Sunday, July 10, 2016

Should women be silent in church

Should women be silent in church?

This author says yes, this author says no. 

65 comments:

B. Prokop said...

Well, in Catholic churches, this issue is settled. No one is allowed to preach (i.e., give a sermon) during Mass other than the Priest or a Deacon. And since only men can hold either of those positions, it follows that only men can preach.

But this rule is binding only during Mass. Women are the majority of Catechism (i.e., "Sunday School") teachers in the Catholic Church, and often give lectures or head study groups during adult evening activities. So they are far from silent.

I wonder. Who teaches in Protestant Sunday Schools for children? Only men? Or do they believe the "women should be silent" rule applies only during services?

steve said...

As has often been noted, Paul's prohibition in 1 Cor 14 can't be absolute inasmuch as Paul makes provision for women to pray and prophesy aloud in public worship in 1 Cor 11.

steve said...

If the Virgin Mary made an appearance at Mass, would she be allowed to speak?

B. Prokop said...

I'll worry about that question when it happens.

Ilíon said...

"I wonder. Who teaches in Protestant Sunday Schools for children?"

Women, of course ... for, after all, the people in Sunday School are children, not adult men.

steve said...

BTW, there are more competent discussions on both sides of the issue. For an egalitarian perspective:

http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/30/30-1/30-1-pp049-061_JETS.pdf

http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/200102/082_paul.cfm

For a complementarian perspective:

http://d3pi8hptl0qhh4.cloudfront.net/documents/tschreiner/RBMW_11.pdf

http://d3pi8hptl0qhh4.cloudfront.net/documents/tschreiner/6.2_review.pdf

Joe Hinman said...

My section on Egalitarian Christianity on Doxa

Let the Women Speak in the chruch

Joe Hinman said...

read my essay. the whole idea o Paul silencing women is bad Greek.

Joe Hinman said...

As has often been noted, Paul's prohibition in 1 Cor 14 can't be absolute inasmuch as Paul makes provision for women to pray and prophesy aloud in public worship in 1 Cor 11.

I can't defend it now like I could back when I was studying Greek.It was my undergrad language, but essentially my argument says Paul was quoting the letter they wrote him,He was not saying women keep silent he was rebuking those who silenced them. Where he says"what has the word of God come only to you?" He's speaking to the resilience not to the women,

B. Prokop said...

Joe,

I've heard that "quotation" theory before, and find the reasoning behind it quite compelling. If anyone is unfamiliar with the argument, go to 1 Corinthians, Chapter 14, and read it aloud beginning at verse 33. When you get to the passage "As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church," read it in a sarcastic tone of voice, as though you were quoting something you vehemently disagree with. Then, beginning with the following "What!", read as though you are skewering whomever it was that wrote the offending passage you just quoted.

It makes a lot of sense that way.

Ilíon said...

^ No it doesn't.

Ilíon said...

"Should women be silent in church?"

Does it not seem to be the case that those denominations most egalitarian (or equalitarian) with respect to sex are also those denominations most heretical with respect to sexual sin, and eventually sin in general?

Does it not seem to be the case that the more public-and-prominent (and political) the roles of women in a denomination --
- the more men are sidelined (with an initial temporary exception for the "gay" ones);
- the more doctrine is sidelined;
- and, eventually, the more Christ is sidelined?

B. Prokop said...

Could not agree more, Ilion. That's partly why I support the Catholic (and Orthodox) Church's teaching that only men may be priests.

But I still think the quotation theory concerning 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 has a strong case. And there are other instances of a biblical writer sarcastically quoting something they disagree with. Joel 3:9-10 and Amos 8:5-6 come immediately to mind.

One problem is that NT Greek has no punctuation marks, and we're never 100 percent certain when quoted speech begins or ends.

Joe Hinman said...

