Would you be more likely to join…

[Clare73]

The problem with your view is that as you have explained it there is NO WISDOM, and it is unbiblical.

Your problem is not with me, it's with the word of God in Eph 3:10, 6:12, 1 Tim 5:21, Lk 15:7, 1 Pe 1:12, Mt 18:10.

That's above my pay grade.

 

[Rose_bud]

Your problem is not with me, it's with the word of God in Eph 3:10, 6:12, 1 Tim 5:21, Lk 15:7, 1 Pe 1:12, Mt 18:10.

That's above my pay grade.

Hey Clare

What the Adventist is arguing for is that you consider doing a biblical theology of the relationship between man and women. That is tracing this theme throughout the bible, to consider how this particular relationship has developed through the biblical narrative, progressively moving through the Creation, the Fall, the Redemption/Rescue and finally the Consummation.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

Hey Clare

What the Adventist is arguing for is that you consider doing a biblical theology of the relationship between man and women. That is tracing this theme throughout the bible, to consider how this particular relationship has developed through the biblical narrative, progressively moving through the Creation, the Fall, the Redemption/Rescue and finally the Consummation.

hey someone gets it.
Clare is arguing domination and submission without regard to good or evil. No good person would ever want another person to be submissive without it being for the other's well-being. It is about representing God properly, The male-female relationship was designed from the beginning to be the proper representation of God on earth. If God is being misrepresented, it would be appropriate to tell the one misrepresenting God to stop. That is what is going on in Ephesus. The church is being associated with temple prostitution, a misrepresentation of God. So it would be appropriate to tell women to sit down and be quiet, something bigger is at stake. That is why it is not universal only local. the universal rule is the male-female relationship in the Garden of Eden, that is the standard.

 

[Clare73]

Hey Clare

What the Adventist is arguing for is that you consider doing a biblical theology of the relationship between man and women. That is
tracing this theme throughout the bible, to consider how this particular relationship has developed through the biblical narrative, progressively moving through the Creation, the Fall, the Redemption/Rescue and finally the Consummation.

Hi!

I have Christ's teaching from Paul on the matter. . .they've already done the homework.

Mine is just to hear and obey.

Thanks!

 

[Rose_bud]

hey someone gets it.
Clare is arguing domination and submission without regard to good or evil. No good person would ever want another person to be submissive without it being for the other's well-being. It is about representing God properly, The male-female relationship was designed from the beginning to be the proper representation of God on earth. If God is being misrepresented, it would be appropriate to tell the one misrepresenting God to stop. That is what is going on in Ephesus. The church is being associated with temple prostitution, a misrepresentation of God. So it would be appropriate to tell women to sit down and be quiet, something bigger is at stake. That is why it is not universal only local. the universal rule is the male-female relationship in the Garden of Eden, that is the standard.

Hey there

What you are saying reminds me of the incident of Paul and the fortune telling slave, who was proclaiming that people listen to Paul as he had the words of salvation. But he discerned the spirit and silenced her. What she said was correct but the association was incorrect. (Acts 16)

The submission in Ephesus was both ways
Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ (Ephesians 5:21).

Ephesians 5:21-6:2 household code is counter-cultural to the social systems that privileged one gender above the other. I agree with the scholars who say that Paul opposed the ethos of the Greco-Roman household code by totally transforming the relations within the household, upholding the framework for household relationships, father-mother, child-parent, slave-master but simultaneously upholding the worth and dignity of every member of the home.

Especially the Greco-Roman household code. Paul introduces a theological concept of mutual submission, which calls men to account by loving, elevates the status of woman, and includes the entire household, upholding the dignity of each person regardless of status.
Paul encapsulates the Christian household under the principle of mutual submission.

This idea was radical and counter-cultural to the dominant hierarchal form of Greco-Roman relationships. All parties are to submit to one another as in reverence to Christ (Eph 5:21). No one is to seek their own, but put the interests of the other person first, a standard that Jesus demonstrated and endorsed (Matthew 20:25-28, Mark 10:42-45, Luke 22:25-27). A principle that Paul cited as valuing others above yourself, with Christ being the model (Philippians 2:3).
The injunction of mutual submission is not isolated from the rest of the pericope. It continues from the previous chapters that reveal the unity and conduct of the new creation, empowered by the Spirit of Christ. A unity and maturity and behavior that is becoming of a Christian body. The appeal is made in Ephesians 4:1-4.

