A question to protestants

[Albion]

Even if women were NOT deacons, or overseers, in the early church, because they were used to a male society, that doesn't mean that God can't, and won't, call them to ordination today.

It depends on whether the Bible is one's arbiter, I'd have to say.

If it is NOT divine revelation, NOT God's word (as almost all churches say it is and point to the Bible's own testimony to that effect), then we mortals can believe just about anything we want.

 

[Strong in Him]

It depends on whether the Bible is one's arbiter, I'd have to say.

If it is NOT divine revelation, NOT God's word (as almost all churches say it is and point to the Bible's own testimony to that effect), then we mortals can believe just about anything we want.

I would guess that the Pharisees in Jesus' day would have said "God coming to earth as a human? That's not in Scripture; he's never done that before, so we reject it." Or "human beings can be temples of the Holy Spirit? No; Scripture and our tradition tell us that God lived in the temple - in the Holy of Holies that could only be entered once a year by special people."

Scripture often shows God working in new ways - and, what's more, through people who were the least likely. God even said through Isaiah that he would soon be doing a new thing for them.

 

[Albion]

I would guess that the Pharisees in Jesus' day would have said "God coming to earth as a human? That's not in Scripture; he's never done that before, so we reject it." Or "human beings can be temples of the Holy Spirit? No; Scripture and our tradition tell us that God lived in the temple - in the Holy of Holies that could only be entered once a year by special people."

Guess away, then. We can all speculate on what might have been in Scripture but is not.

 

[Strong in Him]

Guess away, then. We can all speculate on what might have been in Scripture but is not.

You've obviously missed my point. There was no incidence in the OT Scriptures of God becoming flesh, so the Pharisees could have said, "this isn't in Scripture; God becoming human didn't, and can't, happen; he can't work in this way today". Which is the same approach that you have to women becoming Vicars/Ministers; i.e "it's not in Scripture and didn't happen in the early church [debatable], so therefore God can't call women to this role today."

 

[Albion]

All right, but you compared two things that are not comparable. What the Pharisees might have said about the OT and it alone does not address anything we have been discussing about the Christian ministry.

 

[Strong in Him]

All right, but you compared two things that are not comparable. What the Pharisees might have said about the OT and it alone does not address anything we have been discussing about the Christian ministry.

It's the same principle though. God works in a new way, does a new thing or uses people that others don't expect him to use, and some people will say, "let's search our Scriptures to see if God has worked that way before - no; it can't be from him, then."

God has worked in new ways over the centuries.
Once, the tabernacle was very important to the Israelites, then the temple replaced it. Then God came to earth and was tabernacled among us, and can now live IN us.
Once, animal sacrifice atoned for sin; now we have forgiveness through the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.
Once, God spoke through prophets; people had to consult one to have a word from the Lord; now we can speak to God directly.
Once, the Bible was in Latin, was kept chained to a lectern and was available to only a few; now we have many different translations, in different formats and different languages, to reach as many people as possible.
Even in Judaism, things are changing; once women could not take part in the synagogue services but had to listen; now, women can be Rabbis.

 

[Albion]

God has worked in new ways over the centuries.

If that is outlined in Scripture, then yes. The change of Saturday to Sunday as the principle day of worship is an example. Both are standard at certain times, but the change is documented in Scripture. This is much different from any of us supposing that God must be in favor of keeping up with the times, etc., therefore we are going to do X because it just seems right according to contemporary social standards.

 

[Strong in Him]

If that is outlined in Scripture, then yes. The change of Saturday to Sunday as the principle day of worship is an example. Both are standard at certain times, but the change is documented in Scripture.

The point is that the Lord still works in new ways today. And just because they may have done things in certain ways in those days, doesn't mean that we have to follow that, or that certain Scriptural advice automatically applies to us too.

This is much different from any of us supposing that God must be in favor of keeping up with the times, etc., therefore we are going to do X because it just seems right according to contemporary social standards.

That's just it - it's got nothing at all to do with keeping up with social standards, and everything to do with God calling women to be ordained and serve him by Pastoring a congregation.
The problem is, that some people are never going to be able to accept that.

