This is a historic moment. For once I actually agree with you, having personally interacted with a plainclothes Jesuit priest.
Upvote
0
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.
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".
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.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,
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).Does "this" refer to the first or second alternative mentioned? (There were several examples of this kind of ambiguity in your post)
It's "entire households," not the house."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.
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.What did Jesus do when little children were brought to Him? Did He baptize them, or did He hug them and bless them?
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.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.
"House" means household, of course. But "entire" is a matter o interpretation.It's "entire households," not the house.
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.That's a silly argument IMO.
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.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 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) ...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).
You're mistaken about that. See the following verses: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.
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.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) ...
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.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."
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?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.
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."No, they refer to a female apostle
Prophets are prophets. They are not deacons, presbyters, priests, or bishops--i.e. clergy.female prophets (i.e. persons that tell the local church what God does want right now)…
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.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.
Which makes no sense unless you say which one you consider incorrect.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.
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.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.
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?Prophets are prophets. They are not deacons, presbyters, priests, or bishops--i.e. clergy.
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.
So the term is used in the same sense than when Paul is called an apostle.
No. I thought I made that clear in my earlier reply.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?
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.Your way of speaking about "clergy" and church ministries does not sound biblical.
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.
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.
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.John Wesley ordained a woman in 1760, and he was an Anglican clergyman.
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?