The Changing Face Of Catholicism

Good for those women. If God is calling them into leadership roles, then they should walk accordingly, and seek those positions.

But they need to leave the false church of Rome! It makes no difference what they do or dont do as long as they remain in a dead, apostate, false "church".

As the scriptures admonish, regarding the Romish Church,..."Come out of her!"



:godisgood:

 

No change at all. Just a bunch of people being rather silly in defiance of official teaching.

 

If the Catholic Church is excommunicating them for this then it doesn't seem to support your statement that the Catholic Church is changing doctrine in this particular case.

 

Just for the fun of it, I did a google search on "baptist pastors women" and guess what - to my astonishment there are Baptist women pastors !!!

Would it be fair for some Catholic to now say that Baptist doctrines are ever changing?

 

I don't see your logic. They were Catholics. They went against their church teaching and they were excomunicated (anathema sit) so how is that an ever changing doctrinal issue. It's like me. I'm a member of my baptist church. If I commit adultry and am unrepentant then I'm excluded from fellowship. How does that mean my church has an ever changing doctrine.

 

The evolution of doctrines is not necessarily a sign of a problem. Indeed, I submit that it is to be expected given the complexity and subtlety of our God. There is an odd phenomena, I suggest, at play in certain corners of protestant Christendom. We claim that the Scriptures are the final authority, yet for some reason, we often act as though the latest interpretations are the final authority. Thus, we have people acting as though Calvin and Luther wrote inspired scripture and any efforts at suggesting their work was incomplete or, shudder, had some errors, is met with cries of heresy.

We should expect that Scripture will be teaching us new things even in the present time. And this can mean that some of the established views need to be re-visited. So, for example, we should not implicitly assume that the reformers "got it totally right". I am convinced that they did not.

 

I think Targus was agreeing with you.

 

Actually it looks like I'm agreeing with him. I'm sorry, I was just thing the OP was silly.

 

Well, yes.

 

God never ever calls anyone to violate scripture. If scripture is to be our authority then we must obey it, not feelings, all things must be compared to scripture. If we allow people to just go and do what they want and say God told them too, then we must accept all so called christian teachings, and that would mean the RCC isn't false at all.

 

Scripture as interpreted by whom, exactly?

 

An excellent question. There is a segment in the church who seem to think that Scripture presents its truths to us directly, unmediated by acts of interpretation. Such a position is, I suggest, exceeding naive and ignores the manifest fact that words read from the page are processed in the human mind - there is no short-circuiting this.

This is not to say that there is not "objective" truth in the Scripture, but rather that to get to it, we must still "interpret". No free lunch - no presentation of absolute truth that bypasses the facilities God gives us to interpret what we read.

 

Agreed. But have they?

 

I supose then anyone could interpet scripture in anyway to suit themselves, again, meaning nothing wrong with RCC, JW's, or Mormons, or even islam.
there has to be a standard. And I am sorry to see christians believing otherwise, that scripture is open to interpetation and meaning.

 

Clearly scripture is subject to interpretation. You cannot mean what you appear to be saying, since it is beyond question that the very act of reading - the very act of reading in words and ascribing meaning is an act of interpretation. You and I are perhaps working to a different sense of what the word "interpret" means. As I am using it, there is no doubt - scripture has to be interpreted.

I have been quite clear, there is an "objectively correct" interpretation. But that we must interpret is beyond question. True, the Spirit assists and guides that interpretation, but it is interpretation nonetheless.

You probably think I am saying that all interpretations are equally valid. I never said this and went out of my way to make this clear.

 

Sure there are plenty of Baptist women pastors if you count all the Baptist type denominations. Did you mean So. Baptist? If so, there will not be very many. Actually, the So Baptists generally do not believe women should be pastors, but some churches use them anyway.

I agree that women should not be pastors; if a man is the spiritual head in the home, a woman should not be the spiritual head in the church. This has nothing to do with superiority, sexism, patriarchy, etc. but rather the order of men and women set forth in the bible. In fact, I used to be a very liberal pro-abortion feminist.

 

Matt said...

The Holy Spirit, to the heart and mind of every single born again person.

I've shared that with you before. You do know that eventually its going to sink in, dont you?

Better now than later.:thumbs:

Mike

 

Targus,

Thats a good and biblical thing. Praise the Lord! :thumbs:

Mike

 

And that is precisely the epistemological problem which no evangelical can get round, despite what Mike would like to think; in fact he and Marcia have just demonstrated the problem with their disagreement over whether there should be women pastors -both are working to sola Scriptura and yet have arrived at opposite interpretations on this issue.

QED.