Some people sincerely believe that Scripture forbids women being members of the clergy. If that's what they believe, they have to follow it and go to a church which doesn't allow it. I believe they are wrong in their reading of God's word, but they have to follow what they believe it says; I wouldn't want to suggest otherwise. If a person sincerely believes that the Bible forbids having female Ministers etc, then they are going to interpret everything else in the light of that. Women who testify that God has called them? They wrong/deluded/feminists/disobedient; they must be, because God doesn't go against his word. Churches that have female Ministers? They're doomed; God - for some reason - is allowing them to continue in their sin. Churches with female Ministers are growing? They have been deceived too; we are in end times so this is not surprising.

But some people - and that includes a large number of men - don't agree that Scripture forbids women being Ministers, nor that God can't call them to this. So they look at what God is doing today - because he will not go against his word. Women who testify that God has called them? Ok, but has that call been tested, submitted to the Bishops, or whoever, and laid before the church? Yes? Praise God for calling these women to serve him. Churches that have female Ministers? They are allowing God to call whom he wishes, and giving the women the right to respond to his call on their lives. Churches with female Ministers are growing? Not surprising, they are following God's will.

Both sides rightly say that God will not go against his word. But one side say "so therefore the women are wrong - all of them", whereas the other side say, "so as this is what God IS doing today, he cannot have forbidden it in Scripture."

 

[helmut]

head of or member of the church's governing board, Sunday School superintendent, lay minister, and so on.

This does not answer my question. I pretty understood your distinction, but why should the people you listed above act without an ordination?

Ordained is just the act. But when we say "called" we do not mean that the person wanting to be a pastor simply has to show up and claim that they felt a call from God.

This does not only hold for pastors, it holds for "member of the church's governing board, Sunday School superintendent, lay minister, and so on" likewise. So again: Why do you not want to ordain these persons?

The church has to issue the call. That is evident in Scripture. It's a function of the "priesthood of all believers" that people refer to often. It doesn't mean that every one of us is a pastor/minister/priest, but that the authority resides in the congregation or classis, etc. which then delegates it to the individual.

In that point, we agree. There is too much left to the decision of the individual. We need (local) churches that ask questions like "We have 10 talented and blessed workers, should we not send one of them into the mission field?" or "The christian work X needs a new supervisor, should Mr. B not leave our ministry and go there?" (this is, of course, a simplification, but you will surely understand the issue).

But why anyone who is given special responsibility (preaching, editing the church's monthly info sheet, or whatsoever) should not be ordained (approved by the church, prayed or him, blessed by laying hands on), I still do not understand.

 

[helmut]

So if you are going to condemn women's ordination because you do not see it practised in Scripture or early church history; they, to be consistent, you also have to condemn the use of computers/technology, having Sunday school classes for the kids, the way Holy Communion is practised - and probably a umber of other things too.

There is a difference between things the early church did not because it was impossible to do them, like using computers, and things which could have been done, like Sunday schools, that were not done. The way the Table of the Lord (is suppose this is the correct translation of my fellows call Eucharist in Germany) is handled is a good example of changes that have taken place. The precise distinction between clergy and laiety is another instance.

 

[helmut]

Both sides rightly say that God will not go against his word. But one side say "so therefore the women are wrong - all of them", whereas the other side say, "so as this is what God IS doing today, he cannot have forbidden it in Scripture."

This is a dangerous line of arguments. Experience may give us an impulse to rethink - looking again into the Bible and check what Scripture really teaches, but "he cannot have" means we are following a pre-judice, not willing to obey Scripture if it doesn't say what we want to hear.

I feel closer to those who think women cannot preach, and remain in that error, than with those who let them preach because they take Scripture lightly (or "critically", or whatever this is labelled). I don't say you belong to the latter group, I only say your wording comes close to them.

 

[helmut]

God has worked in new ways over the centuries.

But all these new way were foretold: In the Torah, God promised prophets like Mose, so Elija and latter prophets were foretold (though the prophet like Mose came later), the new covenant was foretold.

As to our situation, the next change will come when Jesus returns.

Once, the Bible was in Latin, was kept chained to a lectern and was available to only a few; now we have many different translations, in different formats and different languages, to reach as many people as possible.
Even in Judaism, things are changing; once women could not take part in the synagogue services but had to listen; now, women can be Rabbis.

This is more to the point. God never said that the Bible should be chained and only used in a translation unintelligible to the people. This is a change that reverts only a former change (banning the laity from the Bible because reading the Bible lead to "heresies").