The church gathered in homes which served as a macro-cosm for how the greater body of Christ should behave. ie, when people encountered the home they encountered a mini church or body of Christ. We know that the church was distinct from the surrounding culture, hence the persecution. The love and serving the interest of the other was a foreign concept in this ancient world. A concept Paul explains in Phillipians and Galatians. How do you suddenly love someone who is of a lower status and class than you? Regard them as a neighbour and love them like you would love yourself? And this to the point of death? Revolutionary!!

 

[Rose_bud]

Hi!

I have Christ's teaching from Paul on the matter. . .they've already done the homework.

Mine is just to hear and obey.

Thanks!

Hey Clare

You've done so well with the other content on this forum. I enjoy reading your arguments. Don't get lazy now, do the work. Prayerfully consider the alternatives and be critical of all information.

 

[Adventist Heretic]

Hey there

What you are saying reminds me of the incident of Paul and the fortune telling slave, who was proclaiming that people listen to Paul as he had the words of salvation. But he discerned the spirit and silenced her. What she said was correct but the association was incorrect. (Acts 16)

The submission in Ephesus was both ways
Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ (Ephesians 5:21).

Ephesians 5:21-6:2 household code is counter-cultural to the social systems that privileged one gender above the other. I agree with the scholars who say that Paul opposed the ethos of the Greco-Roman household code by totally transforming the relations within the household, upholding the framework for household relationships, father-mother, child-parent, slave-master but simultaneously upholding the worth and dignity of every member of the home.

Especially the Greco-Roman household code. Paul introduces a theological concept of mutual submission, which calls men to account by loving, elevates the status of woman, and includes the entire household, upholding the dignity of each person regardless of status.
Paul encapsulates the Christian household under the principle of mutual submission.

This idea was radical and counter-cultural to the dominant hierarchal form of Greco-Roman relationships. All parties are to submit to one another as in reverence to Christ (Eph 5:21). No one is to seek their own, but put the interests of the other person first, a standard that Jesus demonstrated and endorsed (Matthew 20:25-28, Mark 10:42-45, Luke 22:25-27). A principle that Paul cited as valuing others above yourself, with Christ being the model (Phillipians 2:3).
The injunction of mutual submission is not isolated from the rest of the pericope. It continues from the previous chapters that reveal the unity and conduct of the new creation, empowered by the Spirit of Christ. A unity and maturity and behavior that is becoming of a Christian body. The appeal is made in Ephesians 4:1-4.

The church gathered in homes which served as a macro-cosm for how the greater body of Christ should behave. ie, when people encountered the home they encountered a mini church or body of Christ. We know that the church was distinct from the surrounding culture, hence the persecution. The love and serving the interest of the other was a foreign concept in this ancient world. A concept Paul explains in Phillipians and Galatians. How do you suddenly love someone who is of a lower status and class than you? Regard them as a neighbour and love them like you would love yourself? And this to the point of death? Revolutionary!!

I'm glad somebody understands what I'm saying

 

[rturner76]

Would you be more likely to join the Catholic Church,
if they had women priests, bishops, and cardinals?

Nope, unless someone can show me how it's unbiblical and women Preista are Ninlical. Then I guess I would have some thinking to do but I feel secure because they haven't been able to prove that it's wrong by using scripture, in fact, I think it's quite the opposite. But if you are the type of person to change the rules of your religion when you don't like them you will find happiness and fulfillment in Protestantism. In fact, if you don't like what your chosen Protestant is teaching heck, just start your own. I think that's why there are like 100,000 different churches.

 

[tall73]

tall73 said:​

Ok, so what do you make of the creation order argument. Why did Paul make it?​

I asked the above about the following text:

1 Timothy 2:11-14 1 Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12 And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. (NKJV)​

You answered:

it plays to my point, the creation order is the proper representation of God on earth. Paul is arguing that they are misrepresenting God, it is that same argument that goes in favor of women's ordination. Paul's answer is the right answer if temple prostitution were in play, you are misrepresenting God.

