• With the events that occured on July 13th, 2024, a reminder that posts wishing that the attempt was successful will not be tolerated. Regardless of political affiliation, at no point is any type of post wishing death on someone is allowed and will be actioned appropriately by CF Staff.

  • Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

A conservative argument for women priests

Status
Not open for further replies.

Adventist Heretic

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Sep 18, 2006
5,357
516
Parts Unknown
✟446,449.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I appreciate that perspective and I do not doubt that it is the truth. When I was Pentecostal, there was talk of very conservative parents pressuring their teen daughters into abortion, because they could not bear the shame in the assembly of having a pregnant unwed teen

We are suffering the effects of the so called “sexual revolution”, when the women became promiscuous and seduced all the men and turned them into boys.

A woman is called to be a mother. That is the one thing that she can be that a man can never be. All of this feminist clap trap, that tries to prove that a woman is just as good as a man, causes her to abandon her original vocation, motherhood.

Take a look at feminist politics. It is all bent on destroying motherhood. Abortion kills a child and prevents a woman ever becoming a mother to that child. Sterilization and contraception prevents motherhood and makes a woman a plaything of men or a mere seductress. Working outside the home abandons her children to strangers and severely impairs the mother/child bond. Transgender takes someone that can never be a mother and dresses it up to look like a woman but never will be, or takes a potential mother and tells her she is no good just be a man. All feminist, all destructive.
this is an over exxageration,
The Bible says the thief comes not but to kill, rob and destroy. Feminism kills a woman, robs her of children and destroys her motherhood. There is nothing feminine about it
having read the feminist literature from the time period of the "sexual revoloution" I can tell you are misrepresenting there view. Christian's often do this. either because they are ignorant of the objection or ignorant of the problem. You see the feminist of that era were different from the ones that came before them in that they were not Christian feminist, they were atheist and pagans. They did not buy into the assumption of Genesis and the Garden of Eden. and do not see motherhood as the highest calling. they see it as a calling if the woman want's it, it should be her choice and not societies. There were many assumptions that they simply would not buy into, like all you were to be was a wife - a mother, have children and then die. That was not there view. they wanted more out of life and Christianity said nope, no personal development for you.
Yes I know men are no better. The sexual revolution has killed their masculinity, robbed them of their leadership and destroyed fatherhood. Are we not men? No we are beer guzzling fat lazy babies that bark orders at women and demand sex. Or else you have the virtue signaling wimps that agree with feminism that women quickly grow bored of.
speak for you self.
Genesis says you will be saved through the bearing of children . Motherhood is a woman’s vocation. Feminism says it’s not. Who is denying God? I don’t care what anyone’s conscience says. We are all called to deny ourselves and submit our conscience to the word of God
the sexual revoloution was the atheist and the pagan say we don't believe the bible and your assumed world view leave us alone. we will chart our own way.
The elect will do so, the others will just make excuses. Yes there are special circumstances where women are called to serve God as virgins or repentant celibates, just as men are called the same way, but they do not abandon the roles God has ordained for them. Men are fathers, women are mothers. The two shall not mix roles in this world and still say they are obeying God

There will never be women priests, just as a man will never be a mother. It is not what God created them to be
that is not what the NT origanally had in mind
In the next world eye has not seen not ear heard. Women could very well be above and ruling men, but not in this world. Be faithful unto death and we are given a crown of life. Resentment and rebellion only invites chastisement
yes, be faithful to the men and you will get the gift Christ has already won for you back. you get noting but suffering on this planet. the but remeber God loves you. we don't
 
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Site Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
35,212
19,719
44
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,606,970.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Question: If the verse in 1 Corinthians 14 v 34 is regarding a local issue, why is the word 'churches', plural, used?

Even in Koine Greek, the word ekklesiais is used, being a plural of church, singular.
The word can be used for a congregation, or for any occasion when the congregation gathers. I'd say (and the resources I just consulted would say) in this case it's the latter; in the church gatherings...
 
