A question to protestants

[All4Christ]

Solo Scriptura cannot be done thoroughly, because you need to interpret the Scripture. Every church has a tradition (whether explicitly called so or not) that is used to interpret the Bible.

But since sola scriptura says that every tradition has to bow to Scripture, this means there is no tradition, however old or widespread, can (at least in theory) can be replaced when it is found out that it contradicts the Bible.

Therefore, there is a gradual transition from having "tradition II", as your website calls it, and "solo scriptura" in the sense that one interprets Scripture arbitrary.

Apologies in advance for the briefness of my response; I am short on time.

The website I found was one that was I found with a short search specifically not from a Catholic or Orthodox source, so it isn’t the most thorough...but yes, that’s the general idea. However, many do arbitrarily interpret scripture, and there are differing levels of dependance on tradition or what is considered tradition. Knowing the OP’s belief will help with the answer to the question.

 

[Albion]

the only hierarchy to be found is "1. apostles, 2. prophets, 3. teachers, etc." in 1.Cor 12:28ff, which AFAIK no-one takes for an hierarchy as you have in mind.

I didn't have such a hierarchy in mind. I was commenting on the idea that there should not be ANY hierarchy.

Although we differ on the exact details of that concept, it appears you are in agreement with my point about there being leadership and offices indicated in scripture.

 

[Albion]

Please explain the difference between deaconesses, and female deacon.

Some churches have lately decided to ordain women to the diaconate, make them deacons. However, many churches that do not ordain women have long had deaconesses, an unordained position in the church that has roots in the ancient church. These deaconesses helped with the baptisms of women, teaching children, and other such duties (which are completely different from those of a deacon).

 

[helmut]

Although we differ on the exact details of that concept, it appears you are in agreement with my point about there being leadership and offices indicated in scripture.

They are, of course. But there is no distinction between clergy and laity. And I can't see a hierarchy that extends the local church, though it may be useful for a larger church to have some "global leader", that leadership should not be too strict.
I regard this as no "details".

A byside point: A representative for the worldwide Church should be married, anything else is contrary to what Paul writes on church leaders.

 

[Albion]

No, but it shows there is inconsistency in applying the verses from Timothy and 1 Corinthians.

Not at all. Scripture itself says that we are like the parts of a body, each different with different functions, but working together for the common goal. There is nothing contrary in the idea that God (who even had a chosen race, remember) could have designated some believers for certain roles and other believers for another.

If it is wrong for a woman to teach, have authority over men or even speak in church - as many have said that these verses teach - then it was wrong of God to have appointed Deborah, given his word to Huldah and have her tell the male priests what he was saying, choose Mary Magdalene to be the first witness to the resurrection, and so on.

Maybe, but I have never said anything like that and, in fact, have clearly stated what my belief and that of many traditionalist churches is and why. Attempting to bring into the discussion this idea of women needing to be quiet and have no role in church leadership is more of a fundamentalist POV.

 

[helmut]

However, many churches that do not ordain women have long had deaconesses, an unordained position in the church that has roots in the ancient church. These deaconesses helped with the baptisms of women, teaching children, and other such duties (which are completely different from those of a deacon).

While it may be ancient, there is no indication that Phoebe was such a deaconess. It is pure speculation that she was not a deacon like the males.

BTW: In Germany, there is a tradition from the 19th century (almost dying out) of deaconesses (Diakonissen) helping the church in various ways (serving as nurses in hospitals, visiting church members in need, evangelizing etc.).

 

[Albion]

They are, of course. But there is no distinction between clergy and laity.

Absolutely there are! Many NT verses attest to it.

And I can't see a hierarchy that extends the local church, though it may be useful for a larger church to have some "global leader", that leadership should not be too strict...A byside point: A representative for the worldwide Church should be married, anything else is contrary to what Paul writes on church leaders.

Whether I agree or disagree now, it looks like your point is that you want to believe what you want to believe while I am referring to what the Christian church has done and believed and understood since antiquity and what the Bible itself supports.

