A question to protestants

[Athanasius377]

Ok, to better communicate clearly, it will help if I understand just what part I'm not communicating well, and one thing I think would help is to find out if you yourself think you should literally give up eating meat if vegetarian that is weak in faith joins your congregation and invites you to his house, and you invite him at some point -- do you think you should not eat meat around him? I'd guess you'd say yes, you'd go vegetarian around him and also at all places he'd normally hear of also(!) -- like at any other gathering involving members of the church he'd get to know and hear about -- you do this for his sake, because he needs this, being weak. Right? You would give up meat for his sake?

And a different question, which may help me answer more clearly, what is your view of 1 Corinthians 11:6 If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off. And if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. ?
You'd want your wife to cover her hair, as needed, depending on the company?
What are your own personal views about when women should wear a scarf or head covering -- always, at times, when?

Thanks for the clarification. That is much better.

To your first point, if I were to entertain a vegan I would do the same as the time I entertained by brother in law who is Muslim. I would serve food that would be acceptable for the vegan to eat. If there was a problem where I was not able to eat meat around this person I could comply with his or her desires not to be around meat as such. However, there is also a sense in which the christian grows and matures so this becomes less and less of an issue. At least one would hope.

As to the second, there has been a lot of ink spilled on what the passage means. I for one believe Paul was offering a correction to an issue that was going on in the Corinthian church. In other words I do not believe that Paul was making dogma of his correction. And therefore I am not dogmatic in my interpretation of that passage. I believe there is christian liberty here as there are those who disagree with me. And that is fine. There are women who wear chapel veils in my church and if that makes then feel better then so be it. I do not ask not has anyone ever asked a woman to cover their head or forbid a haircut. I don't think what Paul was speaking of is a thing that is happening in our churches today.

Just my two cents.

 

[Halbhh]

Thanks for the clarification. That is much better.

To your first point, if I were to entertain a vegan I would do the same as the time I entertained by brother in law who is Muslim. I would serve food that would be acceptable for the vegan to eat. If there was a problem where I was not able to eat meat around this person I could comply with his or her desires not to be around meat as such. However, there is also a sense in which the christian grows and matures so this becomes less and less of an issue. At least one would hope.

As to the second, there has been a lot of ink spilled on what the passage means. I for one believe Paul was offering a correction to an issue that was going on in the Corinthian church. In other words I do not believe that Paul was making dogma of his correction. And therefore I am not dogmatic in my interpretation of that passage. I believe there is christian liberty here as there are those who disagree with me. And that is fine. There are women who where chapel veils in my church and if that makes then feel better then so be it. I do not ask not has anyone ever asked a woman to cover their head or forbid a haircut. I don't think what Paul was speaking of is a thing that is happening in our churches today.

Just my two cents.

We largely agree, and my understanding of the situation with women speaking up and being then told to remain quiet was similar -- Paul responding to a situation of the moment -- and the context of all of these various situations is as I was pointing to above, from Romans 14/1 Cor 8 being put into practical application according to the needs of the weak.

 

[bbbbbbb]

We largely agree, and my understanding of the situation with women speaking up and being then told to remain quiet was similar -- Paul responding to a situation of the moment -- and the context of all of these various situations is as I was pointing to above, from Romans 14/1 Cor 8 being put into practical application according to the needs of the weak.

However, Paul does not couch his argument in those terms. In actual fact he couches his argument based upon a heavenly, eternal state unaffected by needs of a moment (I Cor. 10:11) and upon the practice of all the churches (I Cor. 11:16). It is poor hermeneutics to avoid the context.

 

[Halbhh]

However, Paul does not couch his argument in those terms. In actual fact he couches his argument based upon a heavenly, eternal state unaffected by needs of a moment (I Cor. 10:11) and upon the practice of all the churches (I Cor. 11:16). It is poor hermeneutics to avoid the context.

Indeed everyone should always read fully through all the entire epistle. Don't you totally agree? Every bit, not neglecting any of it, in time, on your 2nd or 3rd or 4th reading, ideally. When you or I read it like the 4th time, we ought not be trying to support/reinforce doctrines at all. But by this point (3rd or 4th time reading fully through) we really should be seeking to learn what we have not learned yet.

