A question to protestants

[prodromos]

I agree. I have no desire to harm you in any way and that means goading or anything else.

You say you are correctly exegesising the Scriptures but that just is not the case my sister.

The Scriptures have been posted which say clearly that MEN are to be Bishops and deacons. The only way for any woman to be a pastor or deacon is to INCORRECTLY understand what God said.

Then you said something that kind of tells me where you are coming from.

YOu said...........

"It was not God saying this, it was Paul. Paul wrote the letter and said "I do not allow ...."; not "hear God's word and command, HE does not allow ..."."

Again, I do not want to offend you but you are completely in error and that IMO is why your understanding of the requirements for being a pastor is not understood.
​

GOD WROTE THE BIBLE. One of the men responsible for a large portion of the New Testament, the apostle Paul, wrote in 2 Tim. 3:16-17...…...…...
“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work".

The corect and in fact ONLY exegesis possible is that ALL Scripture is “given by inspiration of God” (theopneustos, literally “God-breathed”). God, through His Holy Spirit, inspired men to record His message; and therefore it has divine authority for doctrine, for reproof, for correction and for instruction in righteousness.

God inspired men from diverse backgrounds and generations to record His message for mankind. For a period of more than 1,500 years, God inspired prophets, judges, farmers, shepherds, fishermen, doctors and kings to record His thoughts, much like a manager might dictate instructions or a letter to an assistant or secretary. At times God allowed the human writers to use their own words or terminology, but all received divine inspiration from God—who is really the One who wrote the Bible.

I hope this helps your understanding.

​

Aren't you required to give a reference when you copy and paste from another source?

 

[Major1]

Aren't you required to give a reference when you copy and paste from another source?

Certainly I can do that for you. Sometimes I forget such things as it does not change the validity of the post.

Who Wrote the Bible?

 

[Major1]

That applies to you too.



No, it's got nothing to do with doctrine. Allowing women to be ordained, or not, is a matter of church practice, cannot save, or damn, us, is not written in any creed and for most Christians has nothing at all to do with how they live their Christian lives.
Acceptance, or rejection, of this does not stop someone from repenting, being filled with the Spirit, given gifts and made a child of God.



A church governing body who has allowed a woman to be ordained, recognising her call, has nothing to do with how an ordinary believer conducts him, or her, self in the church. WE are the church - Christians who meet in special church buildings, schools, homes, tents, hospital chapels, army bases - and even on this forum.



Paul said "I do not allow A womAn to teach ..... SHE must be silent" - singular; how is that not fitting the context?



Where did Jesus say that again?
Where did he say "I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it - unless a woman is in charge?"
Or "the Holy Spirit will lead you into all truth - the truth that no woman is ever to be ordained in the church - ever"?



Never thought you did.



I'm not upset with you. I disagree with what you are saying; there's a difference.



That is the whole issue in these debates - whether or not those few words in a few verse were requirements, or commands by God; I don't believe they were.
In the OT, God made it VERY clear what his commands, his word and his covenant were. He told the Israelites to write them on their foreheads and tie them around their belt. He promised to bless those who kept his law and punish those who disobeyed it, and that is what happened. The nation had no excuses for not being aware what God had commanded them through Moses.
Adam had no excuse either; God had told him directly what he could and couldn't do.
So you would think that God would make this "command" about women VERY clear to us, in words that we could not argue with. Yet Jesus didn't say anything at all on the subject. Jesus, who was God and came to show us what God is like and teach us his will, did not forbid women from doing things that only men were thought to be allowed to do. He allowed them to sit at his feet, like male student Rabbis, and learn from him, he allowed them to take his word to men and teach them about him, and chose a woman to be the first witness to the resurrection.
Jesus, who was God, liberated women; the church is trying to imprison them again; shame.



There you are; another implication that if we don't read Scripture in the way you think Scripture should be read, we're being disobedient/self seeking.

You said...…...
"That is the whole issue in these debates - whether or not those few words in a few verse were requirements, or commands by God; I don't believe they were."

