Search results

You are arguing against factual church history, not only me. Romanism and Protestantism indeed share much more than generally realized by both. Both shared and still share a Western mindset completely foreign to early Christianity. My atonement view is 2000 years old. The RCC view is 1000...

It is not baloney. It is scholarly, historical, and theological fact. I don't understand your "Roman Catholic" statement. I am not Roman Catholic. Anabaptists did influence the General or Arminian Baptists.

Absolutely not. I grew up Eastern Orthodox but no longer am. In looking for a denomination with which to affiliate, I never once considered the RCC.

Having been Orthodox, I understand the position on banning women pastors. Orthodox view it from both scripture and tradition. However, since leaving Orthodoxy, I have come to believe that on this issue, as well as others, the context of Paul's statements must be taken into account.

I'm sorry for your loss. That is always difficult. I'll keep you, and your friend, in my prayers.

Amazing how many Protestants don't seem to realize what they share with Roman Catholicism. The Reformation didn't reform the RC view of atonement, just took it, expanded it, and made it worse. One thing I will not engage you on is your personal attacks. I guess it's just part of your character...

You have mis-characterized Mennonites. They do not have a works-based salvation, and as far as liberal theology, they span the whole spectrum, just as Baptists and others do.

You had enough of "nice" Baptists yet? :) Hang in there. It's the same on all forums I've ever been on. Thick skin helps -- you know, like an alligator. :)

Actually, there is a lot of disagreement, and that is true in all branches of Christianity. Some think that's a bad thing. I do not. Iron sharpens iron.

I wonder how Baptists feel about Pentecostals allowing women pastors/preachers. How do you know you are right and they are wrong? Baptists would probably say Pentecostals are wrong on this and spirit baptism/spiritual gifts -- in other words, that error accompanies error. But Pentecostals would...

So, do you require your women to keep their mouths shut from the time they enter the church until they leave, and require them to wear a head covering?

Thank you for your reasoned reply. However, what about the verse that says that in Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female? Doesn't that undo the consequences of the fall?

The NT, early church, church of the first millennium, and EOC, as well as many Anabaptists, would disagree. PSA is an invention of legalist Reformers -- it is a product of its times. It has nothing to do with original Christianity.

So, is it politics that the EOC has held to Christus Victor from its beginning until today?

"Satisfaction of God's wrath" was a concept unknown until Anselm. I wonder how it feels for a Baptist to share so much with Romanism.

I don't think any baptism of believers is invalid. Baptism of infants is another story. I don't see how baptism can be valid without faith/belief. The NT and early church (1st century - early second century) requires belief before baptism

I agree with that.

Here again, context is and should be an issue. Also, to what extent do you take Paul's instruction? That is, when he says women should be silent in the church, how far do you take that?

That's one of the best posts I have seen on the subject, regardless of whether I agree or not.

What OT scripture would that be?