Upvote 0
Oct 13, 2024
18
11
37
Honiton
✟11,731.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
The word can be used for a congregation, or for any occasion when the congregation gathers. I'd say (and the resources I just consulted would say) in this case it's the latter; in the church gatherings...
Yes, 'congregation' does translate to 'ekklesia', which is the singular form of 'ekklesiais' and although the Bible translates every instance of 'ekklesiais' as 'churches', which is correct, the word 'congregations' could also be used for one could say that it is not the building but the gathering of people.

Matthew 18:20 'For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.'

And so, irregardless of whether the synonyms 'church' or 'congregation' are used, the plurality remains. It would then read;

1 Corinthians 14:34 'Let your women keep silence in the congregations: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.'

Is priest, pastor or elder a part of the 'congregation'? Yes;

congregation
noun
1. a group of people assembled for religious worship.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
32,629
6,080
Visit site
✟986,165.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The role of an apostle was to spread the Word and found new churches.
Phebe was a 'servant'.
All of them could easily have completed their duties and positions whilst abiding by Paul's writings in 1 Corinthians 14.

We can also add 1 Timothy 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Even this word from Timothy does not prevent the aforementioned women from undertaking their duties, provided that they are aware of the limitations placed upon them to be obedient ultimately to God and faithful to his Word.

This in no way prevents women's prayer meetings such as Lydia's or missionary work as we would now refer it. But 1 Corinthians 14 is surely unequivocal.

It sounds like you would have no problem with Priscilla participating in explaining more accurately the faith to Apollos?

Acts 18:24-26​
24 Now a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man and mighty in the Scriptures, came to Ephesus. 25 This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things of the Lord, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26 So he began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Aquila and Priscilla heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. (NKJV)​
 
Upvote 0

Adventist Heretic

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Sep 18, 2006
5,357
516
Parts Unknown
✟446,449.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Question: If the verse in 1 Corinthians 14 v 34 is regarding a local issue, why is the word 'churches', plural, used?

Even in Koine Greek, the word ekklesiais is used, being a plural of church, singular.
Question: If the verse in 1 Corinthians 14 v 34 is regarding a local issue, why is the word 'churches', plural, used?

Even in Koine Greek, the word ekklesiais is used, being a plural of church, singular.
I think you misunderstand the use of local. local dose not mean only one church, it can mean one, but also many chruch in a particualar time place and circumstances. what you seem to be failing to understand is that it is not a universal law for all time an places. The context of 1 cor 14:34 is orderliness in worship, women are not to interrupt the service and ask questions. that would apply in many churchs not just that one, but the issues was local driven. so Paul himself addresses how to apply this local situation in more then one place. He does not apply or tell us to apply that in Ephesus.
 
Upvote 0

Adventist Heretic

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Sep 18, 2006
5,357
516
Parts Unknown
✟446,449.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Other text are local and not universal. Lawsuits among believers. This was addressing 2 Rich business man, who had a land deal that was bad and we're fighting about it in front of the courts. giving the Church a bad reputation.
What is the universal rule???? don't destroy the reputation of the Church or the salvation of souls for your greed..

He did not make a universal command for the prohibition of lawsuits among believers. That would allowed to sin the flourish in the church and contradict God's direct teaching in the Old testament.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Adventist Heretic

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Sep 18, 2006
5,357
516
Parts Unknown
✟446,449.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Head coverings, most people have the common sense to believe that this is local but some people believe that it is universal. The Command is to be associated with virtue not associate with harloty.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Site Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
35,212
19,719
44
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,606,970.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
And so, irregardless of whether the synonyms 'church' or 'congregation' are used, the plurality remains.
I think you have slightly missed my meaning. I was not meaning congregation, but a sense of a particular occasion on which the church/congregation gathers. We might translate that as "church services." In that case, even for one local church, if the instruction was to be for more than one particular gathering, it would be in the plural.
 