And THAT is the center of the disagreement. YOU do not accept the Word of God and instead want to do what YOU want to do.

YOU want to preach and YOU are going to do it no matter what God said. It is just that simple my sister.

 

[Strong in Him]

You said...…...
"That is the whole issue in these debates - whether or not those few words in a few verse were requirements, or commands by God; I don't believe they were."

And THAT is the center of the disagreement. YOU do not accept the Word of God and instead want to do what YOU want to do.

No, it's not the centre of the disagreement.
I do not accept that in those few verses Paul was passing on God's commands - and you have done nothing to show me otherwise.
Like I said, why didn't Jesus teach this, if it was so important? Why didn't God explain it very simply and unambiguously so that there could be no mistake about it? Why didn't he say that any woman who tries to be ordained, will be sinning and disobeying my word?

That is very far from saying that I reject the whole word of God.
And I'm not ordained, so this is nothing to do with what I want to do.

YOU want to preach and YOU are going to do it no matter what God said. It is just that simple my sister.

Er no, it's not that simple at all.
I didn't want to preach, I had not thoughts of preaching and, as a matter of fact, I told God that it was something I would never be able to do.
Do I want to preach now? Hmmm, let's see; carry on preaching, with the study and sermon writing, carry on getting abuse on here from people who judge me to be disobedient and self seeking, or give it all up, lose the stress and gain more spare time?
Give up something that God has called me to do because a few people, who I have never met, in another country, on the end of a computer think that I should and are dictating what I should do, or carry on with something that is challenging and not an easy option, but which I nevertheless believe to be the right one?
Obey God or obey men? Tough choice - not.

There's absolutely no contest.
If I wasn't certain that God had called me to do this, that he gave me the ability to do it and got me through the training - I wouldn't do it.
Lay preachers are volunteers. I don't get paid for giving my time to prepare a whole act of worship, lead it and deliver a sermon to, what might be, only 14 people - and in one local church they're not even into double figures. I don't get monetary reward for all that work, only to have people say "I didn't like the hymns you chose", as they walk out to get their coffee. I don't get recognition, a medal or Brownie points for coming on here to be called a disobedient/deluded woman.
Give it up tomorrow? Sure; no problem - IF God told me to. I've been licensed for 12 years, and di 3 years training before that - he hasn't told me yet.

YOU don't accept that; you don't have to. You don't know me and are not my Minster.

 

[Major1]

No, it's not the centre of the disagreement.
I do not accept that in those few verses Paul was passing on God's commands - and you have done nothing to show me otherwise.
Like I said, why didn't Jesus teach this, if it was so important? Why didn't God explain it very simply and unambiguously so that there could be no mistake about it? Why didn't he say that any woman who tries to be ordained, will be sinning and disobeying my word?

That is very far from saying that I reject the whole word of God.
And I'm not ordained, so this is nothing to do with what I want to do.



Er no, it's not that simple at all.
I didn't want to preach, I had not thoughts of preaching and, as a matter of fact, I told God that it was something I would never be able to do.
Do I want to preach now? Hmmm, let's see; carry on preaching, with the study and sermon writing, carry on getting abuse on here from people who judge me to be disobedient and self seeking, or give it all up, lose the stress and gain more spare time?
Give up something that God has called me to do because a few people, who I have never met, in another country, on the end of a computer think that I should and are dictating what I should do, or carry on with something that is challenging and not an easy option, but which I nevertheless believe to be the right one?
Obey God or obey men? Tough choice - not.

There's absolutely no contest.
If I wasn't certain that God had called me to do this, that he gave me the ability to do it and got me through the training - I wouldn't do it.
Lay preachers are volunteers. I don't get paid for giving my time to prepare a whole act of worship, lead it and deliver a sermon to, what might be, only 14 people - and in one local church they're not even into double figures. I don't get monetary reward for all that work, only to have people say "I didn't like the hymns you chose", as they walk out to get their coffee. I don't get recognition, a medal or Brownie points for coming on here to be called a disobedient/deluded woman.
Give it up tomorrow? Sure; no problem - IF God told me to. I've been licensed for 12 years, and di 3 years training before that - he hasn't told me yet.

