A question to protestants

[BobRyan]

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.

In the RCC - the LGBT agenda long precedes any movement at all for promoting woman priests.

 

[bbbbbbb]

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.

Unfortunately, John Wesley lived an extremely long life and recorded it extensively for posterity. He ranged considerably, to say the least, on various theological positions, unlike his fellow Methodist, George Whitefield, who was quite consistent. Neither ever viewed themselves, as was also the case with Martin Luther, as being anything other than a loyal member of their original church or the founder of a new denomination.

 

[Strong in Him]

And Wesley, never having been a bishop, could not ordain anyone.

According to Anglican rules; probably not. But he could lay hands on people, pray for them to be filled with the Spirit and recognise their gifts and ministry just as much as anyone else. He had the same Holy Spirit as the bishops did, and they were no holier than he was.
Same today. Anglicans don't recognise Methodist Ministers as properly ordained nor Local Preachers as properly trained/commissioned. I've no doubt that an Anglican who saw a Methodist Minister confirming a teenager would say that it wasn't a "valid" confirmation, and any Anglican, Methodist, Catholic, URC Minister who saw a lay person giving out bread and juice to remember the Lord's supper would say that it was not "valid" communion. These are man made rules. Who is it who ordains, confirms, gives communion and makes things/people holy - Ministers, or God?

 

[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?

Well you are of course correct that not unlike Catholics , protestants ( possessing our sinful nature ) have allowed opinions of men ( and women) to take precedent over the understood word . You will also see that there will be those who tell you that their denomination is the correct one or closest to the original church fathers . That is understandable in that most people do not join a group in which they believe is in error . So bias will exist . Ask questions such as but why . Ask lots of questions and ask God to give you a love for the truth . I was also a prodigal son and have no other explanation other than God's unfathomable love , grace and mercy as to why He would ( could ) forgive someone like me .
D not expect your growth in Christ to be easy . That is why Jesus said if any man come after me let him first count the cost . It may cost you relationships with loved ones , friends , churches and much of the world . This is also alluded to in Hebrews chapter 10:32-34 . To be a follower of Jesus and turn your back on the world is asking for difficulties but iron must be refined in the fire . (1st Peter 4 :12-14 )The reward is being able through Christ and by Christ to be an instrument so that someone's eternity can be changed . I do not have any suggestions regarding which church . It appears we all have errors ...too much like the world and pursuing earthly ambitions . Not serous enough . Too much emphasis on what happens "during church " rather than the rest of the time . Just remember ...Jesus said , where two or more are gathered in His name , there He is .

 

[bbbbbbb]

According to Anglican rules; probably not. But he could lay hands on people, pray for them to be filled with the Spirit and recognise their gifts and ministry just as much as anyone else. He had the same Holy Spirit as the bishops did, and they were no holier than he was.
Same today. Anglicans don't recognise Methodist Ministers as properly ordained nor Local Preachers as properly trained/commissioned. I've no doubt that an Anglican who saw a Methodist Minister confirming a teenager would say that it wasn't a "valid" confirmation, and any Anglican, Methodist, Catholic, URC Minister who saw a lay person giving out bread and juice to remember the Lord's supper would say that it was not "valid" communion. These are man made rules. Who is it who ordains, confirms, gives communion and makes things/people holy - Ministers, or God?

The reality, of course, is that anyone can lay hands on anyone else, but that generally means nothing other than somebody put their hands on another person. Just yesterday morning I sat in church behind a lovely young couple. She spent much of the service with her hand rubbing his shoulders. Does that mean that he received anything other than an affectionate action?

The same can be said of water. Anybody can take a bath, and most people do, but does bathing in and of itself have any spiritual significance? Hindus will answer in the affirmative if, of course, one bathes properly in the holy river Ganges. What do you think?

 

[Helmut-WK]

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.

The Salvation Army (TSA) is a Protestant Christian church and an international charitable organisation

The terminology is that of an army: ordinary members are simple soldiers (Salutists, I hope I transferred it correctly from German), Pastors and above are called Officers (Lieutenant, Major and so on). The church leader is a general. I don't know every detail, but I know that members of the army don't attend to other churches, as members of para-church organizations like YMCA do.

You may say its a church disguised as an army, you may say it is somewhat weird because they think water baptism is irrelevant and baptism in the Spirit is sufficient, but it is a church.