Upvote 0
Jun 26, 2003
8,513
1,353
Visit site
✟279,911.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
this is an over exxageration,

having read the feminist literature from the time period of the "sexual revoloution" I can tell you are misrepresenting there view. Christian's often do this. either because they are ignorant of the objection or ignorant of the problem. You see the feminist of that era were different from the ones that came before them in that they were not Christian feminist, they were atheist and pagans. They did not buy into the assumption of Genesis and the Garden of Eden. and do not see motherhood as the highest calling. they see it as a calling if the woman want's it, it should be her choice and not societies. There were many assumptions that they simply would not buy into, like all you were to be was a wife - a mother, have children and then die. That was not there view. they wanted more out of life and Christianity said nope, no personal development for you.

speak for you self.

the sexual revoloution was the atheist and the pagan say we don't believe the bible and your assumed world view leave us alone. we will chart our own way.



that is not what the NT origanally had in mind

yes, be faithful to the men and you will get the gift Christ has already won for you back. you get noting but suffering on this planet. the but remeber God loves you. we don't

It would be helpful if you provided references for what you say. Did you read feminist literature from the 1960s? Which one?

Have you read Mary Wollstonecraft?
Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B Anthony?

Motherhood is a woman’s highest calling as it the only thing she can be that a man will never be.
To discard motherhood in favor of supposed equality with men is absurd

Historical examination shows that once a society forsakes marriage and family, especially premarital chastity, it invariably collapses in three generations, with a generation defined as 32 years. You need not listen to me. You just have to look and see that we are on the verge of societal collapse.

From the advent of “the pill” in 1960 it has been 64 years. We are at the end of the second generation and society no longer can tell man from woman. We have gender fluidity.

I am amazed by the quick decline from 1992 until now. Barring a miracle of divine intervention, we will see the total collapse by 2056.

How will that look? Don’t know, don’t want to find out. Time to repent in dust and ashes and stop listening to the architects of the destruction
We need to restore the patriarchy, not further emasculate it
I agree that ultimately, there is only one Church. But that one Church lives in and through various institutional bodies. No one denomination can claim to be the Church at the expense of others.

And I am pointing out to you that those in ordained ministry do not do that. Authority is given by their churches.

Of course it is. You are making claims to be putting forward truth, and you are doing so in ways which demean others. You would need a very high standard of credibility to have those claims taken seriously; no one is going to take them at face value from an anonymous internet poster.

I'm not here to show off, and I'm certainly not here to play endless games with people whose only agenda in the conversation is to discredit me.

You're the one who tried to tell me women in ministry don't really proclaim the gospel. Yep, that's a demeaning attack.

Did you think I was making a false claim? If you like, I'll PM you a link to my parish's website. You can check out my position, my sermon archive, the works. I don't post it publicly because I've had a couple of... interesting... interactions with forum members over the years.

My argument is that I'm a priest. I'm living the life and doing the work of a priest. I hold the authority of my church (through my bishop) to do so. I'm being faithfully obedient to the call of God on my life. That's just reality.

Surely you realise that that's not how any Anglican clergyperson understands their church's relation to authority?

I see my bishop living in obedience to the authority of the church in which he serves, its constitution, canon law, and so on. There's no rebellion there.
so you turn a blind eye to history?
And become wise in your own eyes?

Ok, you still have not established your position

The same arguments the Pharisees used against Jesus when they said He spoke demeaning against them. We have Abraham for our father.

So what? Do you not think that from stones could be raised children for Abraham?

So what if you have some guy that claims a bishopric that made you a priest? Did he have authority to do so in the first place? If so, how?
 
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Site Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
35,212
19,719
44
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,606,970.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
so you turn a blind eye to history?
What history do you mean? If you're going to try to claim that the Reformation was some completely unjustified rebellion, of course we're going to disagree.
So what if you have some guy that claims a bishopric that made you a priest? Did he have authority to do so in the first place? If so, how?
He had authority given him by the church in which we both serve. That's how it works.
 
Upvote 0
Jun 26, 2003
8,513
1,353
Visit site
✟279,911.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
What surprised me about modern feminism and this thread in particular was today’s Gospel.

It recounted how two apostles wanted to sit a Christ’s left and right in glory. Jesus told them that they do not know what they are asking
He said the greatest among you will be your servant. That is a position to be cherished in God’s kingdom.