YOU don't accept that; you don't have to. You don't know me and are not my Minster.

Of course it is the center of the problem.

My dear sister, by YOUR OWN words you said...…………...
"I do not accept that in those few verses Paul was passing on God's commands - and you have done nothing to show me otherwise."

If that is not a rejection of the Word of God, then what in the world is it??????

Then you asked...…………….
" Why didn't he say (Jesus) that any woman who tries to be ordained, will be sinning and disobeying my word?"

Because He did not need to would be my 1st thought.

Then why would Jesus need to say anything about WHO would be leading the church because the church was still a "MYSTERY" until Paul would explain it.

You need to understand my sister that Jesus taught the Apostles for 3 and 1/2 years what He wanted them to teach to the world. What THEY said and wrote is what God in Christ wanted said and wrote therefor everything in the Bible is the WORD of God.

We can not pick and choose what we want to accept and reject what we do not like.

Deuteronomy 4:2 is a clear command……….
"Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you."

There is NO command in Scriptures that say a woman can not TEACH, SING, PRAY or SERVE the Lord in His church. There is however a command that women do not teach men and that is because woman was the first to sin.

Now I would say this to you. If you personally ask the men in your assembly if they do not object to your TEACHING them, and they approve, then that would be Biblically acceptable.

NO, I am not your minister. I am only an old country boy from Alabama who has read the Bible and accepts it as it is.

 

[Strong in Him]

Of course it is the center of the problem.

My dear sister, by YOUR OWN words you said...…………...
"I do not accept that in those few verses Paul was passing on God's commands - and you have done nothing to show me otherwise."

If that is not a rejection of the Word of God, then what in the world is it??????

Of course it's not a rejection of the word.
Rejecting the word would be saying, "I know that God, through Paul, was commanding women to be silent and not teach; I don't agree, so I'm never reading that verse."

I accept that Paul said "I do not permit a woman to speak ...."; I do not accept that this means, "God commands that a woman must never teach, preach in church or be ordained."
There is a huge difference.

Then you asked...…………….
" Why didn't he say (Jesus) that any woman who tries to be ordained, will be sinning and disobeying my word?"

Because He did not need to would be my 1st thought.

I suggest, then, that it wasn't that important.
Jesus said that he would build his church, Matthew 16:18. He also said that the church has a role to play in sorting out disputes, Matthew 18:15-17.
If it was God's will and command that this church should be structured in a certain way, and that women were excluded from leadership in it, or allowed to preach the Gospel; he would have said so. Jesus was God in the flesh; he spoke the words his Father gave him and taught us, by his words and actions, about God and God's will. Jesus never said in his words, "women can't do ......", and he certainly didn't show it in his actions. He allowed women to speak his word and be his witnesses.

Then why would Jesus need to say anything about WHO would be leading the church

If the claim being made is that God's will and command is that women must never preach the Gospel, nor lead over men; why wouldn't Jesus tell us his Father's will?
Jesus was God incarnate. God on earth - the ideal opportunity to tell us, plainly, what he wants, what we should be doing and how we can serve him. Jesus valued, respected and elevated women; he certainly never said "God's command is that they never be allowed to preach."

You need to understand my sister that Jesus taught the Apostles for 3 and 1/2 years what He wanted them to teach to the world.

I understand that very well; thank you.
He also appeared to the 11 disciples for 40 days after the resurrection teaching them.

What THEY said and wrote is what God in Christ wanted said

PAUL wrote those words in 1 Timothy, and he was not taught personally by Jesus.

therefor everything in the Bible is the WORD of God.