 

[~Zao~]

He did ask how ordaining women can be compatible with sola scriptura (lit.: "What happened to sola scriptura"?). So it is indeed off-topic to talk whether Churches that reject sola scriptura and thus reject women as leaders are right or not. But it is definitely not off-topic to discuss whether sola scriptura allows women ordaining or not.

Good point, however unsubscribe anyway.

 

[~Zao~]

Absolutely there are! Many NT verses attest to it.



Whether I agree or disagree now, it looks like your point is that you want to believe what you want to believe while I am referring to what the Christian church has done and believed and understood since antiquity and what the Bible itself supports.

I think the bible is redundant with examples of women’s roles at the point of the inauguration of the Kingdom, and the failings of the first church members. But moreso it is redundant with examples of the progression of understanding that is called the old wine (whine) not giving place to the new in the discipline given to Israel from which we are supposed to learn. Some did, some don’t..

 

[Albion]

While it may be ancient, there is no indication that Phoebe was such a deaconess. It is pure speculation that she was not a deacon like the males.

No, it isn't. The idea that Phoebe, out of all the women in the church, was the one and only known woman deacon in the early church, (or even later) is not very persuasive. Especially, when we know that the churches of the first centuries DID have deaconesses. And i8f Phoebe had been a deacon rather than a deaconess, it would mean that the qualifications for being a deacon, which are spelled out in the NT, had been set aside wrongly. All of that adds up to "No," and leaves the proponents of women deacons as the ones who are doing the speculating and hypothesizing.

BTW: In Germany, there is a tradition from the 19th century (almost dying out) of deaconesses (Diakonissen) helping the church in various ways (serving as nurses in hospitals, visiting church members in need, evangelizing etc.).

So, doesn't this tell you about the nature of and reality of deaconesses?

 

[Albion]

I think the bible is redundant with examples of women’s roles at the point of the inauguration of the Kingdom, and the failings of the first church members. But moreso it is redundant with examples of the progression of understanding that is called the old wine (whine) not giving place to the new in the discipline given to Israel from which we are supposed to learn. Some did, some don’t..

I certainly don't disagree with any of that, but the discussion here hasn't been about women doing all sort of important things in the church, but just about women being deacons/clergy.

 

[~Zao~]

I certainly don't disagree with any of that, but the discussion here hasn't been about women doing all sort of important things in the church, but just about women being deacons/clergy.

Considering women are the vast majority of attendants and each has a gift I find it amusing what entails assignment of roles. I’m sure also that the Lord in Heaven laughs.

 

[NeedyFollower]

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 have been researching the history of Christiainty and all of it's denominations and splits . So from that stand point I recognize that we are still carnal ..still babes in Christ . From 1st Corinthians 3:1 Paul addresses the divisive corinthians as still acting like men ( human ..fleshly ) . Many of the splits in the church was about power and much that is retained in what we call worship or church is about comfort and familiarity . The truth often puts religion in jeopardy and subsequently accusations are made until the truth be crucified all over again . Every group , by definition thinks they are the true church ..the true group for no one would join or remain in a lost church .
Jesus said that He is the Way , the TRUTH and the Life . Do truth if it be with two or more gathered in His name . Before the catholic church , before the greek orhodox , before the protestant church , before nations existed and councils were formed ...before anything existed ( including man ) there was God . And God was in Christ Jesus reconciling the world to Himself. Abide in Him . Be humble . Ask for heavenly gifts and be patient . Continue to read your bible . But be aware that doing truth will have a cost .

 

[Anguspure]

All of that flies in the face of a number of New Testament verses which clearly describe the leadership of the church, names the offices, gives the qualifications, and so on. To have any Christian talk as though none of this is found in scripture is baffling to me.

The fact that stones are cut to a different shape for a different purpose in the building does not mean that some stones are called to be more active or superior to others.
The manner in which we are to act towards one another is here: "Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, “Anyone who wants to be first must be the very last, and the servant of all.” Mark 9
and: "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." Ephesians 5

 

[Strong in Him]

Not at all. Scripture itself says that we are like the parts of a body, each different with different functions, but working together for the common goal.

