A question to protestants

[bbbbbbb]

Jesuits today claim to be "on both sides" of any altercation/clash you may find in society. They were given unlimited permission to work both sides in order to accomplish their counter-reformation mission. And this is a common tactic used outside the Catholic church by opposing nations. A clandestine group always operates "on the other side of the barricade".

This is a historic moment. For once I actually agree with you, having personally interacted with a plainclothes Jesuit priest.

 

[Albion]

I can't see that there was a push for women's rights in society in 1865-78, when Catherine Booth together with her husband founded the Salvation Army (since the name of the organization changed several times, I am not sure which year is the correct "founding time").

So at least since 1859,

Now, let's be really serious. Yes, a trickle of fringe churches admitted women to the ministry in earlier times, but the issue only came to the mainline churches--which it did in a big way--several generations ago.

 

[Albion]

Does "this" refer to the first or second alternative mentioned? (There were several examples of this kind of ambiguity in your post)

Sorry. The reference to "this" was to the claim that there are Protestant churches which go by "ECF tradition" (instead of, or in addition to, Scripture).

"Just as in the New Testament"? In a context where it is clear that infants are not baptized, there is no need to explain that no infants were baptized when a "house" got baptized.

It's "entire households," not the house.

What did Jesus do when little children were brought to Him? Did He baptize them, or did He hug them and bless them?

That's a silly argument IMO. He asked that the children be brought closer to him while he was teaching; there is no reason to think that this required him to stop everything he was doing and begin baptizing a number of people without even having parents make a confession of faith, etc. etc. Even in your own view of baptism, ministers don't simply run around baptizing random strangers wherever they can be found.

 

[Helmut-WK]

Now, let's be really serious. Yes, a trickle of fringe churches admitted women to the ministry in earlier times, but the issue only came to the mainline churches--which it did in a big way--several generations ago.

The salvation Army not only allowed women to the ministry, there was also a publication which contained the biblical reasons for that. And since then other publications appeared.

So while some Christians (and churches) just accommodated to the spirit of time, others (including me) were convinced by biblical arguments, they did not abandon sola scriptura, they followed sola scriptura when they accepted women as pastors.

 

[Helmut-WK]

It's "entire households," not the house.

"House" means household, of course. But "entire" is a matter o interpretation.

That's a silly argument IMO.

No more silly than to assume infant baptism where they are not mentioned. Baptism of an entire household ("the whole house") is only mentioned once in the NT, and it is rather doubtful that there were children.

 

[Albion]

The salvation Army not only allowed women to the ministry, there was also a publication which contained the biblical reasons for that. And since then other publications appeared.

In fact, there are almost no Biblical verses that support women's ordination, whereas there are quite a few verses that support the opposite view.

That is why advocates of women's ordination usually wind up arguing along the lines of "But God loves everybody, therefore everyone should have equal rights."

As for the Salvation Army, it doesn't observe any sacraments. Almost every other denomination, whether Catholic or Protestant, does. The Army has none. No Baptism and no Lord's Supper.

Therefore, if some of the main reasons for having clergy in the first place are eliminated, it makes it much less apparent that there might be any qualifications needed.

 

[Helmut-WK]

Sorry. The reference to "this" was to the claim that there are Protestant churches which go by "ECF tradition" (instead of, or in addition to, Scripture).

So this referred to the first alternative. By analogy I conclude you said there there is no Protestant church that accepts the 10 commandments (as binding for Christians) ...

 

[Albion]

No more silly than to assume infant baptism where they are not mentioned. Baptism of an entire household ("the whole house") is only mentioned once in the NT, and it is rather doubtful that there were children.

You're mistaken about that. See the following verses:

Acts of the Apostles 16:15, Acts of the Apostles 16:33-34, and 1 Corinthians 1:16. It also is thought to be implied in Acts of the Apostles 10:47-48 and 11:14.

 

[Albion]

So this referred to the first alternative. By analogy I conclude you said there there is no Protestant church that accepts the 10 commandments (as binding for Christians) ...

Now that I look at the wording again, I should have answered you by saying that I rejected as incorrect both of the claims there.

Although I can think of one denomination only which thinks of itself as non-denominational and aspires to live by the New Testament, it still doesn't reject the Ten Commandments.

 

[Helmut-WK]

In fact, there are almost no Biblical verses that support women's ordination, whereas there are quite a few verses that support the opposite view.

That is why advocates of women's ordination usually wind up arguing along the lines of "But God loves everybody, therefore everyone should have equal rights."

No, they refer to a female apostle, female prophets (i.e. persons that tell the local church what God does want right now), and a female that teaches to a gifted evangelist more truth about Baptism in the Spirit.

They also deal with verses that seem to support the opposite view, or with the overall picture, including the habit to use male terminology that includes woman (a habit not uncommon in my mother tongue, but sometimes to be seen in NT).

As for the Salvation Army, it doesn't observe any sacraments. Almost every other denomination, whether Catholic or Protestant, does. The Army has none. No Baptism and no Lord's Supper.

Therefore, if some of the main reasons for having clergy in the first place are eliminated, it makes it much less apparent that there might be any qualifications needed.

The sacraments are the main reasons? As to Baptism, every believer can do it, even the rcc says this. Is there a church who does forbid it?

And while many churches limit baptism by non-ordained people to exceptional cases of emergency, Jesus obviously did otherwise: Long before He sent His disciples to preach in the country, He let them baptize. And can you show me a passage in the Bible that shows we need a special class of people to minister the Lord's supper?

Preaching, teaching the Word, leading the (local) church is more important than baptism or dealing with bread ans wine.

 

[Albion]

No, they refer to a female apostle

She was not an "Apostle," in the sense of being one of the Twelve that Christ called and commissioned and whom we normally think of as "the Apostles."

