A question to protestants

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
28,240
13,481
72
✟369,297.00
Faith
Non-Denom
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)

Actually, given the fact that the thread had been off-topic for a long time before post #204, I will return to the OP, which asked what happened to sola scriptura in light of female ordination (in some Protestant churches). The answer is that nothing has happened, other than the fact that those denominations now have completely rejected scripture as having any role to play in church polity. For those that have not rejected scripture, you will find faithful adherence on matters such as female ordination.
 
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Site Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
27,910
7,991
NW England
✟1,052,941.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Actually, given the fact that the thread had been off-topic for a long time before post #204, I will return to the OP, which asked what happened to sola scriptura in light of female ordination (in some Protestant churches). The answer is that nothing has happened, other than the fact that those denominations now have completely rejected scripture as having any role to play in church polity. For those that have not rejected scripture, you will find faithful adherence on matters such as female ordination.

There are churches which understand, and interpret, Scripture differently on this matter, certainly - that does not mean that we have rejected Scripture completely.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Paidiske
Upvote 0

~Zao~

Wisdom’s child
Site Supporter
Jun 27, 2007
3,060
957
✟100,595.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Actually, given the fact that the thread had been off-topic for a long time before post #204, I will return to the OP, which asked what happened to sola scriptura in light of female ordination (in some Protestant churches). The answer is that nothing has happened, other than the fact that those denominations now have completely rejected scripture as having any role to play in church polity. For those that have not rejected scripture, you will find faithful adherence on matters such as female ordination.
The spiritual reading of scripture has nothing to do at all with leaving out one iota of scripture. But I’m really sick of saying it so I’m not going to bother to try anymore.
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
28,240
13,481
72
✟369,297.00
Faith
Non-Denom
There are churches which understand, and interpret, Scripture differently on this matter, certainly - that does not mean that we have rejected Scripture completely.

Quite true. There are many churches (not to mention individuals) who pick and choose which portions of Scripture are relevant to their life in twenty-first century culture.
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
28,240
13,481
72
✟369,297.00
Faith
Non-Denom
No idea what that is. I think it’s more applied sanctification than assuming justification w/o moving forward.

That is commonly known as the Christian Scientist Church. They interpret everything in the Bible spiritually, so that they do not believe that there is anything such as physical reality.
 
Upvote 0

~Zao~

Wisdom’s child
Site Supporter
Jun 27, 2007
3,060
957
✟100,595.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
That is commonly known as the Christian Scientist Church. They interpret everything in the Bible spiritually, so that they do not believe that there is anything such as physical reality.
Sounds Gnostic Flesh at the cross to achieve sanctification is more in tune for growth.
 
Upvote 0

~Zao~

Wisdom’s child
Site Supporter
Jun 27, 2007
3,060
957
✟100,595.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Yes, they are extremely Gnostic, which is one reason I tend to be quite skeptical of a "spiritual" interpretation of holy scripture.
The teaching of Christ and the church in particular is the model. From the shadow is the introduction into Christianity as an analogy but the substance should never be hid because the higher teaching of Jesus Christ as Risen Lord should always be the focus. Not hard for anyone to figure out unless the shadow is overpowering the substance.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
28,240
13,481
72
✟369,297.00
Faith
Non-Denom
The teaching of Christ and the church in particular is the model. From the shadow is the introduction into Christianity as an analogy but the substance should never be hid because the higher teaching of Jesus Christ as Risen Lord should always be the focus. Not hard for anyone to figure out unless the shadow is overpowering the substance.

Quite true. That is a reason I do not reject a spiritual understanding of scripture, but am skeptical of much that is being passed off as being "spiritual" but which actually denies scripture, as with the Christian Scientists.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: ~Zao~
Upvote 0

Strong in Him

Great is thy faithfulness
Site Supporter
Mar 4, 2005
27,910
7,991
NW England
✟1,052,941.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Quite true. There are many churches (not to mention individuals) who pick and choose which portions of Scripture are relevant to their life in twenty-first century culture.

And there are others who are inconsistent in their approach to Scripture.
For example, some, on these forums, insist that 1 Timothy 2:12, and other Scriptures, have to be taken literally. But when they've been asked about Paul's teaching that widows under 60 deserve no financial help from the church because they are idle busybodies, 1 Timothy 5:11-15, for example, they back track and say it was only for that time. Some have said that women cannot teach men because this is what Scripture teaches. Yet when given examples of women who taught, they back track and say that telling men what God is saying is not teaching, or obeying the Great Commission to teach people everything Jesus taught comes under the heading of evangelism, so that's different, or that Priscilla taught Apollos with her husband and probably didn't actually do any of the teaching, which is an assumption.

Scriptural exegesis - studying the context, what is meant by what is written, what the circumstances were, what kind of writing it is and what the audience would have understood it to mean at the time - is important. Taking verses/passages and insisting that they be taken, and applied, literally when they were not written, or intended, to be taken literally, is actually making the Bible say something that its authors never intended.
Mind you, there are people who will look at that and say that I'm just trying to find ways around women being allowed to preach/be ordained - their approach to Scripture will not allow them to consider anything but a literal application, and they will not be able to consider that they might be wrong in their approach.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: ~Zao~
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
28,240
13,481
72
✟369,297.00
Faith
Non-Denom
And there are others who are inconsistent in their approach to Scripture.
For example, some, on these forums, insist that 1 Timothy 2:12, and other Scriptures, have to be taken literally. But when they've been asked about Paul's teaching that widows under 60 deserve no financial help from the church because they are idle busybodies, 1 Timothy 5:11-15, for example, they back track and say it was only for that time. Some have said that women cannot teach men because this is what Scripture teaches. Yet when given examples of women who taught, they back track and say that telling men what God is saying is not teaching, or obeying the Great Commission to teach people everything Jesus taught comes under the heading of evangelism, so that's different, or that Priscilla taught Apollos with her husband and probably didn't actually do any of the teaching, which is an assumption.