I've heard that "quotation" theory before, and find the reasoning behind it quite compelling. If anyone is unfamiliar with the argument, go to 1 Corinthians, Chapte

I took it to a couple of professoprs of Greek one atUNM and one UT Arlington they agreed with the possibility that the ate is a rhetorical ate meaning ikt;'s a refutation,

Joe Hinman said...

íon said...
^ No it doesn't.

what? has the word of Trump come only to you?

July 11, 2016 6:03 AM
Blogger Ilíon said...
"Should women be silent in church?"

Does it not seem to be the case that those denominations most egalitarian (or equalitarian) with respect to sex are also those denominations most heretical with respect to sexual sin, and eventually sin in general?

can you say "ad hominime?" trying to read Greek by what denominations are doing not very bright,

Does it not seem to be the case that the more public-and-prominent (and political) the roles of women in a denomination --
- the more men are sidelined (with an initial temporary exception for the "gay" ones);
- the more doctrine is sidelined;
- and, eventually, the more Christ is sidelined?

July 11, 2016 6:15 AM

no but you think because ou want to run the show, beading equal feels like a demotion to youu because you want to be in charge,

Joe Hinman said...

Could not agree more, Ilion. That's partly why I support the Catholic (and Orthodox) Church's teaching that only men may be priests.

why would including women sideline men but slimming women doesn't sideline women?

what principle of leadership for the church did Jesus lay down? He who would be the leader must being in charge of all right?

that;'s what Jesus said when he made the disciples wash his feet?

Ilíon said...

"But I still think the quotation theory concerning 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 has a strong case."

I'm not seeing any case at all -- if anything, those particular couple of sentences seem out-of-place considering the topic being developed in the chapter, or perhaps a parenthetical. That is, the "What?" you call attention to refers back to the discussion of the entire rest of the chapter.

Moreover, this isn't the only "offensive" passage concerning the public role of women in church.

Ilíon said...

Thank goodness that when the BlogSpot software sends an email notification of a "response" in a thread to which one has subscribed, it uses the user name/handle as the "from" name -- that makes it much easier to delete certain notification without even having to see the content.

Crude said...

Joe H,

what principle of leadership for the church did Jesus lay down?

Apparently, 'you all must be male' looking at His apostles. Or, come to think of it, religious leadership throughout the Bible.

And I admit, appeals to egalitarianism mean nothing to me in this context. It's a nice principal in certain (usually non-religious or merely intellectual) situations, but trying to cast it as being enshrined in the Bible - especially with regards to teaching and the priesthood - just doesn't fly.

If God wants men to lead the Church - and by every indication, He does - then that's that. Crying 'But that's unfair! Men are in charge and women aren't!' means as much to me as hearing an LGBT activist scream 'You can have a priest bless your marriage and I can't!'

Finally, it's not ad homimen to point out that everywhere where women have a prominent teaching authority in church, there is substantial, rapid rot. That doesn't affect language, but it does provide insight into one reason about why teaching authority wasn't given to women.

Bob,

Women are the majority of Catechism (i.e., "Sunday School") teachers in the Catholic Church, and often give lectures or head study groups during adult evening activities. So they are far from silent.

I constantly hear that Catholics are poorly catechized. Should I lay the blame with them then?

As for your view of the argument, if I read the beatitudes with a sarcastic tone of voice, I can come away with a whole other interpretation of -that- too. Equally valid?

Crude said...

By the way, as far as Paul's teaching on this goes, there's also 1 Timothy 2.

11 A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[b] she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women[c] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

However, Karen King has proposed the existence of a missing fragment at the end of this, which says "No but seriously, all of this is baloney.", so there's some reason to reject this teaching. I mean, not really, but I can see it coming.

Joe Hinman said...

God wants men to lead the Church - and by every indication, He does - then that's that. Crying 'But that's unfair! Men are in charge and women aren't!' means as much to me as hearing an LGBT activist scream 'You can have a priest bless your marriage and I can't!'

