Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
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.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.
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.
No idea what that is. I think it’s more applied sanctification than assuming justification w/o moving forward.That sounds much like the approach of the Church of Christ, Scientist.
No idea what that is. I think it’s more applied sanctification than assuming justification w/o moving forward.
Sounds Gnostic Flesh at the cross to achieve sanctification is more in tune for growth.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.
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.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.
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.
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?
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.
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.1 Timothy 3:11 doesn’t say that.
Where did you get that from?
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.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.
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.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.
... 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.... or that Priscilla taught Apollos with her husband and probably didn't actually do any of the teaching, which is an assumption.
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.No, they are deaconesses. The word you are referring to simply means a servant
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?