Similarly it's the always-human practice of the humanity to have indentured servants and slavery. Isn't it. (not really a question, as I'm merely stating a fact). But Christ chose that in time we are not only servants after a point, if we really do listen well enough to begin to truly learn all He is saying to us. We are to begin to understand not merely rules from the past, but the true intent of all the laws. Verses like Matthew chapter 7 verse 12 begin to be understood as the farther reaching meanings they are, because we no longer are putting a kind of legalistic law we tend to want to use (if we indulge our self-importance) above the true spirit of the law, the real, the 'spirit and truth'.

Now, if one merely tried to humbly only say men and women are different, then that would be definitely a truth that isn't only our worldly tendencies alone I think. Still on a higher level:
Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

So, it's useful to ask yourself: why did Peter and Paul at first write to slaves to remain slaves, and then later instead wrote for slaves to seek their freedom, and Paul ended up later writing Philemon? It all makes perfect sense in time if you really get the meanings in 1rst Cor chapter 8 and Romans chapter 14 -- that it's really the application.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Indeed everyone should always read fully through all the entire epistle. Don't you totally agree? Every bit, not neglecting any of it, in time, on your 2nd or 3rd or 4th reading, ideally. When you or I read it like the 4th time, we ought not be trying to support/reinforce doctrines at all. But by this point (3rd or 4th time reading fully through) we really should be seeking to learn what we have not learned yet.

Similarly it's the always-human practice of the humanity to have indentured servants and slavery. Isn't it. (not really a question, as I'm merely stating a fact). But Christ chose that in time we are not only servants after a point, if we really do listen well enough to begin to truly learn all He is saying to us. We are to begin to understand not merely rules from the past, but the true intent of all the laws. Verses like Matthew chapter 7 verse 12 begin to be understood as the farther reaching meanings they are, because we no longer are putting a kind of legalistic law we tend to want to use (if we indulge our self-importance) above the true spirit of the law, the real, the 'spirit and truth'.

Now, if one merely tried to humbly only say men and women are different, then that would be definitely a truth that isn't only our worldly tendencies alone I think. Still on a higher level:
Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

So, it's useful to ask yourself: why did Peter and Paul at first write to slaves to remain slaves, and then later instead wrote for slaves to seek their freedom, and Paul ended up later writing Philemon? It all makes perfect sense in time if you really get the meanings in 1rst Cor chapter 8 and Romans chapter 14 -- that it's really the application.

We have slaves to this very day, although we do not call them slaves (perish that thought). Their terms of servitude are not set as being possessions of individuals, but as terms of employment. In actual fact, our slaves are, in many aspects, in a much more perilous state than slaves in previous centuries. For example, in China (an enlightened socialist country) many (if not most) people are employed in factories. They receive just enough income to purchase the necessities of life. They own the clothes on their backs, but no more clothing. The per capita income in China is less than $3,000.00 US. If one gets sick and needs to go to the hospital for treatment, one must have the cash literally in hand or he will be turned out into the street and permitted to perish. When one gets old in China and can no longer work in the factory he is given, by the generous government, an orange jump suit and is assigned to a street cleaning crew. He must find a wood stick and small sticks to tie to the end of it to form a broom for his work. When he can no longer work on the cleaning crew he is left to his son for his care. If he has no son, then he must depend on the kindness of friends who, usually, are in similar straits. Thus, he dies, having been used and discarded as a slave with no economic or other freedom.

As long as human society exists there will be servitude, whether or not it is called slavery.

 

[Yahkov]

Hi. I grew up in a Catholic family, lived an atheist life of sin and returned to God through Catholicism. I knew nothing about other denominations.
My big issue was with Marion devotion, my parents being Portuguese are devoted to Our Lady of Fatima. But when I inquired about it in a Catholic forum I was labelled a Protestant.

"What is that?" So I looked into it. I always thought that Catholics where the original religion which held the bible sacred and then the denominations split off with new books, dogmas and doctrines. I was shocked to learn that its the Catholics that have a heap of other stuff besides the bible.

I learnt about "sola scripture" and that the protestants adhere to the bible and so began to wonder if I was even a Catholic anymore or a Protestant now as I believe in sola scripture and not the opportunity for humans to add doctrines to it without any bible foundation.