Finally, it's not ad homimen to point out that everywhere where women have a prominent teaching authority in church, there is substantial, rapid rot. That doesn't affect language, but it does provide insight into one reason about why teaching authority wasn't given to women.

when you are capable of making an argument not circular or based upon stipulation I'll listen such groundless pronouncements however bold prove nothing.

"God wants men to lead the church," what a great job we've done of it. lead on to the next pub.

Joe Hinman said...

I'm not seeing any case at all -- if anything, those particular couple of sentences seem out-of-place considering the topic being developed in the chapter, or perhaps a parenthetical. That is, the "What?" you call attention to refers back to the discussion of the entire rest of the chapter.

you are totally ignoring the evidence There are two major points

(1) the rhetorical ate which I illustrate ks present several times in the letter over all. Thatmakrs the statement as a refutation to whats came before

(2) the context which fits much better, with the assumption that he;s really silencing women en you to explaimn why Paul suddenly blurts out "what has the word of God come only to you?" when no one said that, it makes sense if it's a rejoinder to silencers.

Joe Hinman said...

Thank goodness that when the BlogSpot software sends an email notification of a "response" in a thread to which one has subscribed, it uses the user name/handle as the "from" name -- that makes it much easier to delete certain notification without even having to see the content.

Ivcan seehow that's a biog plus for you.why waste your time doing all that thinking when your dogmatism screens out thought anyway?

Joe Hinman said...

By the way, as far as Paul's teaching on this goes, there's also 1 Timothy 2.

11 A woman[a] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[b] she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women[c] will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

However, Karen King has proposed the existence of a missing fragment at the end of this, which says "No but seriously, all of this is baloney.", so there's some reason to rej

(1) not by Paul, Pastoral epistle. might as well join the 20th century, it's safe to do that now it's the next century.

(2)that passaqge is also mistranslated and misapploed



Not Permitted to teach

God is not a respecter or persons. all the sexist passages are distorted and badly translated as are all gthe racist ones.

Joe Hinman said...

here's the about teaching

Teach

Crude said...

when you are capable of making an argument not circular or based upon stipulation

What's circular, Joe? I look at the makeup of the Apostles - all men. I quote the Bible, which I note you did as well: you seem to regard 1 Cor 14 as giving valid input, so long as you go with a theory that amounts to 'He was quoting that and being sarcastic.' I bring in 1 Tim 2, and... I don't know, you don't like it so it doesn't count? As far as Biblical resources go, I've got a full quiver of evidence I can point at to back up my view. You've got to reach, be creative and even imagine things to get to a female clergy being even acceptable, much less a good idea.

But what I've listed aren't pronouncements. They're evidence for my claims. Now, my stating that egalitarianism doesn't mean a thing to me - that's a pronouncement, but it also has an intellectual core. 'Your position isn't egalitarian!' Okay. So what? Does God demand I be an egalitarian? If you say yes, you better have the tradition, the philosophy or the bible quotes ready to make your case. If you just feel real strongly that a good God would want this, well, my pronouncement has as much power as your heartfelt wanting.

"God wants men to lead the church," what a great job we've done of it.

Actually, a pretty fantastic job overall. Whole continents made Christian. Slavery barred. Turned back pagan invaders. From the works of art to the development and spread of the faith, there's a lot to praise.

Admittedly, some drastic mistakes have been made. For example, some of us greenlighted female clergy. But as far as religious movements go, Christianity has achieved tremendous things with that, what do you call it... patriarchy.

What's weird about your response is that the sneering sarcasm of 'What a great job men have done' is paired with an inability to even accept that female clergy have been, on the whole, lousy. Bash men all day, dump on their accomplishments, but pointing out flaws among the female 'clergy'? Out of bounds my good sir.

Something about that attitude seems... off.

Crude said...

(2) the context which fits much better, with the assumption that he;s really silencing women en you to explaimn why Paul suddenly blurts out "what has the word of God come only to you?" when no one said that, it makes sense if it's a rejoinder to silencers.