In her case the word was used in its generic meaning...as one who is sent out--an emissary.

female prophets (i.e. persons that tell the local church what God does want right now)…

Prophets are prophets. They are not deacons, presbyters, priests, or bishops--i.e. clergy.

 

[Helmut-WK]

You're mistaken about that. See the following verses:

Acts of the Apostles 16:15, Acts of the Apostles 16:33-34, and 1 Corinthians 1:16. It also is thought to be implied in Acts of the Apostles 10:47-48 and 11:14.

IN Acts 16:33-34 we have an entire household. It is the household of a chief prison warden, probably a slave of the town Philippi, and it is very doubtful that such persons were allowed to marry. Maybe the "house" just consisted of the prison guard team.

In the other verses a household is baptized, but it is not said that the entire household was baptized, that term only occurs in Acts 16:33. Moreover, in the only instance that says it was the entire household (Acts 16:33) it is also said that all of them were happy because they now believed(Acts 16:34). By implication we know that they all believed, i.e. there was no infant that could not comprehend and believe.

 

[Helmut-WK]

Now that I look at the wording again, I should have answered you by saying that I rejected as incorrect both of the claims there.

Which makes no sense unless you say which one you consider incorrect.

 

[Helmut-WK]

She was not an "Apostle," in the sense of being one of the Twelve that Christ called and commissioned and whom we normally think of as "the Apostles."

In her case the word was used in its generic meaning...as one who is sent out--an emissary.

So the term is used in the same sense than when Paul is called an apostle. This is not that much extra-normal as you try to suggest.

Prophets are prophets. They are not deacons, presbyters, priests, or bishops--i.e. clergy.

Do you want to say that a woman can be a (NT-)prophet, i.e. tell the Church what God wants her to do, but she can't be part of lesser ministries?

And what is the difference between a presbyter (Greek presbuteros) and a priest (Greek presbuteros)? And is not episkopos the non-Jewish term for the same kind of office as the Jewish term presbuteros?

Your way of speaking about "clergy" and church ministries does not sound biblical. Why do you complain of leaving the teachings of the Bible on ministry, when your concepts of ministries are only hardly compatible with the Bible?

 

[bbbbbbb]

The salvation Army not only allowed women to the ministry, there was also a publication which contained the biblical reasons for that. And since then other publications appeared.

So while some Christians (and churches) just accommodated to the spirit of time, others (including me) were convinced by biblical arguments, they did not abandon sola scriptura, they followed sola scriptura when they accepted women as pastors.

The Salvation Army never has self-identified as being a church or a denomination and, as such, is a para-church organization. As such, their leadership structure is paramilitary and not Christian. The organization never has had priests or pastors and has evidently seen no purpose in their organizational structure for any such office.

 

[bbbbbbb]

If one wishes to follow the historical trail of women in church leadership, one can find numerous examples of pre-twentieth century cults founded and led by women, such as the Shakers and the Church of Jesus Christ, Scientist. All of these were, and are, considered to be cults. Even the Foursquare Gospel denomination, founded by Aimee Semple McPherson is extremely dodgy in its history and in its theology.

As Albion has correctly pointed out, it was not until the cultural shift, primarily in the United States, in the twentieth century, of the feminist movement, that women's rights spilled over into the mainline churches. Mainline churches, having embraced that culture shift and dismissed the authority of the Bible, are now in the process of embracing other fringe group's rights such as the LGBT. Even now, considerable pressure is being exerted by elements within the Roman Catholic denomination for women's ordination, not to mention the homosexual horrors they are finally having to address.

 

[Albion]

So the term is used in the same sense than when Paul is called an apostle.

Of course not. He was directly chosen by God for a unique purpose. This is not analogous to a Christian congregation ordaining a clergyman.

Do you want to say that a woman can be a (NT-)prophet

No. I thought I made that clear in my earlier reply.

i.e. tell the Church what God wants her to do, but she can't be part of lesser ministries?

Now you're getting it. In the body of Christ there are many different roles to be played. And we are talking about different ones, the qualifications having come to us from the Bible.

As you remember from scripture, this diversity of roles has been described as being like the parts of a human body--head, arms, etc. Each is important in its own way, but that doesn't make them interchangeable.

Your way of speaking about "clergy" and church ministries does not sound biblical.

It's a modern term I used like everyone else does, for convenience sake. I already named the Biblical offices, so I don't see any reason to make an issue of this.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
Jesuits today claim to be "on both sides" of any altercation/clash you may find in society. They were given unlimited permission to work both sides in order to accomplish their counter-reformation mission. And this is a common tactic used outside the Catholic church by opposing nations. A clandestine group always operates "on the other side of the barricade".

I asked for evidence that such things happened in the time of "counter-reformation" (i.e. end of 16th to 18th century, prior to time of "enlightment"), as withinReason has said in post #333.

So you are thinking this "Jesuit-working-from-within" phenomenon would be expected after the time of "enlightment" , but during the time of the "counter reformation" the Jesuits probably were not focused on working inside the reformation movements to get them to come back to the RCC from within?

 

[Strong in Him]

Now, let's be really serious. Yes, a trickle of fringe churches admitted women to the ministry in earlier times, but the issue only came to the mainline churches--which it did in a big way--several generations ago.

John Wesley ordained a woman in 1760, and he was an Anglican clergyman.

 

[Albion]

John Wesley ordained a woman in 1760, and he was an Anglican clergyman.

And Wesley, never having been a bishop, could not ordain anyone. Some people think he may have been consecrated a bishop by a man not authorized by Wesley's church to do so, and others think it's just a legend. The Methodist churches of today don't claim that Wesley was made a bishop, either.

So, all in all, this doesn't add up to much on which to claim some precedent for women's ordination.