The Bible is certainly the word of God.
But that does not mean that everything that they wrote - some of which might only have been for those churches in those situations - has to apply to us also.
Paul wrote about treating slaves kindly - we do not have slaves.
Paul wrote that any woman who was widowed under the age of 60 did not deserve financial assistance, because they were gossiping busybodies, and needed to marry again, 1 Timothy 5:11-15. If you believe this is a command for us, you must tell any woman widowed by war that it's tough and she's on her own. My feeling is that neither you, nor your church, would do that.
Paul wrote that women should not wear gold, pearls, expensive clothes or have braided hair, 1 Timothy 2:9-10. If that is a command for us today, why do people exchange gold wedding rings in church, with the bride very often having curly/plaited hair and wearing an expensive dress? What is "expensive" anyway; why does God's word not give a limit to the amount of money we should spend on a dress?
Paul wrote that it is a disgrace for men to have long hair, 1 Corinthians 11:14. Not today it isn't - and how long is long anyway? Why doesn't the Bible say?

I am not trying to be petty or flippant. I am trying to show that if you believe that everything written in the Bible is the word of God and for us today, you need to be consistent in your application.

We can not pick and choose what we want to accept and reject what we do not like.

Good job I'm not doing that, then.

Deuteronomy 4:2 is a clear command……….
"Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you."

This is a good example of what I have been saying; who were these words written to?
These were God's commands to THEM; are they necessarily God's commands to us to? Do you keep the Jewish law, eat certain foods, wear clothes made from only one fibre, treat certain people as being unclean and stone to death anyone who does not keep the Sabbath? Those words are written in Scripture, you say that everything in the Bible is the word of God (implication, we have to obey it); so do you?

You have not shown that Paul's words in 1 Tim 2:12 ARE a command from God, far less that it is a command that applies to us hundreds of years later.

There is NO command in Scriptures that say a woman can not TEACH, SING, PRAY or SERVE the Lord in His church.

No, but that's how some interpret 1 Tim 2:12 - that a woman should be silent; backed up also by 1 Corinthians 14:34
There is NO command in Scripture that women cannot and must not be ordained.

There is however a command that women do not teach men and that is because woman was the first to sin.

No, there is a verse which says that Paul did not allow a woman to teach - even though Priscilla taught Apollos when they were all in Corinth. If he was being consistent, he should have rejected Apollos as an apostle, because he was taught by a woman.

And that verse does not say that women can't teach because Eve was the first to sin. Sin came into the world through Adam anyway, Paul said so, Romans 5:12. I would explain this further but you'll only say that I'm trying to rationalise things - explain away the verses I don't like.

Now I would say this to you. If you personally ask the men in your assembly if they do not object to your TEACHING them, and they approve, then that would be Biblically acceptable.

Oh, so even though you have just told me, in detail, that everything in the Bible is the word of God and a command to be obeyed; if women get men's permission to teach - and therefore disobey the word - that's ok??

When I was accredited as a lay preacher, the other preachers, clergy and then eventually the church members were all asked if they would accept and support my ministry. They all said 'yes'. I would guess that anyone who disagrees with female preachers goes, or has gone, to a different denomination; one that doesn't accept them. Also, the preaching plan for the quarter is published in advance - people know when I am preaching and they are free to stay away if they wish.

And it might sound silly, but what do you regard as "teaching"? If teaching is defined as telling someone something they didn't know before, how do I know what people do, or don't, know before they sit down to listen to a sermon? Biblical facts and historical background can be found in commentaries - which incidentally are usually written by men. I do not make them up; they are available for anyone to buy/borrow and study.
I also never tell people that they HAVE to agree with what I am saying; I usually encourage them to listen to God and then go away and re read the passage for themselves.
As nearly everyone in our church is older than me and were listening to sermons before I was even born, in what way do I teach them?

 

[Major1]

Of course it's not a rejection of the word.
Rejecting the word would be saying, "I know that God, through Paul, was commanding women to be silent and not teach; I don't agree, so I'm never reading that verse."

I accept that Paul said "I do not permit a woman to speak ...."; I do not accept that this means, "God commands that a woman must never teach, preach in church or be ordained."
There is a huge difference.



I suggest, then, that it wasn't that important.
Jesus said that he would build his church, Matthew 16:18. He also said that the church has a role to play in sorting out disputes, Matthew 18:15-17.
If it was God's will and command that this church should be structured in a certain way, and that women were excluded from leadership in it, or allowed to preach the Gospel; he would have said so. Jesus was God in the flesh; he spoke the words his Father gave him and taught us, by his words and actions, about God and God's will. Jesus never said in his words, "women can't do ......", and he certainly didn't show it in his actions. He allowed women to speak his word and be his witnesses.