So now I"m surprised to learn that there are female priests in the Protestant priesthood.

"Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." Timothy 2:11-14 ESV

Scripture is quite clear on that topic, what happened "sola scripture" in this case?

Excellent post. I can somewhat relate with you here. I grew up Catholic and left the Catholic Church years ago. I suppose I would consider myself nondenominational now? I don't even know these days.

I am in agreement with you that Sola Scripture is a vital pillar. But you will come to find that Protestant churches are not all the same. A lot of them will follow Scripture alone, but they interpret Scripture differently. I do want to say that most Protestant churches prohibit females from serving as pastors. But I am also afraid that the paradigm is shifting on that.

In short, and I hope this clears confusion, it's not a simple choice, Catholic or Protestant. Catholic seems to cover a few groups, whereas Protestant churches have split even further within themselves forming a lot of denominations. Even within the same denomination you may experience different doctrine at different churches.

I believe you are on the correct path. You seem to know the importance of Sola Scripture, you seem to have a good grasp on Scripture comprehension, if you want to surround yourself with like minded believers, you may just have to join the many and go on the hunt for a church. I have never found one that fits perfectly with what I believe, so you may have to weed through what is essential doctrine and be cautious of becoming legalistic.

 

[ToBeLoved]

She is the only deacon known by name in the NT. There is no male example. And we have female deacons mentioned in 1.Tim 3:11.

1 Timothy 3:11 doesn’t say that.

Where did you get that from?

 

[ToBeLoved]

For example, in China (an enlightened socialist country) many (if not most) people are employed in factories. They receive just enough income to purchase the necessities of life. They own the clothes on their backs, but no more clothing. The per capita income in China is less than $3,000.00 US. If one gets sick and needs to go to the hospital for treatment, one must have the cash literally in hand or he will be turned out into the street and permitted to perish. When one gets old in China and can no longer work in the factory he is given, by the generous government, an orange jump suit and is assigned to a street cleaning crew. He must find a wood stick and small sticks to tie to the end of it to form a broom for his work. When he can no longer work on the cleaning crew he is left to his son for his care. If he has no son, then he must depend on the kindness of friends who, usually, are in similar straits. Thus, he dies, having been used and discarded as a slave with no economic or other freedom.

As long as human society exists there will be servitude, whether or not it is called slavery.

China is a communist country.

Hence, the CPP.

Also, what is “an enlightened socialist country”?

 

[Halbhh]

China is a communist country.

Hence, the CPP.

Also, what is “an enlightened socialist country”?

He was being sarcastic in that wording, and meant that even the best possible examples of socialism (meaning the real thing, with real state ownership of enterprises) in his view are very poor outcomes. In reality also, China is a mixed economy with a lot of capitalism, and that's why it has gotten so much richer than the destitution it had back in the 1950s-1970s -- it improved to the extent it had free enterprise and capitalism added into it's now mixed, partially command economy.

 

[Albion]

Way, way off topic now in a thread that asked Protestants about Sola Scriptura!

 

[Halbhh]

I look and I see people misunderstanding the other person in almost every post in most threads. What can you do? Sometimes it seems important to try to help. Else gradually for most their imagination progressively takes over what they know of the other person, and their misperception can get worse. No one is fully immune to that. It's....well, it's like 1 Cor 13 is the only answer. Now we see dimly at best, in part, at best. But when He returns we will see in full. What will help people better try to understand what others are saying? Maybe the most key thing is real humility. That helps you stop judging on just appearances.

 

[Johan_1988]

That's not true for every instance. Some may drift away out of ignorance. Even moves that are honestly intended as moves away from the "world" can be moves away from what the Bible teaches.

That is true as well. I just said in general that's the case, but they are also those things you mentioned.

 

[bbbbbbb]

China is a communist country.

Hence, the CPP.

Also, what is “an enlightened socialist country”?

China does not adhere to dogmatic Marxist dogma at all. There are vast differences between Chinese communism and doctrinaire communism as, for example, in North Korea. ln many ways China is becoming more capitalistic than the United States. For example, China's major highways are privately owned and operated as toll roads.

