A woman's faith

Paidiske said:

If God's call to a person seems to contradict Scripture, we need to hold open the possibility that it is Scripture which we have misinterpreted.

Click to expand...

Not that it would be impossible but
that thinking violates Scripture.

2 Peter.
First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,

Eloy Craft said:

Well, that thinking violates Scripture.

2 Peter.
First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 2

Click to expand...

It does not violate Scripture for the Church to reexamine its understanding of Scripture. Nor is ordination a matter of personal interpretation.

Paidiske said:

It does not violate Scripture for the Church to reexamine its understanding of Scripture

Click to expand...

Indeed it has been since the beginning.

Paidiske said:

Nor is ordination a matter of personal interpretation.

Click to expand...

Who claimed authority to ordain the first woman in your church? Do you know what distinguishes a development of faith from doctrine that establishes a different faith?

Eloy Craft said:

Who claimed authority to ordain the first woman in your church? Do you know what distinguishes a development of faith from doctrine that establishes a different faith?

Click to expand...

The first Anglican woman was ordained by the WWII era bishop of Hong Kong (whose name I forget, but whose wisdom I applaud in recognising that, when war meant he had basically run out of men, there was no reason to prevent women from serving).

There is nothing about ordaining women that establishes a "different faith." We still worship and obey the same Lord. We still profess the same Creeds. We still read the same Scriptures. We still practice the same baptism (which even your church recognises, when it does not re-baptise people who were baptised in an Anglican rite). We still proclaim the same gospel and pursue the same mission.

If there is any difference it is that we are no longer bound by tacit sexism to deny women their gifts and vocations. And that is in line with, and not a contradiction of, the gospel that is proclaimed that we may all have life to the full!

And I would add, as a side note, that accusations of a "different faith" are likely to fall foul of CF's not-a-real-Christian flaming rule.

Paidiske said:

The first Anglican woman was ordained by the WWII era bishop of Hong Kong (whose name I forget, but whose wisdom I applaud in recognising that, when war meant he had basically run out of men, there was no reason to prevent women from serving).

Click to expand...

Ran out of men. Interesting. Obviously not the reason anymore.

Paidiske said:

There is nothing about ordaining women that establishes a "different faith." We still worship and obey the same Lord. We still profess the same Creeds. We still read the same Scriptures. We still practice the same baptism (which even your church recognises, when it does not re-baptise people who were baptised in an Anglican rite). We still proclaim the same gospel and pursue the same mission.

Click to expand...

I never said it did establish a different faith. That came out of you.

Paidiske said:

And I would add, as a side note, that accusations of a "different faith" are likely to fall foul of CF's not-a-real-Christian flaming rule.

Click to expand...

Be careful how you hear. There is no accussation coming from me.

Eloy Craft said:

Ran out of men. Interesting. Obviously not the reason anymore.

Click to expand...

No. In the following decades, (most of) the Anglican church recognised the rightness of the ordination of women.

Eloy Craft said:

I never said it did establish a different faith.

Click to expand...

Then why even ask the question?

Paidiske said:

Then why even ask the question?

Click to expand...

I think one should understand the difference between doctrine that is a development of faith and doctrine that departs from it in order to argue this subject.

Eloy Craft said:

I think one should understand the difference between doctrine that is a development of faith and doctrine that departs from it in order to argue this subject.

Click to expand...

My church defines the core matters of faith as those which pertain to salvation. The ordination of women is not one of those matters; it is a matter on which we can disagree and still claim the same faith.

Paidiske said:

My church defines the core matters of faith as those which pertain to salvation. The ordination of women is not one of those matters; it is a matter on which we can disagree and still claim the same faith.

Click to expand...

Then the faith your Church teaches is not developmental?

Eloy Craft said:

Then the faith your Church teaches is not developmental?

Click to expand...

I think it would be helpful if you would define exactly what you mean by "developmental," as I suspect our respective churches would view the issues involved quite differently.

Paidiske said:

I think it would be helpful if you would define exactly what you mean by "developmental," as I suspect our respective churches would view the issues involved quite differently.

Click to expand...

What is developed? The deposit of faith once delivered....you know. There are no additions after the last of the Twelve died. The Public Revelation ended and the faith received it's final deposit.
A development is a deeper understanding of what has always been believed. A better understanding of the faith deposited once for all.
We develop deeper understanding of what has always been believed.
If we develop a belief never believed before it's not part of the faith deposited once for all. Then it is a different faith.
I think most Christians think their faith is developmental.

Eloy Craft said:

What is developed? The deposit of faith once delivered....you know. There are no additions after the last of the Twelve died. The Public Revelation ended and the faith received it's final deposit.
A development is a deeper understanding of what has always been believed. A better understanding of the faith deposited once for all.
We develop deeper understanding of what has always been believed.
If we develop a belief never believed before it's not part of the faith deposited once for all. Then it is a different faith.
I think most Christians think their faith is developmental.

