriptural truth.

Actually, I don't think female deacons in early church history really contributes significantly to the debate one way or another. Just because the early church did something doesn't automatically make it right. But it would be best if you actually had a basis for your statements rather than simply making unfounded claims.

Again, I can understand both arguments, but am personally undecided. The key is to know exactly what the Bible says, and in that regard it seems there is room for discussion.

I have to agree. The question I will ask before making a decision is why is a female deacon a problem? i understand the issue for Baptists: they combine the office of Deacon and Elder. I can say that Female ELDERS are unbiblical and that should be prevented however.