If the claim being made is that God's will and command is that women must never preach the Gospel, nor lead over men; why wouldn't Jesus tell us his Father's will?
Jesus was God incarnate. God on earth - the ideal opportunity to tell us, plainly, what he wants, what we should be doing and how we can serve him. Jesus valued, respected and elevated women; he certainly never said "God's command is that they never be allowed to preach."



I understand that very well; thank you.
He also appeared to the 11 disciples for 40 days after the resurrection teaching them.



PAUL wrote those words in 1 Timothy, and he was not taught personally by Jesus.



The Bible is certainly the word of God.
But that does not mean that everything that they wrote - some of which might only have been for those churches in those situations - has to apply to us also.
Paul wrote about treating slaves kindly - we do not have slaves.
Paul wrote that any woman who was widowed under the age of 60 did not deserve financial assistance, because they were gossiping busybodies, and needed to marry again, 1 Timothy 5:11-15. If you believe this is a command for us, you must tell any woman widowed by war that it's tough and she's on her own. My feeling is that neither you, nor your church, would do that.
Paul wrote that women should not wear gold, pearls, expensive clothes or have braided hair, 1 Timothy 2:9-10. If that is a command for us today, why do people exchange gold wedding rings in church, with the bride very often having curly/plaited hair and wearing an expensive dress? What is "expensive" anyway; why does God's word not give a limit to the amount of money we should spend on a dress?
Paul wrote that it is a disgrace for men to have long hair, 1 Corinthians 11:14. Not today it isn't - and how long is long anyway? Why doesn't the Bible say?

I am not trying to be petty or flippant. I am trying to show that if you believe that everything written in the Bible is the word of God and for us today, you need to be consistent in your application.



Good job I'm not doing that, then.



This is a good example of what I have been saying; who were these words written to?
These were God's commands to THEM; are they necessarily God's commands to us to? Do you keep the Jewish law, eat certain foods, wear clothes made from only one fibre, treat certain people as being unclean and stone to death anyone who does not keep the Sabbath? Those words are written in Scripture, you say that everything in the Bible is the word of God (implication, we have to obey it); so do you?

You have not shown that Paul's words in 1 Tim 2:12 ARE a command from God, far less that it is a command that applies to us hundreds of years later.



No, but that's how some interpret 1 Tim 2:12 - that a woman should be silent; backed up also by 1 Corinthians 14:34
There is NO command in Scripture that women cannot and must not be ordained.



No, there is a verse which says that Paul did not allow a woman to teach - even though Priscilla taught Apollos when they were all in Corinth. If he was being consistent, he should have rejected Apollos as an apostle, because he was taught by a woman.

And that verse does not say that women can't teach because Eve was the first to sin. Sin came into the world through Adam anyway, Paul said so, Romans 5:12. I would explain this further but you'll only say that I'm trying to rationalise things - explain away the verses I don't like.



Oh, so even though you have just told me, in detail, that everything in the Bible is the word of God and a command to be obeyed; if women get men's permission to teach - and therefore disobey the word - that's ok??

When I was accredited as a lay preacher, the other preachers, clergy and then eventually the church members were all asked if they would accept and support my ministry. They all said 'yes'. I would guess that anyone who disagrees with female preachers goes, or has gone, to a different denomination; one that doesn't accept them. Also, the preaching plan for the quarter is published in advance - people know when I am preaching and they are free to stay away if they wish.

And it might sound silly, but what do you regard as "teaching"? If teaching is defined as telling someone something they didn't know before, how do I know what people do, or don't, know before they sit down to listen to a sermon? Biblical facts and historical background can be found in commentaries - which incidentally are usually written by men. I do not make them up; they are available for anyone to buy/borrow and study.
I also never tell people that they HAVE to agree with what I am saying; I usually encourage them to listen to God and then go away and re read the passage for themselves.
As nearly everyone in our church is older than me and were listening to sermons before I was even born, in what way do I teach them?