 

[Helmut-WK]

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

Well, Paulus was ordained before he was sent out as an Apostle together with Barnabas (Acts 13:1-4; 14:14). And he is definitely not one of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb.

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

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

You disrupt my sentence. It seems that you contradict the Bible who tells clearly that women can be NT-prophets, not writing Scripture as OT prophets did, but telling the Church the will of God (this may compared to OT prophetesses like Deborah).

The question was: Since the Bible says woman can take the higher office (prophet), why should they be barred from lower offices like preaching?

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.

I do not object to the term "clergy", it is the notion that important acts like preaching were not mentioned by you, only the rather trivial roles like sharing bread and wine in the Lord's supper. The description in 1.Cor 11 does not show any sign of a special office, as in many churches today, the members probably have just reached bread and wine to the next one, after eating/drinking it.

And then there is the point that you apparently make a difference between to titles which origin from the same Greek word in the Bible. This is definitely not "the Biblical offices", it is something derived from them, and whether the difference to the roles as we find them in the Bible is unimportant or fatal, is a matter of discussion.

If we understand "priest" in terms of OT terminology, there are definitely no priests (hiereis in Old Greek, which is the translation of Hbr. kohan) in the NT church, unless of course you take 1.Pt 2:5,9 to speak of every believer being a priest (for the unbelievers).

We only have a high priest (archiereus), Jesus Christ.

 

[Helmut-WK]

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?

Well, WithinReason said that Jesuits "infiltrated the seminaries", and referred to the counter-reformation, the time when the rcc "hit back", e.g. by founding Jesuit colleges. So I asked for evidence that such things happened in that time.

If anything like this happened, we should expect to have some information about it, e.g. by announcements of the success by the rcc, or by complaining of the bitter results by protestants. Is there any evidence of a protestant scholar debunked as a Jesuit or anything like that?

 

[BobRyan]

Well, WithinReason said that Jesuits "infiltrated the seminaries", and referred to the counter-reformation, the time when the rcc "hit back", e.g. by founding Jesuit colleges. So I asked for evidence that such things happened in that time.

If anything like this happened, we should expect to have some information about it, e.g. by announcements of the success by the rcc, or by complaining of the bitter results by protestants. Is there any evidence of a protestant scholar debunked as a Jesuit or anything like that?

Have not looked into that very much... did find one thing after a few minutes of looking.

from: A Brief History of the Jesuits
In working to stamp out Protestantism, the Jesuits used two primary tactics. Politically, once they exercised influence over the ruler, or rulers, of a country, they drove them to persecute the Protestants; and religiously, they actually infiltrated the Protestant churches and denominations, and worked to undermine them from within. Much could be written about their dark deeds in various nations, such as Germany, France, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Poland, as well as their atrocities in India, Japan, China and South America, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; but space does not permit. We must confine our attention to the nation where Protestantism took root most firmly in these centuries, and from which the Gospel of Christ was carried to the far corners of the earth: Britain. Naturally enough, it was against Britain that the Jesuits directed their greatest energies.


Their Plots against English Protestantism: 16th and 17th Centuries. Just a few short years after the founding of the Order, the Jesuits had established seminaries on the continent of Europe for the purpose of training young English noblemen as Roman Catholic missionaries. These men, when their training was complete, were sent back to Britain as traitors, to once again subjugate the land to the pope of Rome. In 1551, the Council of Trent sent secret instructions to the Jesuits of Paris on how to undermine and destroy the “Church of England”. A copy, accidentally dropped by a Jesuit priest in a pulpit in 1568, was found. The instructions were these: “Ye are not to preach all after one method but observe the place wherein you come.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The terminology is that of an army: ordinary members are simple soldiers (Salutists, I hope I transferred it correctly from German), Pastors and above are called Officers (Lieutenant, Major and so on). The church leader is a general. I don't know every detail, but I know that members of the army don't attend to other churches, as members of para-church organizations like YMCA do.

You may say its a church disguised as an army, you may say it is somewhat weird because they think water baptism is irrelevant and baptism in the Spirit is sufficient, but it is a church.

I suggest you visit the Salvation Army website in the future for accurate information. It is here - The Salvation Army International - The Salvation Army International

As you will read, the Salvation Army does not self-identify as a church, but, rather, as "an integral part of the Christian Church, although distinctive in government and practice".

