A question to protestants

[Not David]

Orthodoxy is not the same as Catholicism. They have different views on salvation, sin, atonement, grace, Mary and even the Holy Spirit's role with the Father and Son.

 

[Albion]

Protestant is the original term for "protesting Catholic" - Jerome of Prague , Calvin, Wycliffe, Huss, Luther etc were all cradle Catholics trained by the Catholic church - not protestants. They individually started "protests" when they happen to come across some tradition/doctrine that was found to be refuted by the Bible.

Actually, the term derives from the protest, in the late 1520s, by Lutherans against a political decision made by the Holy Roman Emperor not to officially recognize the Lutherans. It was not about protesting against Catholicism, the Pope, or "tradition/doctrine."

 

[☦Marius☦]

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?

Don't stop with the RCC and protestants. You are asking the right questions; Questions, that if you are honest with, and fully pursue, will lead you to the Orthodox Church.

 

[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?

Protestant is the original term for "protesting Catholic" - Jerome of Prague , Calvin, Wycliffe, Huss, Luther etc were all cradle Catholics trained by the Catholic church - not protestants. They individually started "protests" when they happen to come across some tradition/doctrine that was found to be refuted by the Bible.

The term for "man" in 1 Tim 2 is actually "husband" as Young's literal translation points out -

1 Tim 2: 12 and a woman I do not suffer to teach, nor to rule a husband, but to be in quietness, YLT

And in 1 Cor 14 we find that in the church - NASB: 1 Cor 14:26 What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all be done for edification.

Lots of women prophets in the NT and we find this -
1 Cor 12
28 And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues. 29 All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they? 30 All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they? 31 But earnestly desire the greater gifts.

Actually, the term derives from the protest, in the late 1520s, by Lutherans against a political decision made by the Holy Roman Emperor not to officially recognize the Lutherans. It was not about protesting against Catholicism, the Pope, or "tradition/doctrine."

Interesting

Websters: Protestant

a : any of a group of German princes and cities presenting a defense of freedom of conscience against an edict of the Diet of Speyer in 1529 intended to suppress the Lutheran movement
b : a member of any of several church denominations denying the universal authority of the Pope and affirming the Reformation principles of justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers, and the primacy of the Bible as the only source of revealed truth broadly : a Christian not of a Catholic or Eastern church

First Known Use of protestant
Noun

1539, in the meaning defined at sense 1a

Adjective

1539, in the meaning defined at sense 1

First USE
The word Protestantism was first used by German princes and free cities at the Diet of Speyer (1529), when they were speaking against the Reformation.[2]

Lutherans in Germany began using it. Swiss and French more often used Reformed.[2] The Anglicans use Catholic, Reformed and Protestantism, however the Anglican Church is not always regarded as part of Protestantism because it kept most of the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church from which it separated.[3]

 

[☦Marius☦]

Much like the Catholic church, but more ceremonial and without a Pope. Not what you are looking for, based upon your original post here.

Nice misrepresentation. How about letting an Orthodox answer that question eh?

How on earth can they possible twist that passage, it's so clear.

Please tell me which churches have not buckled. What's Orthodox like?.
I've only started to learn about all these denominations and their differences and its becoming so overwhelmingly confusing.

The Orthodox Church is what the church would have been had Rome never left the fold. Their used to be one democratic Church, five patriarchs all of equal power. Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Constantinople. For 1000 years this system existed, no Papacy, no Roman Catholic corruption. Then Rome decided to part with the rest of the Church for more power and became the RCC. The Orthodox are what remains of the rest of the Church (the other original 4 Patriarchs plus the newer ones). We have not had a doctrinal change in beliefs since the 700sAD- and we believe that we carry the original traditional teachings that the Apostles gave to the early church elders, including the scriptures- which we canonized.

Look East. We are the second largest church in the world yet never talked about. Ask yourself why?