Feminism tells women that being a servant is demeaning and a sign of oppression. It is better to be a leader and be obeyed. Forget that servant stuff. Overthrow the patriarchy
That argument sounds more like it comes from the enemies of truth rather than from God

Women take the most honored role of servant hood, treat it like an unclean thing and speak evil of it. Christians live to serve rather than be served. Stop listening to feminist propaganda
 
Upvote 0
Jun 26, 2003
8,513
1,353
Visit site
✟279,911.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
What history do you mean? If you're going to try to claim that the Reformation was some completely unjustified rebellion, of course we're going to disagree.

He had authority given him by the church in which we both serve. That's how it works.
Forgive her Father, she does not know what she is doing,

The Anglican schism was not part of the so called reformation. It’s a separate issue
 
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Site Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
35,212
19,719
44
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,606,970.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Feminism tells women that being a servant is demeaning and a sign of oppression.
No; it tells all of us that limiting the potential and opportunities of any group of people is oppression. If someone freely chooses to serve, that is their good choice; if someone is forced to serve due to lack of education, lack of opportunity, lack of agency, and so on, that is something else entirely.
The Anglican schism was not part of the so called reformation. It’s a separate issue
It's a lot more complex than that. Even Henry's original break with Rome came with growing Protestant sentiment in England. But even so, that's not the last word on the formation of the Church of England. After all, England became Catholic again after Mary; Protestant under Elizabeth; and it became Puritan during the Commonwealth. The decision to adopt the church structure that we have today dates to the restoration of the monarchy in 1660; and the choice of a Protestant church body at that time was absolutely part of the legacy of the wider reformation.
 
Upvote 0

jas3

Well-Known Member
Jan 21, 2023
849
640
The South
✟64,107.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Is the text a universal command or his it addressing a local situation. traditional interpreters assume that all scripture is a universal command or law for all time and place. They do not factor in the local circumstances that are involved.
No, there are passages like 3 John 5:9-10 that are clearly about local matters. With passages like 1 Tim. 2 it's not that Christians just weren't "factoring in" the possibility of a passage having local applicability, it's that modern liberals have found it a convenient way to handwave away any passage of Scripture they don't like.
Head coverings, most people have the common sense to believe that this is local but some people believe that it is universal.
For two millennia Christians treated this as a universal rule (and many still do). Only within the last few decades - and what shocking timing, coinciding with the sexual revolution - did people decide that this was actually a local rule.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zippy2006
Upvote 0

Adventist Heretic

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Sep 18, 2006
5,357
516
Parts Unknown
✟446,449.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
No, there are passages like 3 John 5:9-10 that are clearly about local matters. With passages like 1 Tim. 2 it's not that Christians just weren't "factoring in" the possibility of a passage having local applicability, it's that modern liberals have found it a convenient way to handwave away any passage of Scripture they don't like.
No hand waving occured. It took the text read it and put it in it's context. something that takes work and effort. I look for an application. It is lazy what traditionalist do and the damage they do in great.
For two millennia Christians treated this as a universal rule (and many still do).
so what, the were wrong for 2000 years. get over it This is an untrue statement and show you are un-familure with church history and practice.

are you really going to defend head coverings as a universal law in the church???? I have been in a culture where no women cover there heads ever never have never will. There is not sin or offence at all from this. are you saying that God cares about this so much that it offends Him when women uncover there hair? Seriously, do you not see how that is clearly cultural. It is stupid to assume other wise. you make God look and idiot.
Only within the last few decades
again not true. all you have to do is look at the scripture and the apostolic fathers and you will see that the role of women was much different then it is in the later church
- and what shocking timing, coinciding with the sexual revolution -
correlation not causation. the questions were being asked long before the sexual Reveloution they just became more vocal. What shifted was the method of interpreation. the emphesis on the human element, culture ,history, tradition, and context. History was seen as a "cause and effect" this naturally extended to how the scripture was intrepretated. When interpreting the text we look for the What,Why & How. What is causing Paul to say these things to women? What is the Goal ? What is Paul is trying to achieve and how will this effect community and the representation of God?