So how does Adam being made first relate to this? It is not at all clear to me.

Also, where do you see the text talking about temple prostitution? That is not in the text. You can say it was part of the culture. But you are assuming it is speaking of that in the text. And you should provide evidence.

And especially you should explain how the argument relates to that.

How does Adam being made first fit the view that he is speaking of temple prostitution?

On the other hand, Adam being formed first does relate to roles of men and women in God's pre-fall arrangement. Eve was the suitable "helper" for Adam:

Genesis 2:18-25 18 And the LORD God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” 19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him.​

21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. 22 Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.​

23 And Adam said:​

“This is now bone of my bones​

And flesh of my flesh;​

She shall be called Woman,​

Because she was taken out of Man.”​

24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.​

25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. (NKJV)​

They are both in God's image. They are together one flesh. But one was created first, and one was a helper formed for Adam.

Did you not notice that he made the case on the rebellion and the fall?

No. The forming of Adam prior to Eve is not the rebellion and fall.

And even in the case of the woman being deceived, she was deceived, which RESULTED in the fall.

Why does he appeal to the curse and the fall, did not Christ come to redeem us from the curse, becoming a curse for us?

Yes He very much did. The curse made more harsh the roles of man and woman. While Eve was formed as the suitable helper, the fall resulted in the following curse:

Genesis 3:16 Your desire shall be for your husband,​

And he shall rule over you.” (NKJV)​

However, in Christ, the husband is called to love His wife, and give himself for her.

There is still submission:

Ephesians 5:22-24 22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. (NKJV)​

Explain how this has anything to do with cult prostitution. It is speaking of submission of the wife to the husband.

But also, God indicates how the husband is to love his wife. And it is not to order her as a slave, but to give himself for her, as Christ did the church:

Ephesians 5:25-33 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. 28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. 30 For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. 31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband. (NKJV)​

They are not to abuse their wife, but love them as their own body.

how does that not apply to the punishment the women were given? That is why it has to be local, if it is not then Paul contradicts Himself and that is a bigger issue altogether.

The punishment of him ruling over her is constrained in Christ. The husband is to love her as Christ loves the church.

But it is not just local. It has already been shown to be the case in many churches in various Roman provinces:

• Corinth (Achaia)
• Crete
• Pontus
• Galatia
• Cappadocia
• Asia
• Bithynia

And it was said to be the case of Godly women of old, such as Sarah, in Canaan.

 

[tall73]

submission is something we do willingly, If a person has the well-being of the other in mind it is easy to do accept, but if you do not have the well-being of the other in mind then it is not easy.

Right, which is why Paul calls on the wife to submit, not on the men to force submission. That is why Paul speaks to Titus of the older women admonishing the younger in this regards.

That is why limits are placed on how the man should treat his wife, including warnings that he would limit his own spiritual life if he mistreated her:

1 Peter 3:7 7 Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered. (NKJV)​

 

[tall73]

You are saying that God from time and eternity past to the present has always ordered women to be slaves, dependent upon their husbands, and subservient, they are to be submissive NO MATTER HOW THEY ARE TREATED, and how educated they are, they are second-class citizens with no rights and subject to the wish and whim of any male whether at home or at church. that is disgusting.

And it is also all your words. We quoted from Ephesians, and Peter which do not say to treat them however they want, or that they are slaves, etc.

It says to love your wife as Christ loves the church, giving Himself for it. It says to give honor to the wife as joint-heir of salvation so your prayers are not hindered.

But it does speak of submission throughout many localities, and times, and refers back to holy women of old, not just the situation in Ephesus.

We all acknowledge submission in various aspects of life. We all have to submit to authorities in their legitimate role. That doesn't make us slaves, or without a purpose.

We all submit foremost to God Himself, and that does not make us without a purpose.

Nor does submission of the wife to the husband.

 

[tall73]

Hey Clare

What the Adventist is arguing for is that you consider doing a biblical theology of the relationship between man and women. That is tracing this theme throughout the bible, to consider how this particular relationship has developed through the biblical narrative, progressively moving through the Creation, the Fall, the Redemption/Rescue and finally the Consummation.