 

[Helmut-WK]

And Wesley, never having been a bishop, could not ordain anyone.

Wesley was an ordained priest, i.e. he had the same title (presbuteros) as a member of the leading board of a synagogue (of Greek-speaking Jews in NT times). You say he could not ordain anyone. OK, got it.

Then you say, that if he were a bishop, i.e. if he had the same title as a member of the board of an hellenistic societey (in NT times), he could ordain people.

So we have a Jewish synagogue and a hellenistic (usually heathen) society, both as a sort of analogy for the church, so that titles could be "borrowed" from there. Is the synagogue so inferior to the hellenistic society that this makes the difference whether an office is associated with the ability to ordain people?

Oh, the reason is to be found elsewhere: Within church history, the two titles got different meanings from the original ones in the NT, and so these office and their authority were different, because the rules of the Anglican church say so.

But look, the Anglican church in Wesley's time had some severe deficits, which is the main reason why a methodist movement came into existence, which eventually partly became the Methodist church (other remained in the Anglican church and can now be found in the "low church"). So why should the rules of a (then!) erring church be valid for the way God chose to establish a church which brought blessings to the UK?

Whether laying on hand is what the NT calls so, is not determined by men, but by the Holy Spirit who acts in laying on hands (or not).

 

[Helmut-WK]

Have not looked into that very much... did find one thing after a few minutes of looking.

"A Christian Source with Politically Incorrect news" (self-description of the site you linked to) does not sound as sound information. Can you give me anything more trustworthy?

By looking into the net and pick up the first hit that say so, I can find everything: That Christ died in India, that the Bible is a Forge, that moon landings never happened, that Jesus will return in a few years because Trump is the "Anrichrist", ...

 

[Helmut-WK]

As you will read, the Salvation Army does not self-identify as a church, but, rather, as "an integral part of the Christian Church, although distinctive in government and practice".

I can't see any statement like "The Salvation Army does not regard itself as a church". The sentence you quoted has to be interpretated what most protestants say: That churches (in the sense of denominations or so) are only part of the body of Christ, which manifests itself in local churches of different denominations.

One mouse-click on "read more", and I find:

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.

How do you call an organization whose places of worship are (local) Christian churches?

 

[bbbbbbb]

I can't see any statement like "The Salvation Army does not regard itself as a church". The sentence you quoted has to be interpretated what most protestants say: That churches (in the sense of denominations or so) are only part of the body of Christ, which manifests itself in local churches of different denominations.

One mouse-click on "read more", and I find:

How do you call an organization whose places of worship are (local) Christian churches?

Do you believe that a building is a church?

 

[Helmut-WK]

Do you believe that a building is a church?

"Church" has several meanings, one refers to a buildings.

If the buildings that TSA uses as places for worship are churches, what does this say about TSA?

 

[Strong in Him]

The reality, of course, is that anyone can lay hands on anyone else, but that generally means nothing other than somebody put their hands on another person. Just yesterday morning I sat in church behind a lovely young couple. She spent much of the service with her hand rubbing his shoulders. Does that mean that he received anything other than an affectionate action?

The same can be said of water. Anybody can take a bath, and most people do, but does bathing in and of itself have any spiritual significance? Hindus will answer in the affirmative if, of course, one bathes properly in the holy river Ganges. What do you think?

I'm saying that, personally, I see no reason why even a lay Christian - who is born again and filled with the Spirit - shouldn't be able to hold a service of ordination/communion. We are all children of God, temples of his Holy Spirit, priests and members of the body of Christ. If we are remaining in the vine, we are in Jesus and he is in us. If I am filled with his Spirit, I am no less holy, loved, accepted by and serving God than a bishop in elaborate robes.
Does God only hear one prayer and not another?
Does he say, "I'm not sending my Spirit to that person because they have to be able to prove that their ancestors were at Pentecost and received the Spirit from the 12"?
Does a Christian need to have theological qualifications before they can pray for another person to be saved/healed/filled with the Spirit/speak in tongues, or that God will commission and bless that person to serve him?
I am guessing, and believe, that the answer is 'no'. So why do we say, "unless you have been confirmed/ordained by a bishop who's part of the apostolic succession, or receive communion from someone wearing a dog collar, it's not real/valid"? What would happen in a country where people without the Gospel were led to Christ by missionaries and did not have formal churches? Would the missionary say, "as soon as we can get a bishop over here you can receive the Spirit and be confirmed, and then you will be able to take communion. And by the way, if any of you want to start a church, you'll have to fly over to one of our theological colleges, learn to do it properly and then be ordained according to our tradition"?