Way, way too long of a post and too many questions included for me to comment on.

Again, I said and say again, you will do what YOU want to do no matter what the Scriptures say.

In your long responses you are doing nothing but rationalizing and excusing what you have decided to do.

I will once again say to you that many women excel in gifts of hospitality, mercy, teaching, evangelism, and helping/serving. Much of the ministry of the local church depends on women. In fact there would be NO church without woman.

Women in the church are not restricted from public praying or teaching, only from having spiritual teaching authority over men. The Bible nowhere restricts women from exercising the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Women, just as much as men, are called to minister to others, to demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit, and to proclaim the gospel to the lost by witnessing.

The actual truth is really very simple. God has ordained that only men are to serve in positions of spiritual teaching authority in the church. This is not because men are necessarily better teachers or because women are inferior or less intelligent (which is not the case). It is simply the way God designed the church to function.

If you choose to reject what the Scriptures then as I have said, do what you want to do.

I am not your judge. You will not answer to me sister.

 

[Strong in Him]

Way, way too long of a post and too many questions included for me to comment on.

It's a shame that you can write long posts but not take the time to comment on mine; suggests to me that maybe you have no answers?

Again, I said and say again, you will do what YOU want to do no matter what the Scriptures say.

Again I say, and say again; you are wrong.
Did you even read what I said about not wanting to preach or seeking it? Or the fact that I do what I do willingly and free of charge?
Believe me, the easy option would be to give up and go to a church where little is expected of me, beyond a bit of flower arranging and teaching the kids. Then I'd have to answer to God for disobeying my calling.

In your long responses you are doing nothing but rationalizing and excusing what you have decided to do.

And I'm afraid that you are just showing that you consider exegesis - a legitimate and widely practised Bible tool - to be a way of "explaining away" verses, or maybe making them more palatable. You're wrong, but again, so be it.

I am not your judge. You will not answer to me sister.

Thank God for that - literally.

 

[CaspianSails]

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?[/QUOTE]

Well there are those who adjust faith and doctrine to culture and those who stand with traditional faith and doctrine. You may find that among protestant denominations, there really is not such thing as a monolithic protestant church, those who practice modernity are the minority but growing as more and more congregations move from traditional teaching towards teaching and doctrine that sound good to them fulfilling the words of Paul to Timothy, "For the time will come when men will not tolerate sound doctrine, but with itching ears they will gather around themselves teachers to suit their own desires." One can argue historical context here but then one must set aside other scriptures to do so. The rise of feminism and matriarchy does not help. When we turn from the scripture to pacify social practice of the day we lose the truth and when we lose the truth we lose freedom. The more important issue is to be in Christ. Christ is in the believer and the believer needs to be in Christ. The goal of the Christian and in fact of the Holy Spirit which indwells the Christian is for our self to diminish and our Lord, Christ, to increase so that our life is for His glory alone.

 

[Helmut-WK]

Well there are those who adjust faith and doctrine to culture and those who stand with traditional faith and doctrine.

Sometimes traditional doctrine has adjusted faith to the spirit of some old age, and those who cling to traditional doctrine in that point cling to such an adjustment and refuse to return to scripture.

The "clear" passage quoted in the starting post also teaches that women will be saved by child-bearing (v.15). So a young man who likes an unbelieving girl can safely marry her and get children, for she will be saved by child-bearing? Is that passage really that clear?

And what about the other verses in the Bible that have to be adjusted to conform with this interpretation? Like the mention of women who tell the church the will of God out of a gift of prophecy given to them by the Spirit? They are mentioned in a letter of Paul (!), and in Acts, in a context here it is sure Paul knew about them.

What is worse: to be cautious about the interpretation of an unclear passage, or to use that passage as "clear" evidence and ignore passages that are certainly clear?

 

[BobRyan]

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?