It's pretty easy to see why Paul blurts that out: he's establishing his teaching as the correct one, and questioning the authority of anyone to overrule him on these points.

(1) not by Paul, Pastoral epistle. might as well join the 20th century, it's safe to do that now it's the next century.

Oh boy, I love it when people give Argument Because Current Year. It's traditionally attributed to Paul, and I see no reason to doubt that.

(2)that passaqge is also mistranslated and misapploed

Feel free to tell me what it should -really- say.

God is not a respecter or persons. all the sexist passages are distorted and badly translated as are all gthe racist ones.

What if they're not, Joe? God seems plenty capable of commanding us to do things that people in CurrentYear consider to be rotten. Saying that these writings simply cannot be correct because they're regarded as sexist is the real 'pronouncement' which has no weight. Will you also say that various teachings simply cannot be true because people consider them homophobic and God would never command things that would upset the LGBT community?

Bonus question: what do you think the views of female clergy tend to be regarding that question?

Crude said...

here's the about teaching

Yeah, I glanced over that. Not impressive. You're transmuting 'pretty much any woman mentioned serving in any church capacity' into 'leaders', imagining hypothetical situations which could have meant that the injunction was only temporary, and completely ignoring the fact that the language in 1 Tim 2 is pretty decisive.

There's no 'okay girls you have to stop teaching until you learn, this is temporary' talk in 1 Tim 2. There's talk about Eve's sin, what that indicates about female teaching, and emphasizing the preservation through childbearing. They learn, they listen. In the Church, they do not instruct.

Pretty sexist by modern standards! But modern standards are pretty bad anyway, so...

B. Prokop said...

"not by Paul"

I'm with Crude on this one. I've never seen anything to cause me to doubt the Pauline authorship of all the letters traditionally attributed to him in the New Testament.

For the record, I also am convinced by arguments advanced by Scott Hahn, Curtis Mitch, and John A.T. Robinson that 2 Peter was written by the apostle Peter, and is not pseudonymous (although Robinson allows for Jude being a co-author).

Ilíon said...

what a fool: "(2) the context which fits much better, with the assumption that he;s really silencing women en you to explaimn why Paul suddenly blurts out "what has the word of God come only to you?" when no one said that, it makes sense if it's a rejoinder to silencers."

Translation: Let us "reason" in the manner of "ancient astronaut" "researchers".

As I have already mentioned, Paul's "sudden blurt" of verse 36 makes perfect sense in the context of the entire chapter ... and of the two verses following it.

Bonus rhetorical question -- why is it that people advocating anti-Biblical error always try to spin their false theologies from a verse taken in isolation?

Joe Hinman said...

Crude

What's circular, Joe? I look at the makeup of the Apostles - all men. I quote the Bible, which I note you did as well:

I did notv say that. that's a phony standard. Jesus could not choose a woman to hang out with the guys in first century Palestine that is not proof God doesn't want women leaders.There was q woman called Apostle Ro,mams 16, Junia. We know Junia was a woman,

you seem to regard 1 Cor 14 as giving valid input, so long as you go with a theory that amounts to 'He was quoting that and being sarcastic.'

I believe we need to go first and formost by what the passage says, the uwe of gthe "rhetorical ate" implies a refutation, you didn't read my article did you?: I checked that with a couple of professors who did classical Greek and had no doctrine to worry about.



Joe Hinman said...

I bring in 1 Tim 2, and... I don't know, you don't like it so it doesn't count?

the scholarly consensus says not by Paul But even so it;s about particular women in that city at that time not all women for all time. it has to do with the things they were teaching and their knowledge level. The bottom line on that passage is women must learn before they can teach. read my artiocle

As far as Biblical resources go, I've got a full quiver of evidence

I bet you do have a full quiver, women need to stop quivering,

I can point at to back up my view. You've got to reach, be creative and even imagine things to get to a female clergy being even acceptable, much less a good idea.

