Interesting debate on ordaining women on the PCA forums

crhoades · #1 (**permalink**) 12-07-2005, 06:40 PM

By Faith Online - Monthly Umpired Debate

I think this is a fairly representative sample of what's out there.

Romans922 · #2 (**permalink**) 12-07-2005, 07:15 PM

For those who are in the PCA, esp. elders, knowing that I am going to probably go into the PCA, be ordained, etc.; how does one see things like this that are going on in the denomination and then handle that situation. For example, I 'as an elder' see this problem of women in ministry and what it will lead to in the future --> women ordination as deacons, eventually elders, what do i do?

fredtgreco · #3 (**permalink**) 12-07-2005, 07:25 PM

Rule #1, take nothing on the internet very seriously.

Rule #2, never see the internet as indicative of the actual state of a church.

If you did, you would actually think that the EPC and CREC were the up and coming churches in the US. (Hint: neither is even close)

JohnV · #4 (**permalink**) 12-07-2005, 07:39 PM

I've been through it before, Chris. In my experience it was all based on,

Quote:

other contrary arguments which are admissable and honest interpretations of Scripture....

Suddenly all personal interpretations that have been found to be non-disciplinary views, are become "acceptable views", and therefore equal to the plain meaning of Scripture, to what the Confessions said. In my experiences, if this particular point was addressed you earned the wrath of both sides of the debate, both pro and con. By the time the issue was on the table it was already too late, for the pieces had been put into place which made the end a foregone conclusion. The end was not to ordain women, but to undermine the objectivity of the plain meaning of the Word. It was not that ordaining women would damage the offices, for the offices were already damaged when the doors were opened to placing personal views on par with Scripture's plain meanings.

Some did call the question on the point, but from a slanted perspective: they objected to others' subjective views in order to establish their own on traditional or historical grounds only, not to point to objective Scripture. In the end it did not matter which "side" I was on, for both "sides" had already determined that objective Scripture was not a possibility.

I was younger then, and was not as understanding of things as I am now. And I still have more to learn. But even then I knew that I had to oppose both sides, that both sides were intent on the same end, namely the erasure of objective Scripture. The entire debate was clearly marked by the subjecting of Scripture to the culture, that it was both necessary and inescapable.

The same thing came through in the creation-evolution debates going on at the same time: one side said that we had to heed science, and therefore had to accept evolution; the other side said that we had to heed the Bible and therefore ignore science because it opposed the Bible. Both sides had accepted that evolution was wholly scientific, and both sides divided creation's revelation of God from Scripture's revelation of God, declaring the former as extinct. One major spokesman for the 'Creationist' side even advised that article II of the Belgic Confession be removed because it made the revelation of God in creation a doctrine. Plainly then, the objective Scripture was no longer a possiblity to them, even though they seemed to be defending the orthodox side of the discussion.

Today that denomination is not even a shadow of what it had once been. And it had nothing to do with ordaining women. It was already done before the debate was on the table.

SolaScriptura · #5 (**permalink**) 12-07-2005, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Rule #1, take nothing on the internet very seriously.

Hmmm. Really?

fredtgreco · #6 (**permalink**) 12-07-2005, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SolaScriptura

Quote:

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Rule #1, take nothing on the internet very seriously.

Hmmm. Really?

Yes, really. And I am very serious about that.

Romans922 · #7 (**permalink**) 12-07-2005, 11:39 PM

So then I am not supposed to take that comment seriously? I'm confused!

BJClark · #8 (**permalink**) 12-08-2005, 12:20 AM

Gentlemen,

What is your understanding of why Deborah was appointed as
a Judge?

My understanding is it was because the men wouldn't take a Stand for God, so God raised up a woman who was willing to take that stand. (is this where our Church desires to go?)

And what is your understanding of Isaiah Chapter 3?

When I get to verses 11 and 12 I read a woe...

"Woe unto the wicked! It shall be ill with him: For the reward of his hands shall be given him. As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths."

This to me, sounds like to take such a step would lead to God's judgement and not God's blessings.

Do you read this the same way? Or am I misunderstanding something here?

As a woman, I personally find it VERY comforting to know that I have the Deacons and Elders and Male Pastors I could turn to, to confront my husband if I needed them to and hold him accountable. I wouldn't have that same peace in my heart with a woman leader.

It honestly scares me to think that a woman in authority wouldn't be able to hold men accountable the way other men do. What about Proverbs 27:17?

And what about 1 Timothy 2 AND 3? and 1 John 4?

[Edited on 12-8-2005 by BJClark]

WrittenFromUtopia · #9 (**permalink**) 12-08-2005, 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Rule #1, take nothing on the internet very seriously.

Rule #2, never see the internet as indicative of the actual state of a church.

If you did, you would actually think that the EPC and CREC were the up and coming churches in the US. (Hint: neither is even close)