 

[Strong in Him]

This is a dangerous line of arguments. Experience may give us an impulse to rethink - looking again into the Bible and check what Scripture really teaches, but "he cannot have" means we are following a pre-judice, not willing to obey Scripture if it doesn't say what we want to hear.

I feel closer to those who think women cannot preach, and remain in that error, than with those who let them preach because they take Scripture lightly (or "critically", or whatever this is labelled). I don't say you belong to the latter group, I only say your wording comes close to them.

But this IS what God is doing; calling women to be ordained.
And as he will never go against his own word, then it cannot be that there is teaching in the Bible that forbids this.
And, from these forums, it IS a fact that those who cannot accept that women can be called to ordination tell them that they are wrong, deluded or disobedient.

There are some who believe that women shouldn't even be allowed to preach the Gospel, and, when I have shared my own experience of being called and having been a preacher for 12 years, flatly deny that God called me at all and that I am sinning.
Why it is a sin to preach the Good News in response to the Great Commission, or as Mary Magdalene and others did, has not really been explained.

 

[helmut]

But this IS what God is doing; calling women to be ordained.

As you certainly know, I don't deny that. It's the line of arguments I am discomfort with.

In Church history, we can see arguments like "God sent visions about Mary and the saints, so it is His will that we pray to them".
While experience is a reason to re-think one's exegesis, it is not the base. The base has to be "Scripture explained by Scripture".

 

[SwordmanJr]

Why would anyone think that they must make a choice after struggling with trying to figure out which man-made branch of thought and belief they MUST choose? Why worry about having to follow any of them? Did the Lord command in His word that we must all make a choice as to which proverbial bandwagon to ride? Why ride any of them?

Look, we ALL are going to answer as to what we chose to believe in this life. Why pile onto your plate the embarrassment of having chosen any one of the fallible systems as the defining authority for YOUR beliefs?

Why not simply be a follower of Christ Jesus, looking only to Him as your ultimate source. It's ok to listen to what others have to say, but then lay it all down at the feet of Jesus and see what He kicks aside as worthless.

Once you grow into a mature believer who eats the meat, then 1 John 2:27 becomes an even more relevant statement and direction to ultimately seek the Spirit of the Lord for the grounding of your personally held beliefs. We ALL have them, although many will say otherwise, unknowingly with tongue in cheek.

This drives home the fact that you won't be able to stand before the Lord and say, "But Lord, that priest over there said that he had the power to call you down for daily sacrifice," or "But Lord, that pastor over there said that faith plus works is how we earn salvation..."

See my point?

Jr

 

[helmut]

Why would anyone think that they must make a choice after struggling with trying to figure out which man-made branch of thought and belief they MUST choose? Why worry about having to follow any of them?

...

Why not simply be a follower of Christ Jesus, looking only to Him as your ultimate source.

Sounds good, but in practice that means that instead to follow what other say Jesus has said, one follows a self-made interpretation of what Jesus has said.

Jesus made women to "evangelists" who told the Apostles (the Eleven!) about His resurrection. So it is OK to ordain women to teach the gospel. Does this mean that anyone who opposes ordained females to be one that does not follow Jesus?

One person alone is not capable to fully understand Scripture, unless he is fluent in Ancient Greek and Hebrew (and preferably ancient Aramaic as well), has a profound knowledge of the historical backgrounds of the Bible, always recognizes parallels and contrasts between Biblical passages, ...

We need one anther to help us understand the Words of Jesus and the Apostles, and even a completer layman in historical and "theological" disciplines will have some insight from the Spirit experts should listen to. This is part of "communion of saints" or "the universal priesthood".

 

[helmut]

Why not simply be a follower of Christ Jesus, looking only to Him as your ultimate source.

Sounds good, but in practice this means the ultimate source is not Jesus directly, but a self-made interpretation of Jesus.

It is good to check this with interpretations of fellow Christians what Jesus said.

Once you grow into a mature believer who eats the meat, then 1 John 2:27 becomes an even more relevant statement and direction to ultimately seek the Spirit of the Lord for the grounding of your personally held beliefs.

It is a difference whether you tell this to matured Christians or to new believers. A quite large deal of teaching of men stems from people who thought to listen directly to Jesus, but were deceived by their hearts, whether as inner light or as wrong assumption over what Jesus meant with His words.