 

[BobRyan]

The Orthodox Church is what the church would have been had Rome never left the fold. Their used to be one democratic Church, five patriarchs all of equal power. Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Constantinople. For 1000 years this system existed, no Papacy, no Roman Catholic corruption. Then Rome decided to part with the rest of the Church for more power and became the RCC. The Orthodox are what remains of the rest of the Church (the other original 4 Patriarchs plus the newer ones). We have not had a doctrinal change in beliefs since the 700sAD- and we believe that we carry the original traditional teachings that the Apostles gave to the early church elders, including the scriptures- which we canonized.

That is rather optimistic, I admire the spirit of it.

 

[☦Marius☦]

That is rather optimistic, I admire the spirit of it.

It is accurate. I'm not saying that there was no corruption or bad things at all before Rome split. Merely that the ability for one bishop to change the church at a whim hadn't had its influence within dogma.

 

[BobRyan]

It is accurate. I'm not saying that there was no corruption or bad things at all before Rome split. Merely that the ability for one bishop to change the church at a whim hadn't had its influence within dogma.

Persecution, jailing and or killing other Christians for opposing the doctrinal view of an EO leader?
Did that happen?

And do you claim that all doctrines of the EO can be supported sola scriptura? Or are some condemned if using the sola scriptura method of Acts 17:11?

 

[Athanasius377]

Actually, the term derives from the protest, in the late 1520s, by Lutherans against a political decision made by the Holy Roman Emperor not to officially recognize the Lutherans. It was not about protesting against Catholicism, the Pope, or "tradition/doctrine."

To the OP and to add on what @Albion said that Protestant was a legal term in the Holy Roman Empire from the Diet of Spyre in the 1500s. It had the connotation that entailed certain legal protections. At the time it generally meant Lutheran. Now it means any church body not Roman or Eastern Orthodox. The flip side is that there are non Roman and Orthodox bodies that still consider themselves as catholic meaning universal.

Lutherans and most Anglican bodies are liturgical and sacramental. Most other bodies that claim the name Protestant are not.

 

[Athanasius377]

Nice misrepresentation. How about letting an Orthodox answer that question eh?

The Orthodox Church is what the church would have been had Rome never left the fold. Their used to be one democratic Church, five patriarchs all of equal power. Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Constantinople. For 1000 years this system existed, no Papacy, no Roman Catholic corruption. Then Rome decided to part with the rest of the Church for more power and became the RCC. The Orthodox are what remains of the rest of the Church (the other original 4 Patriarchs plus the newer ones). We have not had a doctrinal change in beliefs since the 700sAD- and we believe that we carry the original traditional teachings that the Apostles gave to the early church elders, including the scriptures- which we canonized.

Look East. We are the second largest church in the world yet never talked about. Ask yourself why?

I wouldn’t go so far as saying @Albion is giving a misrepresentation. I spent some time in Orthodoxy and I’m not sure I could give a truly accurate description of the differences if I’m honest. The Orthodox do theology different so it’s not just the answers are different it’s also the questions. I hope that makes sense.

 

[AMM]

How on earth can they possible twist that passage, it's so clear.

Please tell me which churches have not buckled. What's Orthodox like?.
I've only started to learn about all these denominations and their differences and its becoming so overwhelmingly confusing.

I'm Orthodox. I converted to Orthodoxy from a conservative Lutheran (a type of protestant) group. I had looked at Catholicism and I did not believe it was the Church that Christ established. The Orthodox Church does not have female priests, like some protestant groups do.

Feel free to ask any other questions you have about Orthodoxy. I'll do my best to answer them, may God guide me!

 

[AMM]

Persecution, jailing and or killing other Christians for opposing the doctrinal view of an EO leader?
Did that happen?

And do you claim that all doctrines of the EO can be supported sola scriptura? Or are some condemned if using the sola scriptura method of Acts 17:11?

The Bereans are great. Orthodox Christians do examine the Scriptures to make sure that what St Paul, the Apostles, and their successors (our bishops) say and teach are true. Our services and hymns are filled with Scripture. I was amazed when I started looking at the texts of the services, the prayers, and so on of Orthodoxy - I did not think there would be as much Scripture as there is, but it is truly beautiful and one of my favorite things about Orthodoxy.

 

[Athanasius377]

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?