I stamp my foot,k I wave my hand in the sarcastikc "bring igt" gestuire from all martal arts movies.


we don't get much room here want to goto my boards?

Joe Hinman said...

I'm with Crude on this one. I've never seen anything to cause me to doubt the Pauline authorship of all the letters traditionally attributed to him in the New Testament.


before I came to the conclusion that Pastorals are not by Paul I also had exegetical reasons to dismiss sexist views. Please read my analysis. It's too long to post here

Joe Hinman said...

what a fool: "(2) the context which fits much better, with the assumption that he;s really silencing women en you to explaimn why Paul suddenly blurts out "what has the word of God come only to you?" when no one said that, it makes sense if it's a rejoinder to silencers."

Translation: Let us "reason" in the manner of "ancient astronaut" "researchers".


now that you have placed yourself in danger of hell fire by calling your brother a fool you going to call God a fool? He offered me a deal whereby I could reason about his works and prove they are valid as a condition of seeking seeking his salvation. Yes he said "come let us reason together.: is he a fool?

As I have already mentioned, Paul's "sudden blurt" of verse 36 makes perfect sense in the context of the entire chapter ... and of the two verses following it.

can you tell me the sense? we are not given an example of any woman saying they wrod has come only to me. but the silencers are saying it has come only to men. Of course you domn't even consider the rhetorical ate because you don't know Greek.


Bonus rhetorical question -- why is it that people advocating anti-Bibli

why is it that people wh o don;t know Jesus and are not in a relationship with god thinnk they do because they have the party line the party line womnt save you know.Peter daid "repentk and learn the party line"

July 11, 2016 6:03 PM

Ilíon said...

that leftist fool, again: "now that you have placed yourself in danger of hell fire by calling your brother a fool"

Intellectual dishonesty is the epitomy of 'fool' ... just the other day, this fool just broke my heart by declaring that I am no Christian brother of his (**). Then, on top of that, he misrepresents the scripture.


(*) I saw it quite by accident, for I do my best not even to notice, much less read, his functionally illiterate postings.

(**) to which I'd have to agree, while re-ordering the subject and object.

Joe Hinman said...

Idion thinks any disagreement is homestead if you were homestead you would know he;s right,that;s what Barry Goldwater thought.

B. Prokop said...

"[B]efore I came to the conclusion that Pastorals are not by Paul I also had exegetical reasons to dismiss sexist views."

And here Joe lets the proverbial cat out of the bag. He admits that he was motivated to reject the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles because it suited his exegetical agenda to do so.

I suggest you get yourself a copy of the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, New Testament (you can buy it on Amazon), and read the really excellent introductory notes on authorship to the Pastoral Epistles.

And Joe, labeling something "sexist" adds nothing to the debate. Doing so neither proves nor disproves anything. It's no different than those people who think that if they yell "Bigot!" loudly enough, then they've won the debate when all they've really done is to just shut it down.

Ilíon said...

"... when all they've really done is to just shut it down."

But, that's precisely the point!

Joe Hinman said...

And here Joe lets the proverbial cat out of the bag. He admits that he was motivated to reject the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles because it suited his exegetical agenda to do so.

wow I thought you would have had better reading comprehension I said I had exegetical reasons to not accept the silencing of women, exegetical ideas out the meaning of that text. that only translates into "therefore that;s reason I dump authorship" in a world where people think like right wingers. exegesis is the only valid reason to accept or reject authorship. not because you don't like what it says because you think the nature of the text gives away authorship.

my reasons were anachronisms and the structure of the text itself.


I suggest you get yourself a copy of the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, New Testament (you can buy it on Amazon), and read the really excellent introductory notes on authorship to the Pastoral Epistles.

ok that might be worth doing

And Joe, labeling something "sexist" adds nothing to the debate.

sure it does it tells you which set of ideas I', discussing.


didn't do it prove anything did it to indemnify something



It's no different than those people who think that if they yell "Bigot!" loudly enough, then they've won the debate when all they've really done is to just shut it down.

yesit is it;s a lot different.