A. Sola Scriptura is the right answer. Christ uses it in Mark 7:6-13 and we see it in Acts 17:11. This is irrefutable.

B. You are right that the Protestants are in multiple denominations and doctrine varies from group to group...But you should know that just as time eroded/evolved Catholic doctrine - so time has changed Protestant doctrine and practice.

1. some have priests... others have pastors...
2. some still rely on ECF tradition others "sola scriptura" without as much focus on ECF authority.
3. Some agree that the Bible limits baptism to a knowing believer making "an appeal to God for a clean conscience" 1 Peter 3... others use priests with "powers" and sacramental waters that change the soul of the unknowing person being baptized.
4. Some affirm God's Ten Commandments - some reject them as OT
5. Some change the Sabbath to point to week-day-1 others leave it as is.
6. Some have woman pastors... some have woman priests... Not sure if any protestant groups are left with only men as priests, but certainly some have only men as pastors while others have both men and woman as pastors
7 Some have LGBT priests some do not. Some have LGBT pastors some do not

 

[SwordmanJr]

...The rise of feminism and matriarchy does not help. When we turn from the scripture to pacify social practice of the day we lose the truth and when we lose the truth we lose freedom. The more important issue is to be in Christ...

Boy howdy. That was a mouth full. What you've hit upon are what I call "socially engineered theologies," which are more plentiful than there are -isms in culture and society. Churchianity is FULL of them, like fleas on a dog. The institutional model is fast becoming the generalized path to compromise and satanic influences in belief and doctrine, whether they are independent or affiliated, it doesn't matter. They all have, are, and will continue experiencing satanic influences from the world, with femin-ism being only one of them. Not even the roman catholic religion can lay claim to not being swayed by the world's influences. They once claimed that one can only be saved through the RCC. Now their tune is different. Their view of God seems to be one that portrays Him as being very fickle, fractured, or downright schizmatic. I can't seem to align that view with what is written where the Lord inspired it to be written, "I change not."

Jr

 

[SwordmanJr]

Here's in interesting claim made by catholic.com:

"The Catholic Church teaches infallibly, “extra ecclesiam nulla salus,” or, “outside the Church there is no salvation.” But as with all dogmas of the Faith, this has to be qualified and understood properly. The Catechism of the Catholic Church lays out the truth of the matter succinctly in paragraphs 846-848, but I would recommend backing up to CCC 830 for a context that will help in understanding these three essential points concerning this teaching:

1. There is no salvation apart from Christ and his One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Again, this is an infallible teaching and not up for debate among Catholics.
2. Those who are “invincibly” ignorant concerning the truth of #1 above will not be culpable for this lack of knowledge before God.
3. Those in the category of #2 have the real possibility of salvation even if they never come to an explicit knowledge of Christ and/or his Church."

Were we to dare find an unbiased observer who is not prone to be for or against the RCC claims or any other persuasion, would such a one be capable of deriving truth claim points #2 and #3 from #1?

Not on your life! Centralized authority in Rome is the only appeal one can possibly make to uphold any other conclusion than the claim that there is no salvation outside roman catholicism. The evolution of many, many taught doctrines through roman catholicisms history is proof positive that there is no such thing as infallibility within that religion's claims. I don't hate catholics, but I do disagree with the claims of what their perceived central authority lays down as demands for them to believe. We see this same type claim made by the watchtower society for jehovah's witnesses and the leadership in Salt Lake City for the mormons. They can poo-poo the sole authority of scripture all they want, but that only betrays their hatred for what the apostles themselves stated in relation to scriptures. The idea that doctrine and morality are living things that evolve with time is absolutely counter to God's own claim to, "I change not."

Jr

 

[Albion]

A. Sola Scriptura is the right answer. Christ uses it in Mark 7:6-13 and we see it in Acts 17:11. This is irrefutable.

and typically Protestant. There are only a very few denominations that don't make Scripture the determiner of doctrine.

...so time has changed Protestant doctrine and practice.

1. some have priests... others have pastors...

Priests are normally pastors, too. This is mainly a matter of terminology.

2. some still rely on ECF tradition others "sola scriptura" without as much focus on ECF authority.