By the traditional view, Paul has no reason, he is arbitrary and he is unconcerned about the people, women involved. This is the command to do what I say? without regard for your health or well-being. That is neither Christian or Christ like.
did people decide that this was actually a local rule.
it was a rule made to address a local situation. if the situation did not exist the rule would not apply. it would if there were simalar circumstance
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Adventist Heretic

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Sep 18, 2006
5,357
516
Parts Unknown
✟446,449.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
No; it tells all of us that limiting the potential and opportunities of any group of people is oppression. If someone freely chooses to serve, that is their good choice; if someone is forced to serve due to lack of education, lack of opportunity, lack of agency, and so on, that is something else entirely.
agreed. you are a slave when you have not choice. I know first hand, having been oppressed by the SDA denomination.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 13, 2024
18
11
37
Honiton
✟11,731.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
I think you have slightly missed my meaning. I was not meaning congregation, but a sense of a particular occasion on which the church/congregation gathers. We might translate that as "church services." In that case, even for one local church, if the instruction was to be for more than one particular gathering, it would be in the plural.
Ahh, now I understand your interpretation! I'm not the sharpest tool, so you will have to excuse me!

So 1 Corinthians 1:2 is writing to a singular church service?

'Unto the church [ekklesia] of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:'

And this is not written to the other churches because? The women were already silent there? Or were they allowed act as in Corinth but Paul ignored it?
 
Upvote 0
Jun 26, 2003
8,513
1,353
Visit site
✟279,911.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
No; it tells all of us that limiting the potential and opportunities of any group of people is oppression. If someone freely chooses to serve, that is their good choice; if someone is forced to serve due to lack of education, lack of opportunity, lack of agency, and so on, that is something else entirely.

It's a lot more complex than that. Even Henry's original break with Rome came with growing Protestant sentiment in England. But even so, that's not the last word on the formation of the Church of England. After all, England became Catholic again after Mary; Protestant under Elizabeth; and it became Puritan during the Commonwealth. The decision to adopt the church structure that we have today dates to the restoration of the monarchy in 1660; and the choice of a Protestant church body at that time was absolutely part of the legacy of the wider reformation.

Yes, you have demonstrated that God gives us free will. If one does not wish to use it to follow Him, that is their choice. Several godly truths come to mind, none of which are expressed by feminism

Love your enemies and pray for those that persecute you

If your enemy strikes you, offer him the other cheek. If he takes your shirt, give your coat as well. If he forced one mile from you walk two
Return not evil for evil

The greatest among you shall be your servant

The last will be first and the first will be last

What does it profit to gain the whole world and lose one’s soul?

Feminism says no, servants are bad, your enemies must be held in contempt, if you are not first you are last, concentrate on gaining the world to assert your rights. You are right, only free will offerings of love are accepted by God, but you forgot that free will offerings of rebellion are rejected.

What would you do if Jesus said, I never knew you ?

Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness

God loves you, and jealously wants to pursue you to give you the opportunity to repent. She who loves her life will lose it, but she who loses her life for Jesus sake will find it

You are destined for a higher place in heaven, yet are squandering it to pursue your station in this world. You still have time to reconsider
 
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Site Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
35,212
19,719
44
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,606,970.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Ahh, now I understand your interpretation! I'm not the sharpest tool, so you will have to excuse me!

So 1 Corinthians 1:2 is writing to a singular church service?

'Unto the church [ekklesia] of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:'
I think the sense of the word is shifting. In 1:2, the church - congregation - in Corinth. In the other reference, in regard to church services.
And this is not written to the other churches because? The women were already silent there? Or were they allowed act as in Corinth but Paul ignored it?
We know that Paul worked with and commended a woman apostle, a woman deacon, women who taught and prayed and prophesied and presided over worship in their homes. So whatever the issue was at Corinth, it clearly wasn't universal.
Feminism says no, servants are bad, your enemies must be held in contempt, if you are not first you are last, concentrate on gaining the world to assert your rights.
This is a completely nonsensical misrepresentation of feminism. Working towards justice is not a misuse of power.
You are destined for a higher place in heaven, yet are squandering it to pursue your station in this world.
Absolutely nothing about my motivation for serving in ordained ministry is about my "station in the world."
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.