A question to protestants

[Helmut-WK]

He is considered to be an Apostle in the sense that the Twelve (plus Matthias) were Apostles.

Who "considers" Paul in such a way? Definitely not the Bible:
Acts 21:14 The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

Jesus chose 12 Apostles, one left this office and delivered Him, so he had to be replaced (by Mathias). These are the twelve Apostles of the Lamb, there is no other Apostle beside them. So Paul is not considered by the Holy Spirit (who inspired revelation) or Jesus (the one who revealed what is in that book) as an Apostle "in the sense that the Twelve were Apostles".

and you seem to be having a hard time following some of this. I did not deny that she was a prophet. HOWEVER, we were talking about women's ordination, not women being prophets or, for that matter, another kind of leader in the church.

So what about the woman 2.John is addressed to? Well, there is the interpretation that she was no real woman (I consider it to e a parallel to Junia declared a man), so this is not 100% sure. But we have several (number seems to grow with more reseach on that topic) female elders (presbuteroi) in the old church, a title different from elderesses (presbuterai) which also existed, and there are inscriptions that make it clear they were indeed part of the leader team and not just wives.

It's already been explained that this isn't a matter for rationalizing or of women's "rights" but simply what the Scriptures say about who God has chosen to be in the pastoral role and who has been chosen for some other position.

With masculine terms used both for men and women (e.g. Rom 16:3,7), you cannot just quote a passage and say "there are only men mentioned". Unlike English, Ancient Greek and German (my mother tongue) have almost persistently different terms for male and female persons, and I know the "inclusive language" expressions now objected by gender activists. i.e. only men are mentioned, but women are included.

Where do you find that leadership should be in the hand of men? Hint: kephale (head) does not imply leadership.

Well, that's just your own opinion about which functions of the ordained ministers are "trivial." Most Christians do not consider the celebration of the Lord's Supper to be a trivial event.

I did not say the Lord's supper is a trivial event. But a service that apparently did not exist when 1.Cor 11 was written cannot considered to be more important than preaching (which is, according to circumstancing, the work of an evangelist, teacher, or pastor (in the NT terminology), i.e. three of the five important ministries mentioned in Eph 4:11.

There is no passage in the Bible which states baptizing or distributing bread and wine is more important to preaching. There is also no passage that says it should be done only by special personnel, the evidence in the Bible points into another direction: Jesus commissioned baptizing to His disciples long before He sent them out to proclaim the kingdom of God (Jesus baptized no-one, John 4:2), and apparently the members in Corinth gave bread and wine to one another (the points Paul criticizes in 1.Cor 11 have nothing to do with this).

I want "clergy" be defined in terms of what the Bible says, that is it consists of persons who bear the Gospel to regions where it is not known (Apostle, unlike the 12 are referred to), explain the will of God to the church (prophet), who preach the Gospel to the unbelievers (evangelist), who encourage the afflicted and edify the Church (pastors), and who explain the meaning of Scripture and the practical consequences of this (teacher). I'm not infallible, so I am open to discussion and correction, but it should be based on the Bible. Just saying "the Bible says so" is not enough, I want the passage where it says so.

 

[jahel]

Therefore, holy brothers and sisters, who share in the heavenly calling, fix your thoughts on Jesus, whom we acknowledge as our apostle and high priest.

There is nowhere stated that he needed to be replaced. It’s been said numerously on this forum that if it’s just national jews that held the gates no gentile would ever enter.

I’m of the opinion that the elected woman in 2 John was his adopted mother.

Two by two could as much have been husband and wife teams as is most likely of the 2 disciples on the road from Jerusalem.

 

[Helmut-WK]

Wesley lived in the 18th century and was a member of the Church of England. That is the setting for a discussion about whether or not he might have ordained anyone.

It's about Wesley as (co-)founder of the Methodist church. From the view-point of the Church of England he had no right to found a new church, or to take steps into that direction. But it is not important what the Church of England said, but what God thinks about such matters.

The question was about Wesley ordaining anyone. It was not about your religious views concerning ordination, Hellenistic society, or anything else.

I tried to explain what we can find in the Bible. Unless you think the church of England has more authority than the Bible, you should not dismiss Biblical evidence.

 

[jahel]

And honestly @Albion, Protestants who are not liturgical, which is as many as are, don’t care what ya’ll do as to ordination, priests, His Grace or whatever the going term is for it these days. So please quit talking like you speak for Christianity.

And btw, you’ll find those expounding on the ECF's authority also don’t believe they extend as adherents from the reformation on. EXCEPT for where they want the title of apostolic.

Also, for the record, I could give you a very good run for your money on proving Pricilla as the author of Hebrews.