I cannot think of a single Protestant denomination which does this.

3. Some agree that the Bible limits baptism to a knowing believer making "an appeal to God for a clean conscience" 1 Peter 3... others use priests with "powers" and sacramental waters that change the soul of the unknowing person being baptized.

The young are baptized on the promises of sponsors to rear them in the faith, in other words...just as in the New Testament.

4. Some affirm God's Ten Commandments - some reject them as OT

Again, there is no--or almost no--Protestant church which does this.

5. Some change the Sabbath to point to week-day-1 others leave it as is.

The Protestant churches which "leave it as it is" rather than follow the New Testament policy are very few.

6. Some have woman pastors... some have woman priests...

That is true. It's a growing practice that's been driven by the demands of women's rights organizations.

Not sure if any protestant groups are left with only men as priests

Oh yes; there certainly are churches with male-only clergy.

7 Some have LGBT priests some do not. Some have LGBT pastors some do not

Indeed. It's one more instance of the effect of secular pressures upon the church.

 

[jahel]

A.
6. Some have woman pastors... some have woman priests... Not sure if any protestant groups are left with only men as priests, but certainly some have only men as pastors while others have both men and woman as pastors

a
That is true. It's a growing practice that's been driven by the demands of women's rights organizations..

That is false. It is a growing demand because of the overwhelming evidence of plain scripture that supports one in Christ. The alternative that supports men only means you are following another religion other than Christianity.(or at best the first step to understanding) Lack of spiritual attainment is no longer considered to be a qualifier for priesthood or pastorship by most, not just women.

Feminism and masculinity both have their thrones that they worship at but to bring them into the full meaning of the church is in itself an organization outside of the scope of mature teaching.

 

[Albion]

That is false. It is a growing demand because of the overwhelming evidence of plain scripture that supports one in Christ. The alternative that supports men only means you are following another religion other than Christianity.(or at best the first step to understanding) Lack of spiritual attainment is no longer considered to be a qualifier for priesthood or pastorship by most, not just women.

The impetus for the changes did come from society, demanding that the churches get with the times and be for equal treatment, etc. etc.

It was no accident that the push for women's rights in society and women's ordination in the churches came at the same moment in time. And no, there is no Scriptural basis for women priests/pastors.

 

[jahel]

The impetus for the changes did come from society, demanding that the churches get with the times and be for equal treatment, etc. etc.

It was no accident that the push for women's rights in society and women's ordination in the churches came at the same moment in time. And no, there is no Scriptural basis for women priests/pastors.

Because within the church the women had no voice so of course it wasn’t heard from anywhere but outside of the church. The obvious should really go w/o saying.

There is no scriptural basis for anyone to speak outside of the oracles of God-given directives. 1 Peter 4:11
If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God; if any man minister, let him do it as of the ability which God giveth: that God in all things may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom be praise and dominion for ever and ever.

Should I state the obvious here that man does not mean male? No it’s too obvious.

 

[Albion]

Because within the church the women had no voice so of course it wasn’t heard from anywhere but outside of the church. The obvious should really go w/o saying.

That might be true of some cults and hyper-fundamentalistic churches, but not of the mainline churches--Lutheran, Episcopal, Presbyterian, Baptist, etc.--which were the ones most affected by the move to ordain women. In these churches to which most Protestants belong, the women were already in leadership positions of all kinds, except of course for the ordained ministry.

 

[jahel]

That might be true of some cults and hyper-fundamentalistic churches, but not of the mainline churches--Lutheran, Episcopal, Presbyterian, Baptist, etc.--which were the ones most affected by the move to ordain women. In these churches to which most Protestants belong, the women were already in leadership positions of all kinds, except of course for the ordained ministry.

There are many books being revived about the active role of women in the church thru-out Christianity. It’s good that the information is no longer being swept under the table.

 

[Albion]

There are many books being revived about the active role of women in the church thru-out Christianity. It’s good that the information is no longer being swept under the table.

Personally, I cannot remember a time when the active roles of women in the church ever were swept under the table. But it may depend on which churches a person remembers from his earlier days.