Joe Hinman said...

The argument is that the injunction against women teaching is a temporary move desinged to combat the growing tendency toward Gnostic-style teachings. These teachings typically embody sensuality, urge the andonment of marriage, and perhaps refur to matters of the OT law which are grossly inaccurate. Paul laid this injunciton upon Timothy, not as a universal command for all time, but to inform him of his current practice in light of the current climate. Perhaps Paul's practice was not meant to be limited in time, but it was mosly likely limted to those women who were not prepared to teach. If that is the case, it really indicates more of an open attitude toward teaching, since before the policy was inacted, apparenlty anyone could teach.


Evidence

Joe Hinman said...

since I doubt you will read all of that here is the conclusion there's a dilemma. you must give up Pauline authorship to prov e my anachronism,k or accept the plausibility of my argument,

But the critics of my argument have to assert that the charactoristics I've marked out as indicative of a female headed Gnsotic cult are anachoronistic and late and that they mark a latter development in Gnsoticism. On the other hand, to the extent that I've already showen those aspect are clearly stated in the Text and they mark the author's concerns, then the author must be anachronistic. Thus the authority of the book must be re-considered in light of its psuedopigraphal nature.

B. Prokop said...

"Thus the authority of the book must be re-considered in light of its psuedopigraphal nature."

Wh-a-a-a-a-t?!?!?!?!?

Kindly correct me if I've misunderstood you, but you seem to be saying that First and Second Timothy have less authority than other books in the New Testament because you presume to think they weren't written by Paul?

I don't get this line of reasoning at all. For the record, I believe all the books attributed to Paul were written by Paul, but that's irrelevant to the matter of inspiration! I went over this some years back with another poster to this site (I can't remember who), who said that, because there was some "doubt" as to whether the final verses of Mark were actually penned by Mark, that we couldn't use them in any Argument From Scripture.

My response was, regardless of who was the author of Mark 16:9-20, the text was still inspired, and possessed the same authority as every other line in the New Testament. Inspiration does not not come from authorship, but from the Holy Spirit. Romans 16:22 was indisputably not written by Paul. Do you then discount its inspiration?

Joe Hinman said...

"Thus the authority of the book must be re-considered in light of its psuedopigraphal nature."

Wh-a-a-a-a-t?!?!?!?!?

Kindly correct me if I've misunderstood you, but you seem to be saying that First and Second Timothy have less authority than other books in the New Testament because you presume to think they weren't written by Paul?

I don't presume anything, the major bible scholars in the world today do so. the only people left who accept the pastorals are victory road bible college

I don't get this line of reasoning at all. For the record, I believe all the books attributed to Paul were written by Paul, but that's irrelevant to the matter of inspiration! I went over this some years back with another poster to this site (I can't remember who), who said that, because there was some "doubt" as to whether the final verses of Mark were actually penned by Mark, that we couldn't use them in any Argument From Scripture.

you are in a dilemma. you don't understand because you did not read my paper did you? On the one hand I show that Paul was dealing with women teachers of Gnosticism im Ephesus and that is who he means to silence not all women If you reject that then the gnostic themes in the lwetter become anachronistic and help dispute Pastine authorship.

In terms of inspiration how inspired could it being so anachronistic? it's obviously second centiry. You can pretend igt;s inspired b ut it;s not by Paul and it claims it is and it;s anachronistic




My response was, regardless of who was the author of Mark 16:9-20, the text was still inspired, and possessed the same authority as every other line in the New Testament.

yes that's a different matter, Because it's not anachronistic or pesudoigraphal

Inspiration does not not come from authorship, but from the Holy Spirit. Romans 16:22 was indisputably not written by Paul. Do you then discount its inspiration?