It really is time to stop the redundancy.

 

[Helmut-WK]

Typically, the Salvation Army does not refer to its buildings as churches at all.

It does on her webside, I quoted it:

Salvation Army places of worship are sometimes called 'citadels' or 'temples', but, whatever their name, they are Christian churches open to the community they serve and offering a warm welcome to all.

The Salvation Army does not self-identify as being a church, as we both agree

No, I don't agree. An organization that identifies their places of worship as "churches" considers herself a church. The sentence I quoted is not about "some" buildings, but about all such buildings, "whatever their name".

The bottom line is that when William Booth established the Salvation Army he was faced with a very difficult situation

I did not say that Booth was without faults, though I did now nothing about the things you write. To discuss such things is off-topic. Booth had week points, I have, and you certainly do have week points either.

 

[Helmut-WK]

I’m of the opinion that the elected woman in 2 John was his adopted mother.

That's speculation. There is no clue to the identity of that woman. Traditional exegesis even explain her as a symbolic figure.

 

[Helmut-WK]

Also, for the record, I could give you a very good run for your money on proving Pricilla as the author of Hebrews.

Since neither sender nor receiver is passed on in the copy of this letter, we can only guess. We know nothing about the style of Priscilla, not of her learning (Hebrews shows a Greek almost completely devoid of "Jewish slang", i.e. semitisms, if we discount quotations from and allusions to the OT).

We do not even know whether the author was Jewish or Gentile Christian, male or female - I can't see anything that points distinctively to Priscilla.

 

[jahel]

That's speculation. There is no clue to the identity of that woman. Traditional exegesis even explain her as a symbolic figure.

That’s why I said I’m of the opinion. I just imagined that she would have been in great danger also as the blessed woman of that generation. As much as Jesus and Lazarus anyway. Of course it’s speculation.

 

[bbbbbbb]

It does on her webside, I quoted it:

Salvation Army places of worship are sometimes called 'citadels' or 'temples', but, whatever their name, they are Christian churches open to the community they serve and offering a warm welcome to all.


No, I don't agree. An organization that identifies their places of worship as "churches" considers herself a church. The sentence I quoted is not about "some" buildings, but about all such buildings, "whatever their name".


I did not say that Booth was without faults, though I did now nothing about the things you write. To discuss such things is off-topic. Booth had week points, I have, and you certainly do have week points either.

Well, I suppose the Salvation Army really is an army, after all. Since their origins they have had citadels. No church that I know of has a citadel. Only armies do. The Salvation Army also has a military command form of organization. Only armies have that, not churches.

Now, they also have stores, so that makes them retailers, because no church has a commercial establishment.

They also have dining halls and kitchens, so that must make them a chain of restaurants. Not to mention, they also have bedrooms with overnight lodging, which must mean that they are a hotel chain.

This organization, which does not self-identify with anything other than an army can be asserted to be any one of these things with perfect validity, but that does not necessarily mean that it is any or all of these things, does it?

The initial point you made was that the evidence for women's ordination prior to the last century can be observed in churches such as the Salvation Army. That is a specious allegation if ever there was. It would the same as saying that the Catholic Church practiced women's ordination when they first established convents for nuns.

 

[jahel]

Since neither sender nor receiver is passed on in the copy of this letter, we can only guess. We know nothing about the style of Priscilla, not of her learning (Hebrews shows a Greek almost completely devoid of "Jewish slang", i.e. semitisms, if we discount quotations from and allusions to the OT.

We do not even know whether the author was Jewish or Gentile Christian, male or female - I can't see anything that points distinctively to Priscilla.

Read the Pricilla’s Letter ~ Finding the author of the epistle to the Hebrews ~ Ruth Hopkins

I think she offers a very good argument.

 

[jahel]

Well, The Salvation Army also has a military command form of organization. Only armies have that, not churches. .

And yet Paul’s military language places him as being such in his administrative duties.

Paul used the Greek word “hupotasso” for what is rendered “subject or submit” and is a Greek military term meaning "to arrange [troop divisions] in a military fashion under the command of a leader”.

OR

In non-military use,it was "a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden". Hupotasso - New Testament Greek Lexicon - New American Standard

1 Using the military definition of the word “The wife stands behind her husband in all things when her husband stands behind Christ”.

2 In the non-military meaning, “a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden.”

3 In relationship to family “A wife cooperates and assumes responsibility with her husband to carry their burden with Christ.” Ephesians 5:22-24

 

[Helmut-WK]

Well, I suppose the Salvation Army really is an army, after all. Since their origins they have had citadels.

Have a closer look on that quotation, it says there are buildings called (e.g.) citadels, but they are churches.