Yes, and we have been doing that.


Pre-fall

Adam created first, Eve a suitable helper. Paul mentions this in his words to Timothy.

Male and female are both in the image of God

Eve deceived, resulting in the fall.

The curse resulting in her husband ruling over her.

Sarah and holy women of old submitting to their husbands (I Peter 3)

Christ's work of redemption underscores that women are co-heirs of salvation (I Peter 3), and that there is no male or female in Christ in regards to being heirs to the promise (Galatians).

Women were prophets, ministered various gifts, etc.

But in the NT era, women submitting is spoken of to various churches, in various provinces, in various circumstances (Ephesians, Colossians, I Timothy, I Peter, I Corinthians):

• Corinth (Achaia)
• Crete
• Pontus
• Galatia
• Cappadocia
• Asia
• Bithynia

In Christ the husband is to lay down his life for his wife, and treat her as his own body (Ephesians), to show honor so his prayers are not hindered (I Peter 3).

But submission is indicated for wives even in the NT era.

 

[tall73]

The submission in Ephesus was both ways
Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ (Ephesians 5:21).

The subject of the need for submission to one another is raised, then spelled out in various contexts throughout society:

Submission of the church to Christ, and of the wife to the husband:.

Ephesians 5:22-24​

22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. 24 Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. (NKJV)​

Children to parents:

Ephesians 6:1-4​

1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 “Honor your father and mother,” which is the first commandment with promise: 3 “that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth.”​

4 And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord. (NKJV)​

Bond servants and masters:

Ephesians 6:5-9​

5 Bondservants, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ; 6 not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as bondservants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, 7 with goodwill doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men, 8 knowing that whatever good anyone does, he will receive the same from the Lord, whether he is a slave or free.​

9 And you, masters, do the same things to them, giving up threatening, knowing that your own Master also is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him. (NKJV)​

Ephesians 5:21-6:2 household code is counter-cultural to the social systems that privileged one gender above the other. I agree with the scholars who say that Paul opposed the ethos of the Greco-Roman household code by totally transforming the relations within the household, upholding the framework for household relationships, father-mother, child-parent, slave-master but simultaneously upholding the worth and dignity of every member of the home.

Yes, the dignity and even safety of each is preserved, because limits are put in each case.

• The husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church, and as his own body.
• The father is not to provoke his children
• The master is not to threaten

But there is still submission in all cases. There is no self-seeking, or looking for your own interests. But there is submission.

The woman is called to submit.
The child is called to obey
The bond servant is called to be obedient. They are called to do so willingly.

And the people who are exercising authority (husbands, parents, masters) are given accountability and guidelines.

This does not set aside submission. But it does show God's love in every aspect of society.

 

[Rose_bud]

Yes, and we have been doing that.


Pre-fall

Adam created first, Eve a suitable helper. Paul mentions this in his words to Timothy.

Male and female are both in the image of God

Eve deceived, resulting in the fall.

The curse resulting in her husband ruling over her.

Sarah and holy women of old submitting to their husbands (I Peter 3)

Christ's work of redemption underscores that women are co-heirs of salvation (I Peter 3), and that there is no male or female in Christ in regards to being heirs to the promise (Galatians).

Women were prophets, ministered various gifts, etc.

But in the NT era, women submitting is spoken of to various churches, in various provinces, in various circumstances (Ephesians, Colossians, I Timothy, I Peter, I Corinthians):

• Corinth (Achaia)
• Crete
• Pontus
• Galatia
• Cappadocia
• Asia
• Bithynia

In Christ the husband is to lay down his life for his wife, and treat her as his own body (Ephesians), to show honor so his prayers are not hindered (I Peter 3).

But submission is indicated for wives even in the NT era.

Hi Tall73

Hope you are well.

How about we open another thread specifically for your request, then lets discuss. See how far we get.

I don't think we are respecting the OP.

Firstly, I would also like to say upfront that I am willing to discuss and respond to your post. And would like you to be open to the arguments, by all means be critical but consider what is presented. I'll do the same. And if the onus is on you to present your views with evidence, then it's on you.