It also doesn't come from lying and being out of date, Now I admit writing in someone elsdes's name in that day was not the same as plagiarism today. But when it comes down to a out and out wrong such as silencing women when I( think the authorship does come imnto it. The author does not have the authority of T Paul.

Look study thye final goodbyes in the epistles of Pau,l He was lauding women as workers and teachers and preachers, when he says:she fought hard by my side at the gospel:do you she's baking cookies for the church social? He says submit to anyone doing thyie work.

B. Prokop said...

"The author does not have the authority of T Paul."

Wow. Just wow.

So you get to pick and choose which parts of scripture "have authority", and which don't, is that right? Glad to know that.

Ilíon said...

B.PSola: "So you get to pick and choose which parts of scripture "have authority", and which don't, is that right?"

Hmmmmm

Ilíon said...

^ Since the mere link may be unclear, this is what I'm pointing to -- "1) Concerning sola scriptura, you take an incoherent stance, because you *do* know and believe -- and frequently implicitly affirm -- sola scriptura to be truth ... even as you attempt to deny its truth in your vain attempt to elevate the Mysterium above Scripture."

B. Prokop said...

Ilion, Ilion, Ilion...

My stance on the Scriptures is not "incoherent", it's nuanced. Ya gotta have nuance.

Ilíon said...

OK, you can be a nuancy-boy, if you wish. But you're still incoherently --
1) affirming the priority of Scripture when that suits your purpose;
2) asserting the subordination of Scripture to the pronouncements of men when that suits your purpose;
3) ignoring the incongruent fact that the particular set of pronouncements that you wish to elevate above Scripture all claim to be firmly grounded in and justified by Scripture.

B. Prokop said...

Ilion,

Your points one and two are not contradictory. The Magisterium is firmly grounded in scripture, and is even referenced (albeit not under that name) on multiple occasions. In 1 Timothy 3:15 (which we already know that Joe will not accept as authoritative), Paul calls the Church "the pillar and foundation of the Truth". Note he does not say that scripture is, but rather the Church. And no less than Christ Himself tells us that the Holy Spirit will guide the Church into "all Truth".

But even just sticking with Saint Paul for the moment, we read the following:

"So then, brethren, stand firm and HOLD TO THE TRADITIONS which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." (2 Thessalonians 2:15)

"Keep away from any brother who is not in accord with THE TRADITION that you received from us." (2 Thessalonians 3:6)

"I commend you because you MAINTAIN THE TRADITIONS even as I have delivered them to you." (1 Corinthians 11:2)

And John says twice in his letters, "Though I have much to write to you, I WOULD RATHER NOT USE PAPER AND INK, but I hope to come to see you and talk with you face to face."

So the problem is not one of "where do we find the Truth?" but rather one of "Who shall authoritatively interpret the scriptures for us?" As the Ethiopian eunuch asked of Phillip, "How can I understand, unless someone guides me?" Or, as Peter reminds us, "First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation."

And let's not get into (for now) the multitude of passages about the Primacy of Peter, etc. Suffice to say that the concept of an Earthly Final Authority competent to interpret scripture is fully scriptural, whereas sola scriptura is found nowhere.

Joe Hinman said...

The author does not have the authority of T Paul."

Wow. Just wow.

So you get to pick and choose which parts of scripture "have authority", and which don't, is that right? Glad to know that.

welcome to the 19th century

Joe Hinman said...

Paul calls the Church "the pillar and foundation of the Truth". Note he does not say that scripture is, but rather the Church. And no less than Christ Himself tells us that the Holy Spirit will guide the Church into "all Truth".

that is a self serving all purpose endorsement for anything the administrative wants to claim.liberal seminaries are art of the church too. liberal textural criticisms are part of the church. something tell,s me the church is limited to those who agree with you

Joe Hinman said...

getting back to the passage. the presence of the rhetorical ate shows us that the passage silencing women is quoting the judaizers so Paul is not silencing women, that;s proven by the fact that he seems to say they can speak elsewhere. you guys have not answered this at all.

the passage on teaching, anachronistic and reads like a pastiche and contradicts known Pauline opinion

btw quote the passage where Ignat says Paul wrote 1-2 Tim.

those are the arguments please deal withi them.