Click to expand...

I'm still confused as to exactly what you're asking me.

I certainly don't agree that the ordination of women is "a belief never believed before."

Paidiske said:

I'm still confused as to exactly what you're asking me.

I certainly don't agree that the ordination of women is "a belief never believed before."

Click to expand...

Priests are extensions of Bishops. The Bishops couldn't serve all the needs of his diocese alone. To do that he conferred his powers to others to assist in him. Those assistants were called deacons. Deacon is a word used broadly to translate the concept of service. There were no women ever Given powers as an extension of their Bishop to serve when or where he couldn't be. There were women who assisted the Bishop to Baptize women since full immersion Baptisms was awekward otherwise. The administration of Baptism has changed due to better understanding of it. No more awekward moments like that are the result of a faith that is developmental. If the ordination of women to the priesthood was something believed before I think we would have had women priests since the beginning.

Eloy Craft said:

Priests are extensions of Bishops. The Bishops couldn't serve all the needs of his diocese alone. To do that he conferred his powers to others to assist in him. Those assistants were called deacons. Deacon is a word used broadly to translate the concept of service. There were no women ever Given powers as an extension of their Bishop to serve when or where he couldn't be. There were women who assisted the Bishop to Baptize women since full immersion Baptisms was awekward otherwise. The administration of Baptism has changed due to better understanding of it. No more awekward moments like that are the result of a faith that is developmental. If the ordination of women to the priesthood was something believed before I think we would have had women priests since the beginning.

Click to expand...

We have New Testament evidence of women serving alongside men in the beginning. (A classic example matching what you describe is Phoebe, the deacon, assisting Paul by carrying his letter to Rome). They were suppressed later, but that was wrong, and it is good that we are gradually recovering the place of women in those roles.

PaulCyp1 said:

You are completely correct in saying that we are all God's Children. You are also completely right in saying that both men and women can provide valuable counseling. I myself have received excellent counseling from spiritually mature men and women. However, neither of these realities changes the fact that Jesus clearly revealed His will concerning His priesthood, by selecting 12 out of 12 men as His first priests, even though many very holy women were available. His Church cannot ordain women as priests, because He Himself has forbidden it, by His own example. If Jesus wanted female priests, surely He would have made that know by ordaining at least one.

Click to expand...

Arguing from silence is always very shaky... "Christ didn't, therefore we never can," if applied consistently, would put us in a very strange situation, since the churches who claim this as a basis for not ordaining women do so many things that Christ never did.

That's if we accept the argument that the selection of the twelve was about establishing the priesthood, which is another very shaky argument.

disciple Clint said:

Another Jesus, what do you mean?

Click to expand...

2 Corinthians 11:4. “For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him .”
A Jesus which is not the one that the bible teaches.

KaylaI said:

Hello, I am a new member to the forum but have read the posts for a long time and have found them very useful. I wondered if someone might be able to help me with this. Last week, I was speaking to a Catholic friend who argued that women should not be priests or deacons and he had some very persuasive arguments. He was saying how there were no women disciples and Jesus was a man. I am Christian and a woman and I don't agree with him. I think we
are all God's children and some of the best guidance I have received has been from women. What at do you think? What would you have said? He is very devout and was able to quote a lot of scripture and although I don't think I agree with him, it was difficult for me to express my thoughts. Really interested to see what people think.

Click to expand...

It all come down to whether you believe God called you to the field you are interested in. If God called you to be a pastor then God will make a way for you and all you need to do is follow Him. Do not get caught up in what others think or believe. God is the Master and if you listen to Him He will never steer you wrong. I wish you all the best.

God bless

I think when Genesis 2:18
Said, I make man and woman, and they are for each other,
God said: "It is not good for man to be alone

If God want man and woman being together, that mean he just not only want them physically together ,but also spiritually together. Without spiritual oneness
, it just leads to separation or divorce. Without holding similar religious belief, political viewpoint or economic endeavor , it just hard to fly together.

I think when God said baptized all people, and all people are referred to as people regardless of their class, origin, genders, and races. Therefore it must have female and include female disciples.

How does one know if Jesus not wanting any female disciple in bible, maybe he was just out of luck and didn't have chance in his time.

Jesus showed he valued women among his followers, and Jesus was inclusive. It shows that Jesus cared for the growth of the movement of his followers, and so people would be admitted without much compromise to their own culture into the discipleship of Jesus even if not fully conforming to his ways. Just as avoiding meat was not continued as it was not required for any to join, as that would limit who would join in coming to Christ, women among who was chosen to be among the apostles would have really limited who of those original cultures would respond and join the Christian followers coming to Christ then.

These things have no bearing on how we would choose to live in a better way now. Inclusiveness with love and fruits of the Spirit will guide in that.