How to defend the belief only men should be ordained?

So the Litany and General Confession are not things you can take seriously yourself then, and A Commination would not apply to you, having got all your doctrinal ducks neatly in a line?

1986 years approximately. There were no Christians until after the Ascension and Pentecost. Before that time they were family, disciples and mostly faithful Jews, including Jesus himself.

Learning? Some more than others.

 

By us being compliant I of course meant "in intent". We see all those demands and comments as unquestioningly applicable to us, and making direct demands of us.

Do I think we enact all that is demanded of us? Far from it. We fail, and fall, frequently. Hence our need for repentance, the litany, the Confession, etc. I think the key point is that because we take the Biblical demands directly, that therefore we see God's judgment on ourselves.

If we interpreted the Scripture using modern liberal heremeneutics, we could make its demands so relativized and "contextualized" as to remove them from having any direct application or demand on us. We wouldn't need the litanies, and the confessions. But because we take the demands of Scripture and of the Church so directly and literally, we see how far we fall short of them, and seek to amend our lives better, in more harmony with them.

Ecclesiastes 1:9:
What has been is what will be,
and what has been done is what will be done,
and there is nothing new under the sun.

 

Jer.31:26, Gal.6:15, Eph.4:24, Jn.13:34, 1 Jn.2:8. There are according to scripture quite a few 'new things' under the sun, including the New Jerusalem, which will be under the Son. Eph.5:14. We need to be alert to the spirits movement, even though the sleep was pleasant.

Scripture interpreted by the 'Historical Analytical' method is inclined to pedantry and legalism. It seems to have been extensively employed by the Pharisees. They disagreed on the 'literal' interpretation of scripture with Jesus, whom they considered extremely 'Liberal' by their own standards. Jesus however was much less hidebound by their inhibitions and pedantic legalism. If our interpretation is not in accordance with HIS then it needs reexamination, according to His standards, not those of the Pharisees. The Holy Spirit is the guide to the proper understanding of the scriptures, not just tradition or 'the historical analytical method', which is very poor at understanding 'figures of speech'. That is why such methods often result in error due to pedantic literalism.

Doctrine needs always to be measured against the character of Jesus Christ and His disciples are required to 'learn from Him'. Matt.11:29.

We should ask ourselves, "Are we gentle and lowly of heart", or are we "Like the Pharisees" Matt.23:27.

 

Funny, there are a bunch of Bible quotes here. The clever impression is that of an abiding adherence to Scripture. And then we scratch the surface, and see that you don't really believe that scripture has "unequivocal, infallibly authoritative, commands demanding our unquestioningly obedient compliance."

So for you the Bible, its dictates, and any verses you cite, are just so many suggestions. Including the things you cite above. No one is bound by them. And so I am not bound by your suggestions. When you find for me something binding, authoritative, or "demanding unquestioningly obedient compliance", let me know.

 

Jn.14:15, Jn.14:21, Jn14:23, 1 Jn.3:14.

 

"The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the Holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures.

In particular such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal."

If one consistently demeans the authority of the Word with words like "magic" then it draws into question whether one is Anglican.

 

2 Tim.3:16 is what scripture says about scripture. Anything which claims more than this is 'Magical Thinking'.

I know better than you what I really believe. I believe that the conscience of a Spirit filled believer is guided by Jesus Christ himself, and 'informed' by holy scripture. You can obey 'The Bible' all you want, but if you are applying it to others in ways that The Holy Spirit and the mind of Christ do not approve, (And that approval comes only through the Holy Spirit 1 Jn.7:9), you are as mistaken as the Pharisees were. They and Satan thought themselves doctrinal 'experts', even trying to teach Jesus Christ and prove him wrong.

 

We certainly believe that the Holy Ghost is the source and author of all truth. What we don't agree with is that the Holy Ghost could ever teach something different from what He had always taught. The doctrine of the Church does not change, because the divine author of doctrine does not change.

I see, so you have a direct line to the Holy Ghost, do you? The scripture only 'informs' what this voice which is clearer than scripture whispers into your mind?

 

So, how do you know what the scripture means then?

Under the old covenant, the priest's lips were to keep knowledge, and at his mouth the people were to seek the law: under the new covenant, the Holy Spirit teaches every believer. Not that the mutual teaching of brethren is excluded while the covenant is being promulgated; but when once the Holy Spirit shall have fully taught all the remission of their sins and inward sanctification, then there shall be no further' need of man teaching his fellow man. Compare 1 Th.4:9; an earnest of that perfect state to come. On the way to that perfect state every man should teach his neighbor. "The teaching is not hard and forced, because grace renders all teachable; for it is not the ministry of the letter, but of the spirit (2 Cor.3:6). The believer's firmness does not depend on the authority of human teachers. God Himself teaches".

Are you doubting that you have a 'direct line' to The Holy Spirit? Were you not 'sealed with The Holy Spirit'? Eph.1:13, Eph.4:30. Matt.3:11.

Acts 8:26-39. Why do you suppose Philip was returned in the Spirit, and the Ethiopian eunuch ,"went on his way rejoicing, needing no further need of an interpreter or any further assistance in understanding the scriptures" ?