Yes - and it doesn't say that some of those functions, or gifts that the Spirit gives, are only for men.

There is nothing contrary in the idea that God (who even had a chosen race, remember) could have designated some believers for certain roles and other believers for another.

God can choose whoever he wants, and give whichever gifts he pleases; he always has done.
He's often chosen those whom the world would consider to be weak, unqualified, only fit for a certain purpose etc - a 110 year old father-to-be, an 80 year old murderer, David the shepherd boy, an unmarried, possibly teenage, girl and so on.

Maybe, but I have never said anything like that

Maybe not, but some do, and use the proof texts in 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians as reason for that belief.

Attempting to bring into the discussion this idea of women needing to be quiet and have no role in church leadership is more of a fundamentalist POV.

I'm just saying that in past discussions, people have quoted 1 Timothy 2:12 as the text that settles the argument. Yet even among those people, there is disagreement about what it means. Some say it proves that a woman cannot teach men; others say that a woman can't even speak in church. In one of the first threads I took part in on this subject, about 14 years ago, one man said that his wife wouldn't even say 'Amen' to the prayers because she would be going against Scripture. While I agree that not many would have such an extreme response, there IS wide disagreement about the meaning, and application, of various verses quoted on this subject.

 

[Albion]

Yes - and it doesn't say that some of those functions, or gifts that the Spirit gives, are only for men.

Not in that verse. But it establishes the point you want to deny, that God does not give to all of us the same role to play in life.

God can choose whoever he wants, and give whichever gifts he pleases; he always has done.

Apparently not. At least, that is not what you have been contending here is his way. Your argument makes the exact opposite claim.

 

[BNR32FAN]

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.

You might be very surprised to hear the Orthodox side of the story about the schism of 1054. I wouldn’t be surprised if many Orthodox considered the Roman Catholic Church to be the first Protestants. Lol

Here’s some information from Britanica on the subject. Britanica is well known for their impeccable reputation for only presenting the facts and since they are a secular organization they are neither biased against nor partial towards either side of the argument. First I would suggest getting familiar with the pentarchy then read what happened in the East West Schism of 1054 and notice where the pentarchy stood on this matter.

Pentarchy | Christianity

https://www.britannica.com/eventSchism-of-1054

 

[Johan_1988]

Hi, even in Protestantism there are contradictions. I grew up in the Dutch Reformed church and there is many things they claim in the bible that are not according to the bible. Like there is no more apostles,prophets, the gifts of the Holy Spirit( like speaking in tongues) and the baptism of the Holy Spirit. I don't know if you would agree on infant baptism and sprinkling as baptism, I certainly don't, that will depend if you accept it without a biblical example or which Greek dictionary you are willing to accept the interpretation of the word baptism. I believe in a clear direct interpretation of the bible where scripture explains scripture and no complicated dogma or doctrine that interprets it way out from the real meaning. That's why I'm full gospel believer.

The drifting away from biblical truths is a compromise the church in general in all denominations is trying to be friends of the world when the bible clearly says:

Jas 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

 

[Strong in Him]

Not in that verse. But it establishes the point you want to deny, that God does not give to all of us the same role to play in life.

I don't want to deny it at all - of course God does not give us all the same role to play in life.
What I dispute is that he has said that he will never allow, or call, women to be ordained or give them the gift of Pastor, Ephesians 4:11; and if they claim otherwise, they are mistaken/lying.

Apparently not. At least, that is not what you have been contending here is his way. Your argument makes the exact opposite claim.

Not at all.
The gifts of the Spirit are not distributed to only one gender; men and women can be teachers, evangelists, pastors, serve others, have the gift of administration, be givers and so on. Nowhere did Paul say, "these 5 are for men only" or "the Lord will never give a woman that gift, not call her to that role."

 

[salt-n-light]

Everyone has blindspots.

Some have bigger and more numerous ones than others.

I wish i can just frame that statement and hang in in my bedroom lol