Joe Hinman said...

Prokop argument from incredulity is a non starter. the things I'm saying or nothing compared to real liberals. I'm known as a moderate at Perkins. I had some totally firebrand evangelical profos there like William "Billy" Abraham. I'll tell you more about him sometime you would Ike him he was a rigidity winger. Northern Irish protestant pro thatcher, at one gtime he was a dear friend.

there were a couple of profs I'm still convinced their mission was to destroy the faith,
one of them I out argued on Patristics once she had no concept of church fathers. what I'm saying is you seem so scandalized by my view they are really mildly liberal.

B. Prokop said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
B. Prokop said...

"something tells me the church is limited to those who agree with you"

You have that entirely backwards, Joe. The Church doesn't agree with silly ol' me - it is I who agree with the Church! (Unlike you, who apparently thinks he has the right to decide what is and what isn't scripture. Sort of like how Martin Luther took a broadaxe to The Bible, discarding seven books out of the Old Testament and, temporarily at least, several from the New.)

Joe Hinman said...

I sure as hell do have the right to decide for myself what I think is true But you are really cutting off the limb you are out on because trying to sole scripture against Luther is nuts, the RCC is not exactly the defender of the Bible.


you are so blissfully two centuries behind what;s gone on in
biblical scholarship

B. Prokop said...

"the RCC is not exactly the defender of the Bible"

You are kidding me, right? News flash: We wrote it!
(Well, at least the New Testament part.)

Joe Hinman said...

counter newsflash you are not the Orthodox church. Your church did not write the Bible. The guys that wrote the New Testament wouldn't past muster in your church. They didn't even have a canon, even the OT canon was open when Paul died. forv all you know Paul might have thought the The Sybilline Oracles were inspired.


You clearly don't think about Pauline theology in relation to women it's a just a list of rules for you There are too many apartments he makes about women fighting for the Godpel at his sides and submit to anyone doing the work. no way he was keeping women silent. big schock 1 Cor 11 passage abut cover the heard it really says she should have power over her own head, instead of says she should cover her heading t says she has power over her head.

B. Prokop said...

"it's a just a list of rules for you"

You do you think you are dealing with here? I don't think anything in scripture is "just a list of rules". And what's this about Paul building apartments? And just who is covering the heard?

Joe Hinman said...

what? what does that mean?

B. Prokop said...

That's what I'm asking. It's in your last comment.

Joe Hinman said...

remember a thing called auto correct? when it;ps out of wach it makes you say real stupid things?


here;s how great evangelicals are four of five of them voting for Trump.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/14/us/donald-trump-white-evangelical-voters-poll.html?_r=0

that should tell you how seriously I take evangelicals.

B. Prokop said...

I hope you don't think your link has anything to do with me! I'm no Evangelical - I'm a Catholic.

(And for the record, I support neither of the major party candidates this year.)

Ilíon said...

^^ How cool is this? An anti-Christian leftist and a in-recovery-but-fighting-it-all-the-way leftist virtue signaling one another.

B. Prokop said...

Ilion,

Not sure what you mean by "in recovery". Yes, I freely confess to my past sins. I used to be a partisan when it came to politics, but no longer. Not sure exactly what it was that cured me of the disease. I think it was mostly the enforced orthodoxy and the rise of "thought crime" as an offense in our society - the casual tossing about of "bigot!" and "hater!" by leftists and "Treason!" and "Godless!" by rightists in place of actual engagement and debate.

But having renounced the very real errors of my way, I am not about to take on new ones. The Left (if that term has any real meaning) is deranged, but the Right is living in a dream world.

Maybe I'll declare myself a Feudalist, and call for the re-establishment of the Holy Roman Empire!