 

Scripture, Tradition, and Reason.

All that does not apply to the Interpretation of Scripture; there cannot be as many interpretations as there are human beings. And that Interpretation cannot change across thousands of years, because the Author of the Interpretation does not change.

If you just quoted the right passage, you would see it. It wasn't the Spirit that interpreted the Scripture to the Eunich.

Acts 8:
29 Then the Spirit said to Philip, “Go near and overtake this chariot.”
30 Philip ran to him, and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah, and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?”
31 And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?"
...
35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him.

 

Talk about splitting hairs. Where do you think Philip got the information from when he "Opened his mouth and preached Jesus"?

The passage expressly states that the eunuch was having trouble understanding the scripture, 'because he had no guide'. Philip then stepped in 'guided by The Holy Spirit because he was a believer', and explained, with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, what the inspired holy scripture actually meant.

Once the eunuch understood, and was consequently baptized there was no longer any need for Philip to 'interpret the scriptures' for the eunuch, so Philip was removed from his sight. The eunuch, after baptism, then had The Holy Spirit to enable him to understand them for himself, unaided by anyone other than The Holy Spirit.

That was one of the reasons "He went on his way rejoicing". Were you assuming that once he got back to Ethiopia he would need another 'human scripture interpreter', a male only priest or something, to help him understand the rest of what he was reading? If that were the case, I hardly think he would have been 'rejoicing' on his way. More like extremely perplexed about everything else he still didn't understand, having no 'interpreter' to guide him, in a foreign country not over endowed with Hebrew scripture interpreters.

And as for none of it applying to 'the Interpretation of Scripture', this is precisely what the passage is actually about, unless you had not noticed. Interpretation of scripture and who is a legitimate candidate for baptism and 'sealing in The Holy Spirit'.

That is surely not rocket science, do you get my drift now?

It is not the opinions of human beings that interpret scripture. It is The Holy Spirit, and some who claim to understand and interpret are sometimes wrong.

Interpretation can change, if the 'changeless thousand year old one' was not fully understood by the reader who formulated the doctrine, or by the followers who had unquestioningly just accepted it without checking it out with the Holy Spirit.

You have heard it said , it is written, But I tell you . . . . . . .

Ever heard anything like that said by anyone in scripture? The author does not change, but human understanding of what the author meant changes, particularly if people have always failed to understand the author. (And I think that may be true of the human race generally, don't you)?

 

I see we're just dealing with a Pope of one. The meaning of the Word is apparently impenetrable and opaque, unless it can be molded to one's own personal infallible Magisterium, then it is clear as day.

 

Goose, gander, sauce and ("all my fellow Pharisees agree, that you are wrong"), seems to be appropriate then. Not a new thing under the sun, I suppose.

I see I am dealing with someone who needs other people 'with authority', to interpret the scriptures for him. That is very Roman Catholic you know.

 

You seem to be under the impression that any respect for authority and tradition is "Pharisaical" or Roman Catholic. This is a very shallow understanding of the Reformation doctrine that the Church of England holds. Peter warns against private interpretation in 2 Peter. Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, Jewel, Hall and others held an immense respect for the ancient and medieval consensus on doctrine.

Casting aside 2,000 years of consensus, from those who first received the Scriptures to those who hold them today isn't being against authority. It is simply substituting the Church's for one's own. It's not anti-popery just advocating a Papacy of one: oneself.

 

I assume Tiffy wrote this article under another name:
https://www.christianpost.com/voice/your-husband-is-not-your-priest.html

 

For the record, I have sent a private word to Tiffy regarding his commentary on scripture and our terms of service.

I feel I can't keep that completely private, in the interest of the community, but I will say no more.

 

Good. I ignored them because they kept ignoring reasonable objections to their arguments and debating from a very indignantly politically correct angle.

 

I have just been reading "The Form and Manner of Ordering of Priests" in my 1662 and it is not at all clear to me why women should be excluded.
Can someone enlighten me please?

 

I'm not even remotely as well read as some others on this forum, but I'll try my best to give an answer nonetheless.

The reason that, as far as I'm aware, you won't find any explicit prohibitions of the ordination of women in the Fathers, Anglican Divines, the BCP, etc, is because the thought of attempting to ordain a woman was not even entertained until the last 100ish years. It was taken for granted, in light of scripture and the whole weight of sacred tradition, that only men could be ordained. And rightfully so! The Levitical priesthood was male-only, the 12 apostles were all male and there is much scripture that prohibits women from holding a (religious) teaching office.

The only way to really get around the male-only nature of the priesthood is by ignoring/discarding scripture and tradition (as Tiffy has done previously on this thread).

So back to your question, the reason it may not seem obvious in the BCP that women cannot be ordained is because the authors of the BCP thought it really was obvious that women cannot be ordained!

 

It was simply understood by all Christian cultures about what the ministry of the church looked like, and I don’t think you’ll find men explicitly specified in either the Roman ordinals or the Baptist orders of ordination

So in our Anglican Ordinal there was never a need to insist on what was obviously understood by all... you’ve got the male pronouns (he) as the hints of what was assumed