Refuting Sola Scriptura - Why the Bible Alone is Not Sufficient

[Goatee]

Well, the Word of God proclaims, “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent” (1 Timothy 2:11–12). In the church, God assigns different roles to men and women. This is a result of the way mankind was created and the way in which sin entered the world (1 Timothy 2:13–14). God, through the apostle Paul, restricts women from serving in roles of teaching and/or having spiritual authority over men. This precludes women from serving as pastors over men, which definitely includes preaching to them, teaching them publicly, and exercising spiritual authority over them.

There are many objections to this view of women in pastoral ministry. A common one is that Paul restricts women from teaching because in the first century, women were typically uneducated. However, 1 Timothy 2:11–14 nowhere mentions educational status. If education were a qualification for ministry, then the majority of Jesus’ disciples would not have been qualified. A second common objection is that Paul only restricted the women of Ephesus from teaching men (1 Timothy was written to Timothy, the pastor of the church in Ephesus). Ephesus was known for its temple to Artemis, and women were the authorities in that branch of paganism—therefore, the theory goes, Paul was only reacting against the female-led customs of the Ephesian idolaters, and the church needed to be different. However, the book of 1 Timothy nowhere mentions Artemis, nor does Paul mention the standard practice of Artemis worshipers as a reason for the restrictions in 1 Timothy 2:11–12.

A third objection is that Paul is only referring to husbands and wives, not men and women in general. The Greek words for “woman” and “man” in 1 Timothy 2 could refer to husbands and wives; however, the basic meaning of the words is broader than that. Further, the same Greek words are used in verses 8–10. Are only husbands to lift up holy hands in prayer without anger and disputing (verse 8)? Are only wives to dress modestly, have good deeds, and worship God (verses 9–10)? Of course not. Verses 8–10 clearly refer to all men and women, not just husbands and wives. There is nothing in the context that would indicate a narrowing to husbands and wives in verses 11–14.

Yet another objection to this interpretation of women in pastoral ministry is in relation to women who held positions of leadership in the Bible, specifically Miriam, Deborah, and Huldah in the Old Testament. It is true that these women were chosen by God for special service to Him and that they stand as models of faith, courage, and, yes, leadership. However, the authority of women in the Old Testament is not relevant to the issue of pastors in the church. The New Testament Epistles present a new paradigm for God’s people—the church, the body of Christ—and that paradigm involves an authority structure unique to the church, not for the nation of Israel or any other Old Testament entity.

Similar arguments are made using Priscilla and Phoebe in the New Testament. In Acts 18, Priscilla and Aquila are presented as faithful ministers for Christ. Priscilla’s name is mentioned first, perhaps indicating that she was more prominent in ministry than her husband. Did Priscilla and her husband teach the gospel of Jesus Christ to Apollos? Yes, in their home they “explained to him the way of God more adequately” (Acts 18:26). Does the Bible ever say that Priscilla pastored a church or taught publicly or became the spiritual leader of a congregation of saints? No. As far as we know, Priscilla was not involved in ministry activity in contradiction to 1 Timothy 2:11–14.

In Romans 16:1, Phoebe is called a “deacon” (or “servant”) in the church and is highly commended by Paul. But, as with Priscilla, there is nothing in Scripture to indicate that Phoebe was a pastor or a teacher of men in the church. “Able to teach” is given as a qualification for elders, but not for deacons (1 Timothy 3:1–13; Titus 1:6–9).

The structure of 1 Timothy 2:11–14 makes the reason why women cannot be pastors perfectly clear. Verse 13 begins with “for,” giving the “cause” of Paul’s statement in verses 11–12. Why should women not teach or have authority over men? Because “Adam was created first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived” (verses 13–14). God created Adam first and then created Eve to be a “helper” for Adam. The order of creation has universal application in the family (Ephesians 5:22–33) and in the church.

The fact that Eve was deceived is also given in 1 Timothy 2:14 as a reason for women not serving as pastors or having spiritual authority over men. This does not mean that women are gullible or that they are all more easily deceived than men. If all women are more easily deceived, why would they be allowed to teach children (who are easily deceived) and other women (who are supposedly more easily deceived)? The text simply says that women are not to teach men or have spiritual authority over men because Eve was deceived. God has chosen to give men the primary teaching authority in the church.

Many women excel in gifts of hospitality, mercy, teaching, evangelism, and helps. Much of the ministry of the local church depends on women. Women in the church are not restricted from public praying or prophesying (1 Corinthians 11:5), only from having spiritual teaching authority over men. The Bible nowhere restricts women from exercising the gifts of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12). Women, just as much as men, are called to minister to others, to demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22–23), and to proclaim the gospel to the lost (Matthew 28:18–20; Acts 1:8; 1 Peter 3:15).

God has ordained that only men are to serve in positions of spiritual teaching authority in the church. This is not because men are necessarily better teachers or because women are inferior or less intelligent (which is not the case). It is simply the way God designed the church to function. Men are to set the example in spiritual leadership—in their lives and through their words. Women are to take a less authoritative role. Women are encouraged to teach other women (Titus 2:3–5). The Bible also does not restrict women from teaching children. The only activity women are restricted from is teaching or having spiritual authority over men. This precludes women from serving as pastors to men. This does not make women less important, by any means, but rather gives them a ministry focus more in agreement with God’s plan and His gifting of them.

Just that i thought that Anglicans had women priests but Albion said no?