This drives home the fact that you won't be able to stand before the Lord and say, "But Lord, that priest over there said that he had the power to call you down for daily sacrifice," or "But Lord, that pastor over there said that faith plus works is how we earn salvation..."

We should not take words of pastors or other church leaders as the words of God, bur we are not just individuals standing alone before God. There is communion of saints, you can (and should) seek help from others, whether experts (in old languages, history, ...) that help to overcome popular misunderstandings, or a Christian who got some insight from the Holy Spirit. This is one reason why we should not leaver the meetings of the Church (Heb 10:25).

 

[SwordmanJr]

Sounds good, but in practice that means that instead to follow what other say Jesus has said, one follows a self-made interpretation of what Jesus has said.

So, are you saying that one is better than the others?

Additionally, the fallacy in your analysis of what I said is the conclusion to which you gravitated. Failure to follow after the teachings and rudiments of man-made denominations does not automatically lead to personal, self-made interpretations. Do you not believe what scripture teaches in 1 John 2:27?

"But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him."

Jesus made women to "evangelists" who told the Apostles (the Eleven!) about His resurrection. So it is OK to ordain women to teach the gospel. Does this mean that anyone who opposes ordained females to be one that does not follow Jesus?

You really are going off the deep end with trying to legitimize the idea that not following one of the man-made (c)hurch organizations and/or denominations is a matter of being a free radical where all paths lead to heresy. Is that the extent of your experience and understanding? Have you become so programmed in your thinking that the bandwagon life is the only life there is?

Do you not realize the vast distinction between all those man-made (c)churches out there, and the (C)hurch, which is the TRUE body of Christ Jesus, and Him as her Head? Unbelievers routinely enter into and warm the seats within those (c)hurches out there, but the (C)hurch is the one body where no unbeliever may enter.

One person alone is not capable to fully understand Scripture, unless he is fluent in Ancient Greek and Hebrew (and preferably ancient Aramaic as well), has a profound knowledge of the historical backgrounds of the Bible, always recognizes parallels and contrasts between Biblical passages, ...

Then it sounds like you don't believe scripture in what it says in places like 1 John. Your being in those (c)hurch organizations appears to have corrupted your own knowledge of the Bible, and your trust in the authority behind what it says. One thing those man-made organizations do is to twist scripture away from what it actually says, such as teaching about an alleged requirement tithe. All those false teachers of that doctrine fail to mention that the OT tithe never had anything to do with monetary, earned wages. Many institutional followers love talking about how faithful they are at tithing, and yet they have little to no understanding of what the Bible REALLY teaches along that line.

So, if you're going to try and make the case for following after men and their pet doctrines as opposed to allowing the Spirit of the Lord to instruct and teach as is promised in 1 John, I will follow the Lord and His inspired word...and yes, I do delve into the Greek and Hebrew from which the Bible was translated.

We need one anther to help us understand the Words of Jesus and the Apostles, and even a completer layman in historical and "theological" disciplines will have some insight from the Spirit experts should listen to. This is part of "communion of saints" or "the universal priesthood".

I agree that we all need one another in fellowship, but to say that we must remain bleeting sheeple under the tutelage of men who may or may not be right, and to follow them blindly, no. If that's what you're saying, then no. I choose to seek the Lord and His wisdom and instruction above that of men. I'm sure there are many "interpretations" from men out there of that passage in 1 John, where they will twist it into a mangled heap, relegating it to some other meaning that does not remove any of the limelight from them.

I never said there's no value in what men may teach others. The difference is that I accept responsibility for what I choose to believe by laying it all at the Feet of the Most High for Him to sift through and cast aside what is not of Him. If you're not doing that, then that's your problem, and only YOU will answer for it.

Jr

 

[helmut]

Additionally, the fallacy in your analysis of what I said is the conclusion to which you gravitated. Failure to follow after the teachings and rudiments of man-made denominations does not automatically lead to personal, self-made interpretations. Do you not believe what scripture teaches in 1 John 2:27?

I do, and because English is not my mother tongue, I know that the "you" in there is Plural, so the ones addressed are not an individual, but a congregation. It is always a body that is guided. Do you believe that, or do you prefer to stick to your own, English based, interpretation?