China, within the space of seventy years, has made enormous progress on virtually all fronts and, I predict, will take its place as a major world player, supplanting countries such as Russia which, although vast in geographic area, lacks the population and political stability that China has. Thus, I believe China to be an "enlightened" (in a secular sense) socialist country.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Way, way off topic now in a thread that asked Protestants about Sola Scriptura!

I apologize for being part of the problem in my wanderings into Chinese culture. I will cease that rabbit trail and hope that we can return to the OP.

Thank you.

 

[bbbbbbb]

He was being sarcastic in that wording, and meant that even the best possible examples of socialism (meaning the real thing, with real state ownership of enterprises) in his view are very poor outcomes. In reality also, China is a mixed economy with a lot of capitalism, and that's why it has gotten so much richer than the destitution it had back in the 1950s-1970s -- it improved to the extent it had free enterprise and capitalism added into it's now mixed, partially command economy.

Thank you. That is precisely what I meant.

 

[ToBeLoved]

He was being sarcastic in that wording, and meant that even the best possible examples of socialism (meaning the real thing, with real state ownership of enterprises) in his view are very poor outcomes. In reality also, China is a mixed economy with a lot of capitalism, and that's why it has gotten so much richer than the destitution it had back in the 1950s-1970s -- it improved to the extent it had free enterprise and capitalism added into it's now mixed, partially command economy.

Just because China participates in capitalistic practices, doesn’t mean the majority of its people are benefiting from it.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Just because China participates in capitalistic practices, doesn’t mean the majority of its people are benefiting from it.

Have you been to China lately? Having just returned from China I can definitely say that the vast majority of Chinese people are much better off now after the major reforms initiated by Deng Xiaoping than they were under the decades of Maoism. Starvation no longer is a stark factor of existence in China and, in fact, there is growing concern over obesity. Likewise, cigarette consumption, which was virtually unknown under Mao, is a culturally defined lifestyle for virtually all men. As well, mobility, which was tightly regulated under Mao, is much more available with the amazing development of the railroad system, especially the super-fast network linking all of the provincial capitals.

 

[Halbhh]

Just because China participates in capitalistic practices, doesn’t mean the majority of its people are benefiting from it.

The picture for China on that is complex. Just helping get more full information below. China began reforms to add more and more capitalism to their economy, and by the 1990s, these reforms had become significant. That resulted in a lot of growth -- (GDP per capita means the total size of the entire Chinese economy divided by the number of people)

China is still so much less rich than the U.S. for the average citizen, but...

As you can see, they have continued to grow their economy strongly as one would expect with the opening to a lot of capitalism.

More details:

The Communist Party authorities carried out the market reforms in two stages. The first stage, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, involved the de-collectivization of agriculture, the opening up of the country to foreign investment, and permission for entrepreneurs to start businesses. However, most industry remained state-owned. The second stage of reform, in the late 1980s and 1990s, involved the privatization and contracting out of much state-owned industry and the lifting of price controls, protectionist policies, and regulations, although state monopolies in sectors such as banking and petroleum remained. The private sector grew remarkably, accounting for as much as 70 percent of China's gross domestic product by 2005.[5] From 1978 until 2013, unprecedented growth occurred, with the economy increasing by 9.5% a year. The conservative Hu Jintao's administration regulated and controlled the economy more heavily after 2005, reversing some reforms.[6]

The success of China's economic policies and the manner of their implementation resulted[when?] in immense changes in Chinese society, including greatly decreased poverty while both average incomes and income inequality have increased...

So, there is a significant fraction (something well more than 10% and less than 30%) of the population that has become middle class even by Western standards, but of course it's a much lower portion of their population than in advanced economies like ours.

Median income is more useful to gauge average citizens' incomes -- the median is where 1/2 of the population has incomes at or higher, and 1/2 at or lower, so it's highly representative of average people. And for context, we can look at the entire world, by nation and with purchasing power parity adjustment:

Ok, this all probably belongs in another thread.

---------------------

Not sure how we got into discussing this, heh heh, but anyway, they have a mixed economy or a 'dual track' as it's sometimes called.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The picture for China on that is complex. Just helping get more full information below. China began reforms to add more and more capitalism to their economy, and by the 1990s, these reforms had become significant. That resulted in a lot of growth -- (GDP per capita means the total size of the entire Chinese economy divided by the number of people)

China is still so much less rich than the U.S. for the average citizen, but...