 

[Albion]

You should take a peek into the Mariology forum

Wow. I guess that's why I never could find it. I keep looking under Mariolatry instead. Mariology would seem to mean the study of Mary, not fabulous tales told about Mary.

 

[Albion]

Oh, so the Anglican church dont have women priests then?

You're so far from knowing what you're asking about, you can't even frame the question correctly. That's a real shortcoming when all you're looking for is a handy insult.

 

[Albion]

Just that i thought that Anglicans had women priests but Albion said no?

Did you notice that we were talking about something entirely different when you thought you'd switch to this topic because you see that I'm an Anglican?

 

[Fireinfolding]

You added into your post and I am so glad you did that I snipped it within the first moment of your reply.

You said,

Wow. I guess that's why I never could find it. I keep looking under Mariolatry instead.

That helped me with something when you did that. But I dont know yet if it will show you edited this in (with an edit tag) especially if you did so past so many seconds

Wow. I guess that's why I never could find it. I keep looking under Mariolatry instead. Mariology would seem to mean the study of Mary, not fabulous tales told about Mary.

To your post, you are there, they are tales there mostly its not derived from the scripture, dont you mean Mariodolatry? Thats how I regard it, but thats just not a nice thing to say

 

[Goatee]

You're so far from knowing what you're asking about, you can't even frame the question correctly. That's a real shortcoming when all you're looking for is a handy insult.

No, i was genuine. Do Anglicans have women priests?

 

[Albion]

No, I actually didn't just invent that word. Nor, for that matter, Hagiolatry. They refer to the use of worship practices and attitudes when praying to or venerating a deceased person presumed to be a saint.

 

[Fireinfolding]

And no trace of your edit

Albion I love you, I was chased around yesterday over removing something from someones post and being hammered and you just demonstrted something can be added in (without the edit showing) and someone blamed for removing something when they didnt

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

The Bible teaches that Mary conceived Jesus with the Holy Spirit. I think the Marian doctrines, like the N.T. Canon and the doctrine of the Trinity are not explicit in Scripture. They are part of the oral Word of God, of which Scripture is a part. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura is not in the Bible at all. The Bible says to hold fast to the traditions, whether given orally or by letter.

Why is it so hard to understand that the issue is not Sola scriptura. It is that the word of God CANNOT contradict itself. If there is a catholic oral tradition that does not line up with the written one it CANNOT be from the Holy Spirit!

 

[Fireinfolding]

No, I actually didn't just invent that word. Nor, for that matter, Hagiolatry.

I dont know what hagiolatry is, some of these words I dont follow, I will get the jist for one over time but I never look them up too often

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

And the way to recognise a true 'Non- Catholic' is by their 'private, fantastical interpretations of scripture!'

And transubstantiation of the Eucharist is not a fantastical intereptation of scripture?

 

[Goatee]

And transubstantiation of the Eucharist is not a fantastical intereptation of scripture?

Not to a Catholic

 

[Fireinfolding]

No, I actually didn't just invent that word. Nor, for that matter, Hagiolatry. They refer to the use of worship practices and attitudes when praying to or venerating a deceased person presumed to be a saint.

You did it it again lol

 

[Root of Jesse]

I don't see Mary in that picture...

Who says oral tradition is oral only?

Besides, we don't call it 'oral tradition'. We call it Sacred Tradition.

 

[Goatee]

Certainly not. Have you forgotten the operable premises--

1. "Word of God" means customs, legends, sanctioned opinion, etc., not the Bible.
2. If it's NOT in the Bible, this means that the Bible approves of it.

Is that the same as women priests in the Anglican church then? Not in Scripture but Bible approved?

 

[Albion]

And no trace of your edit

Albion I love you, I was chased around yesterday over removing something from someones post and being hammered and you just demonstrted something can be added in (without the edit showing) and someone blamed for removing something when they didnt

I really don't know how a poster could remove something from another person's post; but sure, you can edit your own without a notation appearing, so long as you do it almost immediately after you click the "Post Reply" square. That allows you, for instance, to correct a typing error you didn't catch at first.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I left catholicism because of it, so did my aunt who was a nun in a convent for many years

But we always know those who leave are the worst catholics, only the best ones stay

You left Catholicism because of a prayer that people pray, but is not required to be prayed? Wow. Talk about weak faith...

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Not to a Catholic

 

[Albion]

Besides, we don't call it 'oral tradition'. We call it Sacred Tradition.

Yes, but it is called "oral tradition" plenty of times on these forums. Since Catholics ought to call it Sacred Tradition, as you note, and Protestants don't define doctrine by any oral traditions, I agree that to use the term at all is wrong.

 

[Fireinfolding]

I really don't know how a poster could remove something from another person's post; but sure, you can edit your own without a notation appearing, so long as you do it almost immediately after you click the "Post Reply" square. That allows you, for instance, to correct a typing error you didn't catch at first.

I was after I clicked reply to another and somehow what they posted (in my post) disappeared and I was being accused of tampering with their words, neither of us had an edit appearing, and I insist I touched nothing and it became this circus over this persons last sentence, so I prayed about it last night because I was ticked, and I noticed this on another thread with myself but just to be sure I wanted to catch this in someone else and the Lord lent me you (so thanks Lord) I wanted confirmation, its something I asked about.

Here all along they added into the post their line last minute but mine just caught their first attempt (as I did you).

Sorry for going off topic here but I neeed it demonstrated visually and just letting you know that helped (twice) LOL

Thanks