Jesus Christ, who holds ALL authority, lives in each of his children by his Spirit - why is this not enough?

 

[Albion]

Well, Paulus was ordained before he was sent out as an Apostle together with Barnabas (Acts 13:1-4; 14:14). And he is definitely not one of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb.

He is considered to be an Apostle in the sense that the Twelve (plus Matthias) were Apostles. This is not simply a matter of him being famous for his missionary work.

You disrupt my sentence. It seems that you contradict the Bible who tells clearly that women can be NT-prophets,...

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.

The question was: Since the Bible says woman can take the higher office (prophet), why should they be barred from lower offices like preaching?

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.

I do not object to the term "clergy", it is the notion that important acts like preaching were not mentioned by you, only the rather trivial roles like sharing bread and wine in the Lord's supper.

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.

 

[Albion]

You say he could not ordain anyone. OK, got it.

Good. That's at least some progress on this subject.

Then you say, that if he were a bishop, i.e. if he had the same title as a member of the board of an hellenistic society (in NT times), he could ordain people.

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.

But look, the Anglican church in Wesley's time had some severe deficits, which is the main reason why a methodist movement came into existence, which eventually partly became the Methodist church (other remained in the Anglican church and can now be found in the "low church"). So why should the rules of a (then!) erring church be valid for the way God chose to establish a church which brought blessings to the UK?

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

 

[bbbbbbb]

"Church" has several meanings, one refers to a buildings.

If the buildings that TSA uses as places for worship are churches, what does this say about TSA?

It really doesn't say a thing. Typically, the Salvation Army does not refer to its buildings as churches at all. The Salvation Army does not self-identify as being a church, as we both agree, although in recent years many have been referring to some of its buildings as churches. The bottom line is that when William Booth established the Salvation Army he was faced with a very difficult situation in which he was married to a strong woman who came to share his position, which is ironic given the fact that the Salvation Army, until recently, prohibited married couples working together. Booth had a very large and tumultuous family of eight children who survived to adulthood. Some of his own children denounced him as their leader and turned their backs on The Salvation Army, including his daughter Kate and his sons Herbert and Ballington, the latter founding a separate organization, the Volunteers of America with himself as "General". Intriguingly, Booth did not allow leadership to pass outside of his own family. in that culture the concept of democracy or meritocracy was generally scorned. As a result, his daughter, Evangeline, rose to the top.

 

[faroukfarouk]

I'm saying that, personally, I see no reason why even a lay Christian - who is born again and filled with the Spirit - shouldn't be able to hold a service of ordination/communion. We are all children of God, temples of his Holy Spirit, priests and members of the body of Christ. If we are remaining in the vine, we are in Jesus and he is in us. If I am filled with his Spirit, I am no less holy, loved, accepted by and serving God than a bishop in elaborate robes.
Does God only hear one prayer and not another?
Does he say, "I'm not sending my Spirit to that person because they have to be able to prove that their ancestors were at Pentecost and received the Spirit from the 12"?
Does a Christian need to have theological qualifications before they can pray for another person to be saved/healed/filled with the Spirit/speak in tongues, or that God will commission and bless that person to serve him?
I am guessing, and believe, that the answer is 'no'. So why do we say, "unless you have been confirmed/ordained by a bishop who's part of the apostolic succession, or receive communion from someone wearing a dog collar, it's not real/valid"? What would happen in a country where people without the Gospel were led to Christ by missionaries and did not have formal churches? Would the missionary say, "as soon as we can get a bishop over here you can receive the Spirit and be confirmed, and then you will be able to take communion. And by the way, if any of you want to start a church, you'll have to fly over to one of our theological colleges, learn to do it properly and then be ordained according to our tradition"?

Jesus Christ, who holds ALL authority, lives in each of his children by his Spirit - why is this not enough?

@Strong in Him Acts 2.42 speaks of 'continu(ing) steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine'; and it's this that counts, not some hierarchy approving of new additions to the hierarchy.