As you can see, they have continued to grow their economy strongly as one would expect with the opening to a lot of capitalism.

More details:

The Communist Party authorities carried out the market reforms in two stages. The first stage, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, involved the de-collectivization of agriculture, the opening up of the country to foreign investment, and permission for entrepreneurs to start businesses. However, most industry remained state-owned. The second stage of reform, in the late 1980s and 1990s, involved the privatization and contracting out of much state-owned industry and the lifting of price controls, protectionist policies, and regulations, although state monopolies in sectors such as banking and petroleum remained. The private sector grew remarkably, accounting for as much as 70 percent of China's gross domestic product by 2005.[5] From 1978 until 2013, unprecedented growth occurred, with the economy increasing by 9.5% a year. The conservative Hu Jintao's administration regulated and controlled the economy more heavily after 2005, reversing some reforms.[6]

The success of China's economic policies and the manner of their implementation resulted[when?] in immense changes in Chinese society, including greatly decreased poverty while both average incomes and income inequality have increased...

So, there is a significant fraction (something well more than 10% and less than 30%) of the population that has become middle class even by Western standards, but of course it's a much lower portion of their population than in advanced economies like ours.

Median income is more useful to gauge average citizens' incomes -- the median is where 1/2 of the population has incomes at or higher, and 1/2 at or lower, so it's highly representative of average people. And for context, we can look at the entire world, by nation and with purchasing power parity adjustment:

Ok, this all probably belongs in another thread.

---------------------

Not sure how we got into discussing this, heh heh, but anyway, they have a mixed economy or a 'dual track' as it's sometimes called.

The picture for China on that is complex. Just helping get more full information below. China began reforms to add more and more capitalism to their economy, and by the 1990s, these reforms had become significant. That resulted in a lot of growth -- (GDP per capita means the total size of the entire Chinese economy divided by the number of people)

China is still so much less rich than the U.S. for the average citizen, but...

As you can see, they have continued to grow their economy strongly as one would expect with the opening to a lot of capitalism.

More details:

The Communist Party authorities carried out the market reforms in two stages. The first stage, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, involved the de-collectivization of agriculture, the opening up of the country to foreign investment, and permission for entrepreneurs to start businesses. However, most industry remained state-owned. The second stage of reform, in the late 1980s and 1990s, involved the privatization and contracting out of much state-owned industry and the lifting of price controls, protectionist policies, and regulations, although state monopolies in sectors such as banking and petroleum remained. The private sector grew remarkably, accounting for as much as 70 percent of China's gross domestic product by 2005.[5] From 1978 until 2013, unprecedented growth occurred, with the economy increasing by 9.5% a year. The conservative Hu Jintao's administration regulated and controlled the economy more heavily after 2005, reversing some reforms.[6]

The success of China's economic policies and the manner of their implementation resulted[when?] in immense changes in Chinese society, including greatly decreased poverty while both average incomes and income inequality have increased...

So, there is a significant fraction (something well more than 10% and less than 30%) of the population that has become middle class even by Western standards, but of course it's a much lower portion of their population than in advanced economies like ours.

Median income is more useful to gauge average citizens' incomes -- the median is where 1/2 of the population has incomes at or higher, and 1/2 at or lower, so it's highly representative of average people. And for context, we can look at the entire world, by nation and with purchasing power parity adjustment:

Ok, this all probably belongs in another thread.

---------------------

Not sure how we got into discussing this, heh heh, but anyway, they have a mixed economy or a 'dual track' as it's sometimes called.

This is all interesting and helpful, but way off topic. I have started a new thread to continue this discussion without further derailing this thread. Please feel free to post on that thread instead of this one.

 

[Halbhh]

This is all interesting and helpful, but way off topic. I have started a new thread to continue this discussion without further derailing this thread. Please feel free to post on that thread instead of this one.

Thanks! Is there more you like to talk about past where we left off above around post #204? (other parts of post 204 maybe? -- the most key discussion point was perhaps the last paragraph)