I would begin with a definition of sola scripture. What are called the Magisterial reformers insisted that SS meant that scripture was the only infallible rule faith. That does not mean that we reject the role of tradition or the teaching of the early church fathers that came before us rather these sources are not God Breathed like scripture. Rome has historically been the great defender of the faith but began to teach and dogmatize error. The Marian dogmas are but one example of this. So when a teaching conflicts with scripture we reject said teaching. And there there is something that is neither commanded nor forbidden there is Christian freedom in whether or not one should believe it. This is called Adiaphora

 

[JIMINZ]

When God gave Moses His design of the Temple and the Priesthood, Were there ever any WOMEN PRIESTS, right up to the destruction of the Temple in 70ad?

 

[concretecamper]

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?

First you have to realize that scripture doesn't and can't claim to be the sum total of the Christian faith. The writings that were accepted and eventually canonized as scripture simple contain no error since as the Church defines them were inspired by.the Holy Spirit.

Protestantism simply is a rejection of Authority. It is the refusal to believe Christ set up an authoritative Church to lead men to Himself. Simply put, I know l better than the Church.

 

[☦Marius☦]

Persecution, jailing and or killing other Christians for opposing the doctrinal view of an EO leader?
Did that happen?

And do you claim that all doctrines of the EO can be supported sola scriptura? Or are some condemned if using the sola scriptura method of Acts 17:11?

You are talking about Governments not the church. There were never any heresies put down that weren't causing civil strife. Arianism almost brought civil war, monophysitism broke a huge portion of the empire away. These things weren't just arguments like you and me are having. They were civil issues that the governments had to respond to to keep the peace.

 

[☦Marius☦]

Persecution, jailing and or killing other Christians for opposing the doctrinal view of an EO leader?
Did that happen?

And do you claim that all doctrines of the EO can be supported sola scriptura? Or are some condemned if using the sola scriptura method of Acts 17:11?

The scriptures mentioned in acts is the OT. Paul's work was not just written, which is why he tells us to follow the traditions he gave us by word of mouth in Thessalonians. That in itself disproves sola scriptura. Does scripture not say that if one wrote the entire life of Christ and his teachings, the world could not contain the book? Follow the elders Paul said, and that is what the Orthodox do.

 

[Athanasius377]

First you have to realize that scripture doesn't and can't claim to be the sum total of the Christian faith. The writings that were accepted and eventually canonized as scripture simple contain no error since as the Church defines them were inspired by.the Holy Spirit.

Protestantism simply is a rejection of Authority. It is the refusal to believe Christ set up an authoritative Church to lead men to Himself. Simply put, I know l better than the Church.

I would tweak your response for the OP just a bit. Magisterial Protestants state that scripture is the only infallible rule of faith while your post suggests that in addition to scripture the Church possesses this infallibility as well. Yes?

I’m trying to cut to the clearest explanation of the two (or more) positions for the OP not start an argument.

 

[public hermit]

"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

That argument is so bad, it makes me wonder if Paul even made it.

We are given two reasons for why a woman should learn in silence:

(1) Adam was formed first. So?

(2) "Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor" (1 Timothy 2:14 ESV). What? That's not even accurate. Adam was deceived. And, Adam became a transgressor. He's double-culpable because the command was given to him (according to the account given in Genesis 2:15-17).

Those arguments are so weak, it makes me wonder if this is one of those times Paul was giving his command, and not the Lord's (1 Corinthians 7:12). Or, maybe he was just having a bad day, and came up with something on the fly. Or, maybe some dim-witted amanuensis decided to add his two-bits. Whatever, it's a bad argument. What happened to in Christ there is no male or female (Galatians 3:28)?

And it doesn't stop there. Notice the means of salvation he gives concerning women. "Yet she will be saved through childbearing..." (1 Timothy 2:15 ESV). Again, what? What does childbearing have to do with anything? One has to do some pretty slick exegetical back-flips to make that statement somehow refer to God's grace in Jesus Christ.

I don't know what's going in those verses, but it sounds nothing like the gospel Paul proclaimed.

 

[Not David]

I think the problem is believing that because you don't believe in Sola Scriptura, you don't value Scripture.