You really are going off the deep end with trying to legitimize the idea that not following one of the man-made (c)hurch organizations and/or denominations is a matter of being a free radical where all paths lead to heresy.

This is the way I understood your posting (of course, with: that anything which does not lead away from Churches is wrong), therefore I asked you. I told you one of the teachings of the NT (confirmed by what Jesus did), and if you really believes that deviation from Jesus in this point (i.e. non ordaining women) means not following Jesus. You did not answer it, and I can't perceive how broad or wide your view is. It sounds like "all churches are wrong, but I'm right, do like me".

Do you not realize the vast distinction between all those man-made (c)churches out there, and the (C)hurch, which is the TRUE body of Christ Jesus, and Him as her Head?

I know the difference. The churches out there are a concretion of the Church on a local level. As the churches in revelation, they are not perfect, some so bad that one should consider leaving them. But being outside any church, just an individual before God and nothing more, is against Scripture. Full-stop.

Then it sounds like you don't believe scripture in what it says in places like 1 John.

As I said: I believe what he is saying: Those who read and hear the letter (one reading, the others listening to him, all them addressed by "you", not "thou") are guided in the Spirit and have no need to be taught by John. Yet he writes this letter. What does this tell us? Certainly not we should leave the circle of Christians we are in.

One thing those man-made organizations do is to twist scripture away from what it actually says

And you are free from that? Am I wrong when I suspect you read the "you in 1.Jn 2:27 as singular, though it is plural in the original?

All those false teachers of that doctrine fail to mention that the OT tithe never had anything to do with monetary, earned wages.

Goods given to the tabernacle, some of then in order to feed the priest. What does this regulation in a society with a great deal of barter economy mean in a 100&% money-based economy like we have today?

Many institutional followers love talking about how faithful they are at tithing

When I changed from the state church into a free church, one of the elders admonished me to tithe. I had previously decided to give them approx. 10% of my income, but after being almost pressed that way I decided to give only 40 Deutschmarks than 50. After a while, when I saw that tithing was not such a theme for this church (only of the elder, who happened to be the one who did the financial part of leading), I gave 50 DM. Long ago, but this may help you to understand me, I'm not as you read into my lines.

but to say that we must remain bleeting sheeple under the tutelage of men who may or may not be right, and to follow them blindly

Did I say this? No.

I'm sure there are many "interpretations" from men out there of that passage in 1 John, where they will twist it into a mangled heap, relegating it to some other meaning that does not remove any of the limelight from them.

Changing a plural into a singular is definitely twisting.

The difference is that I accept responsibility for what I choose to believe by laying it all at the Feet of the Most High for Him to sift through and cast aside what is not of Him

It is certainly not from Him to send distrust into every church and their teachings. Of course we have the responsibility to check everything and let it be sifted by the Lord, but it has to be the Lord and not what we think the Lord might say. To see that difference is nothing a newborn Christian can do, he has to be nurtured with milk, then harder food, and this will be given to him from fellow Christians.

 

[Albion]

Even if women were NOT deacons, or overseers, in the early church, because they were used to a male society, that doesn't mean that God can't, and won't, call them to ordination today.

In order to take that view, a person has to also say either that God has changed his mind OR that the Bible is not the revealed word of God after all. Most of us cannot do that. And if we could, what from the Bible could not be set aside using the same reasoning?

We do, use and practice many things that were not done, or used, by the early church - like computers, av systems, electric organs, Sunday School and so on. If you're going to use the argument of "we can only do what the early church did", you'd have to drop all these things for a start; where do you see any of these in Scripture, or in use by the early church?

That is different. In the ordination case, we have strong evidence from both Scripture and the history of the early church that X was the practice and belief.

You want to set that aside for one reason or another, but then you equate doing that to something else--the idea that if something is not mentioned in Scripture, we cannot do it.

Those two are not at all the same concept, not the same meaning.

Then there is ordination itself which is not mentioned.

Not the ceremony, no, but the calling of someone to the office and the qualifications necessary for anyone to be called are.

Where is it written that Jesus said, "do this in memory of me - after you've spent 3 years at Bible college, 1 year as a deacon and then been ordained"?

Strawman argument. I don't recall anyone saying that a certain college degree or course of study is a Scriptural requirement, nor is it relevant to the issue of the sex of the candidate anyway.