Secondly I may not adress everything at once. You've asked quite a bit. And for most part I'm typing on my phone. Also we have a time difference, so there will be times that I don't respond immediately. So a polite request that you bear with me.

Let's start at Creation. And with the word helper... See what this was about move on progressively through the Fall, then Redemption, thereafter Consummation.

 

[tall73]

Hi Tall73

Hope you are well.

How about we open another thread specifically for your request, then lets discuss. See how far we get.

I don't think we are respecting the OP.

I do not think we are disrespecting the OP. The OP asks:

Would you be more likely to join the Catholic Church,​

if they had women priests, bishops, and cardinals?​

a. It asks for people's views or opinions
b. Those opinions could be quite broad, and for different reasons.

Some possible areas of discussion regarding the OP:

Why has the Catholic Church not ordained women?

What is the view, historically, of the church regarding the roles of women?

Is attracting people to attend church a reason to change 2,000 years of practice?

Some have expressed that they already attend a church where women are in leadership roles, so that would not persuade them one way or the other.

Some have noted they have outstanding issues with the Catholic church that would override any benefit seen in that move.

Others have noted that they are also in a traditional church, and that preserving the deposit of the faith is more important that innovation.

For me I would be more likely to join the Orthodox church than the Catholic Church. But the reason I have not joined either is that there are issues with both I am trying to work through, to see whether they match up with what is in Scripture (and to a lesser degree the earliest church fathers). My concern is innovations already made. I don't see any reason for more innovations away from what the Scriptures say.

I got involved in the thread primarily because my friend Adventist Heretic was discussing his view that there is a biblical basis for women ministering.

Paidiske also affirmed such. Some were indicating it was taking the thread off topic. But I don't see that. Certainly the Catholic church has stated reasons for not ordaining women, and those are theological reasons.

So discussing the theological role of women in such a thread seems on topic.

Firstly, I would also like to say upfront that I am willing to discuss and respond to your post. And would like you to be open to the arguments, by all means be critical but consider what is presented. I'll do the same. And if the onus is on you to present your views with evidence, then it's on you.

I have resigned ordination in a church to better follow what I thought was Scriptural evidence. I have changed my views through discussion, including on this forum, a number of times.

By all means present your view. I will respond if I want. I will not respond if I don't want. The same applies to everyone.

Adventist Heretic indicated he didn't want to go into it all again. That is fine. He just wanted to point out that he also saw biblical warrant for his view. That is fine.

I wanted to discuss it. I may or may not continue to want to discuss it. Every interaction here is voluntary. Feel free to discuss, and I will as well.

Secondly I may not adress everything at once. You've asked quite a bit. And for most part I'm typing on my phone. Also we have a time difference, so there will be times that I don't respond immediately. So a polite request that you bear with me.

You are not required to respond quickly, or at all. Nor am I required to adjust my responses to various points in the thread based on your selection of typing device. I hope to entertain your views. When they come in, etc. is not an issue.

Let's start at Creation. And with the word helper... See what this was about move on progressively through the Fall, then Redemption, thereafter Consummation.

I have already posted my view of various texts. Respond, or write additionally as you like. But I see no reason to move the conversation. It is on topic. It is part of my reason I would not be more likely to join the Catholic church if they ordained women priests, bishops or cardinals.

 

[Rose_bud]

I do not think we are disrespecting the OP. The OP asks:

Would you be more likely to join the Catholic Church,​

if they had women priests, bishops, and cardinals?​

a. It asks for people's views or opinions
b. Those opinions could be quite broad, and for different reasons.

Some possible areas of discussion regarding the OP:

Why has the Catholic Church not ordained women?

What is the view, historically, of the church regarding the roles of women?

Is attracting people to attend church a reason to change 2,000 years of practice?

Some have expressed that they already attend a church where women are in leadership roles, so that would not persuade them one way or the other.

Some have noted they have outstanding issues with the Catholic church that would override any benefit seen in that move.

Others have noted that they are also in a traditional church, and that preserving the deposit of the faith is more important that innovation.