Scriptural exegesis - studying the context, what is meant by what is written, what the circumstances were, what kind of writing it is and what the audience would have understood it to mean at the time - is important. Taking verses/passages and insisting that they be taken, and applied, literally when they were not written, or intended, to be taken literally, is actually making the Bible say something that its authors never intended.
Mind you, there are people who will look at that and say that I'm just trying to find ways around women being allowed to preach/be ordained - their approach to Scripture will not allow them to consider anything but a literal application, and they will not be able to consider that they might be wrong in their approach.

Quite true. Although many hold differing interpretations and many have great inconsistencies in their exegesis (or eisegesis in many cases) there are some, such as yourself (and I hope myself) who achieve consistency without introducing foreign concepts such as the one you mentioned that a particular aspect such as the idea that Paul was merely addressing a particular situation for that church or individual only and, therefore, the troubling verse(s) cannot apply to us today.
 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
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?

I see that you are in a "Time Out" so you can not respond.

YES, some Christian denominations have female bishops/pastors which is completely without Bible direction or approval.

Now I have not read all the pages of this thread and I am fully aware that some people will not agree with my comments. What I am going to post is what the Bible says as I always do.

Church denominations are made up of men and women and when men and women want something bad enough, they actually do not care what the Bible says. They are going to do what they want to do no matter what. Women as Pastors is a perfect example of that kind of attitude.

1 Timothy 3:1-7 ...….
"This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God? Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil."

As all can see, there is NO way to make women bishops/deacons or pastors.
The ONLY way it can be done is to ignore the Bible completely and do what you want to do.

Only MEN can Scripturally be ordained as deacons and pastors. The Bible nowhere sets forth the qualifications for a woman pastor or preacher. It is wrong to try to twist the Scriptures to allow a woman to be ordained to the gospel ministry. The ministry of preaching the gospel is a man’s job, and God qualifies those whom He calls to this very important task.

Like it or not...……..that is what the Word of God says.

Are there some women smarter than Men. LOL!!!!!!

However that is of NO concern because we all know it to be true.

So then WHY is this the case??????????

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.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Well, one of the most common methods--pitting one verse against another. The verses that teach a male priesthood are strong and specific, not to mention what the church of the first century actually did.

Against that though, one may point to the verse that Dave G. cited and say that this is some blanket permission, etc., ignoring the other verses or calling them obsolete, or worse, an example of God or Paul having to give in to the standards of that society and that time! There's always some rationalization that can be used.


Most Protestant denominations are today split between conservative groupings and liberal ones. Not knowing your own orientation, I would be out of line to say to choose, for example, the traditional Lutheran ones over the liberal, modernist Lutheran ones, but you can easily check this out in the case of the Presbyterians or Baptists, or any other in your country.


Much like the Catholic church, but more ceremonial and without a Pope. Not what you are looking for, based upon your original post here.


It can be, but a little poking around online can overcome most of that. Every denomination or branch of a denomination has a website that outlines its beliefs and shows pictures of or names its leaders...and that is not to mention the info that is available from almost every local parish or congregation.

As usual, your responses are well thought out and nicely said.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

helmut

Member
Nov 26, 2007
1,844
353
Berlin
✟72,951.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
1 Timothy 3:11 doesn’t say that.

Where did you get that from?
From a theologican who knows Greek. 1.Tim 3:11 speaks of women, and is is rather unlike that wives are meant, so these women are female deacons.

PS: Made a pause, not by free will, but because of technical problems.
 
Upvote 0

helmut

Member
Nov 26, 2007
1,844
353
Berlin
✟72,951.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Quite true. There are many churches (not to mention individuals) who pick and choose which portions of Scripture are relevant to their life in twenty-first century culture.
And there are churches that pick and distort portions of scripture in order to get the result they wish: That women can not lead a church.

The range of techniques to achieve this is broad: from overlooking what is said in Gal 3:28 to invent a male name only to state that Junia (which was definite female) was a male "Junias", because "women cannot be apostles".

On top of this: Accuse those who take the Bible as it is of "picking and distorting".
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
From a theologican who knows Greek. 1.Tim 3:11 speaks of women, and is is rather unlike that wives are meant, so these women are female deacons.
No, they are deaconesses. The word you are referring to simply means a servant and can, therefore, refer to either position. They have very different functions in the church. Deaconesses, for one thing, are laypersons unlike Deacons who are ordained, can administer the sacraments, read the Gospel in worship services, and so on.
 
Upvote 0

helmut

Member
Nov 26, 2007
1,844
353
Berlin
✟72,951.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
... or that Priscilla taught Apollos with her husband and probably didn't actually do any of the teaching, which is an assumption.
... and this is an ill-founded assumption, for every time the couple is mentioned, Priska is named first, which indicates she was the leading part of them. She did at least 50% of the teaching, this is was Luke (in agreemenmt with Paul) indicates between the lines.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Strong in Him
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

helmut

Member
Nov 26, 2007
1,844
353
Berlin
✟72,951.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
No, they are deaconesses. The word you are referring to simply means a servant
No, I referred to Γυναῖκας, and that is "women (Acc.Pl.)". I know enough Greek to check up which word is there in the original NT.

It may mean "wives", but then one would expect an expressions as "their wives".

EDIT (PS): There is no word as "deaconesses" in 1.Tim 3:11, is there a translation that interprets this way, or how did you get this idea?
 
Upvote 0