I already used the term "church disguised as an army".

 

[Helmut-WK]

Read the Pricilla’s Letter ~ Finding the author of the epistle to the Hebrews ~ Ruth Hopkins

I think she offers a very good argument.

I will certainly no buy a book on a topic that is not that much important, unless you give some convincing arguments from that book.

 

[Albion]

And honestly @Albion, Protestants who are not liturgical, which is as many as are, don’t care what ya’ll do as to ordination, priests, His Grace or whatever the going term is for it these days. So please quit talking like you speak for Christianity.

Liturgical worship wasn't even the topic here. Nor was I addressing it. The subject has been ordinations.

 

[jahel]

I will certainly no buy a book on a topic that is not that much important, unless you give some convincing arguments from that book.

Another thread perhaps.

 

[jahel]

Liturgical worship wasn't even the topic here.

Preciscly

 

[Albion]

Preciscly

A reply that ridicules itself! We don't see that very often.

 

[Strong in Him]

It's about Wesley as (co-)founder of the Methodist church. From the view-point of the Church of England he had no right to found a new church, or to take steps into that direction.

I don't think he did, exactly.
Charles Wesley and some friends formed a club at University which they called the Holy Club - which involved studying the Scriptures and trying to live them in their good works. John later joined that club. They were given the nickname "Methodists" because they were so methodical in their studies of the Scriptures, in prayer, fasting and doing good.
Both John and Charles were ordained clergymen in the church of England. John, at any rate, continued to be so all his life - he would not let his followers break away from the C of E while he was still alive. It was not his intention to start a new church.
In 1738 both had a great Spiritual experience - some have said they were baptised in the Holy Spirit, others have said that that was when they were converted and truly knew the Lord for themselves. Charles' was on Pentecost Sunday, May 21st. He was healed of TB at that time and his great hymn writing career began that day. John's was 3 days later on May 24th, when his heart became "strangely warmed" and he felt that God really did love him.
As a result of this, John began preaching all over England, and in the open air, which he previously avoided. Many people flocked to hear him, and sing Charles' hymns - presumably because they could see God at work.
John recruited people to be preachers - including women, in 1760 - and ordained people to be able to preside at communion. I think it was mostly this that caused division with the C of E.

But if we're talking about Scripture; nowhere does it say in the NT that in order to break bread or celebrate the Lord's Supper, an ordained Minister/Vicar has to be present. Jesus said, "do this in memory of me", not "do this in memory of me after you have been ordained and have a dog collar."
The early church broke bread daily - we are not told how, or who "presided", or took charge. The Last Supper was a meal, not a service with special liturgy during which people get given a tiny piece of bread/wafer and a sip of non alcoholic wine/juice, and are told they have had "communion" with God.

 

[faroukfarouk]

I don't think he did, exactly.
Charles Wesley and some friends formed a club at University which they called the Holy Club - which involved studying the Scriptures and trying to live them in their good works. John later joined that club. They were given the nickname "Methodists" because they were so methodical in their studies of the Scriptures, in prayer, fasting and doing good.
Both John and Charles were ordained clergymen in the church of England. John, at any rate, continued to be so all his life - he would not let his followers break away from the C of E while he was still alive. It was not his intention to start a new church.
In 1738 both had a great Spiritual experience - some have said they were baptised in the Holy Spirit, others have said that that was when they were converted and truly knew the Lord for themselves. Charles' was on Pentecost Sunday, May 21st. He was healed of TB at that time and his great hymn writing career began that day. John's was 3 days later on May 24th, when his heart became "strangely warmed" and he felt that God really did love him.
As a result of this, John began preaching all over England, and in the open air, which he previously avoided. Many people flocked to hear him, and sing Charles' hymns - presumably because they could see God at work.
John recruited people to be preachers - including women, in 1760 - and ordained people to be able to preside at communion. I think it was mostly this that caused division with the C of E.

But if we're talking about Scripture; nowhere does it say in the NT that in order to break bread or celebrate the Lord's Supper, an ordained Minister/Vicar has to be present. Jesus said, "do this in memory of me", not "do this in memory of me after you have been ordained and have a dog collar."
The early church broke bread daily - we are not told how, or who "presided", or took charge. The Last Supper was a meal, not a service with special liturgy during which people get given a tiny piece of bread/wafer and a sip of non alcoholic wine/juice, and are told they have had "communion" with God.

Indeed, to continue steadfastly in the activities mentioned in Acts 2.42 does not need any permission from hierarchies, etc., whatsoever.

 

[Helmut-WK]

Another thread perhaps.

If you open a thread about "Pricilla’s Letter", please notify me.