For me I would be more likely to join the Orthodox church than the Catholic Church. But the reason I have not joined either is that there are issues with both I am trying to work through, to see whether they match up with what is in Scripture (and to a lesser degree the earliest church fathers). My concern is innovations already made. I don't see any reason for more innovations away from what the Scriptures say.

I got involved in the thread primarily because my friend Adventist Heretic was discussing his view that there is a biblical basis for women ministering.

Paidiske also affirmed such. Some were indicating it was taking the thread off topic. But I don't see that. Certainly the Catholic church has stated reasons for not ordaining women, and those are theological reasons.

So discussing the theological role of women in such a thread seems on topic.

Your stance on not starting a different thread is noted. However, the questions you raised regarding women roles, ministry, submission etc, is best informed by considering the entire corpus of Scripture. The approach to that would be to consider a biblical theology of the relationship between men and women. IMO
This would narrow the thread of the OP, which as you said is broad.

To do justice to the topic would mean to exegete the text that you consider problematic, which is the creation order, if I understood your previous posts. The letters of Paul to a certain extent all mention this when referring to women. It would make sense to start there. Thereafter the impact of the fall, the redemption of woman in the gospels, the application of this redemption in the letters of Paul. And finally what will it be when we meet our Maker.

I have resigned ordination in a church to better follow what I thought was Scriptural evidence. I have changed my views through discussion, including on this forum, a number of times.

I think we all have.

By all means present your view. I will respond if I want. I will not respond if I don't want. The same applies to everyone.

Adventist Heretic indicated he didn't want to go into it all again. That is fine. He just wanted to point out that he also saw biblical warrant for his view. That is fine.

I wanted to discuss it. I may or may not continue to want to discuss it. Every interaction here is voluntary. Feel free to discuss, and I will as well.

I hope you do, I think it will be fruitful. I will start a thread and invite you to discuss. The prerogative is yours to respond or not. Although your indication is that you would rather do so here, which I'm not inclined to do.

You are not required to respond quickly, or at all. Nor am I required to adjust my responses to various points in the thread based on your selection of typing device. I hope to entertain your views. When they come in, etc.

Thank you for the courtesy.

I have already posted my view of various texts. Respond, or write additionally as you like. But I see no reason to move the conversation. It is on topic. It is part of my reason I would not be more likely to join the Catholic church if they ordained women priests, bishops or cardinals.

Your view is noted.

 

[Clare73]

Hey Clare

You've done so well with the other content on this forum. I enjoy reading your arguments. Don't get lazy now, do the work. Prayerfully consider the alternatives and be critical of all information.

Thanks!

I see no alternative NT commands overturning those clear NT commands.
It is not ours to humanly reason away clear NT doctrine.
It is ours to believe and obey it.

 

[Rose_bud]

Thanks!

I see no Biblical alternative NT commands overturning those clear NT commands.
It is not ours to humanly reason away clear NT doctrine.
It is ours to believe and obey it.

I disagree here Clare we are to be good Bereans who received the word with all readiness of mind, examining and searching to verify what Paul said was true.(Acts 17:11)

I would think Jesus and Paul would want us to yield our mental capacities to the Spirit and seek Him diligently in his Word. Many of Gods people died so we are able to do so freely.

 

[Clare73]

I disagree here Clare we are to be good Bereans who received the word with all readiness of mind, examining and searching to verify what Paul said was true.(Acts 17:11)

How did they determine if what Paul said was true? . . .If it agreed with the word of God.

Did they find any disagreement with or contradiction of the word of God in what Paul taught them?
They did not. . .and likewise now, there is nothing in his letter to the Colossians which disagrees with the word of God in Jn 3:18.

 

[Rose_bud]

How did they determine if what Paul said was true? . . .If it agreed with the word of God.

Did they find any disagreement with or contradiction of the word of God in what Paul taught them?

I know the answer as Im sure you do to. As we are able to reason and use our God given mental capacities yielded to the Spirit to discover this mystery. Which you indicated we shouldn't do.

I'm not sure the of the relevance of Jn 8:13 to the conversation.

In any case I think we really are reaching beyond the scope of the OP.

As I don't think any of us will be moving to the Catholic faith anytime soon.