re: How is it possible that some Protestant churches support gay marriage?

The Orthodox Church has not changed to the point where we even entertain the idea of gay marriage. We don’t entertain the idea of letting females be members of the clergy. So some churches are changing more rapidly than others.

But the Orthodox faith doesn’t condone gay marriage. And some Protestant churches do. So there is that.

The interpretations of scripture by Martin Luther and John Calvin are certainly flawed as well.

quote:

---

When the bible states something specifically, such as in 1 Timothy 2:12, we should listen. When the same idea is brought up again in a different part of the Bible by a different author (as it is in 1 Corinthians 14:34) I think God is making a point.

---

It's the same author.

So should women speak in the church at all? Because 1 Corinthians 14:34 suggests that women should remain silent in the church. Or is there a more contextual interpretation to understand the purpose of that particular verse, which is part of a larger chapter?

Further, how do you reconcile the egalitarianism of 1 Corinthians 11 in light of the two mentioned verses? If you understand the context surrounding the verses and books, then it's possible, right? 1 Corinthians 14:34 is specifically referring to women speaking as judgment of prophesying. Women could pray, prophesy, and minister in the church of Corinth. However, Paul wanted to reinforce the hierarchy of male headship, and therefore commanded that women remain silent when the church made decisions about prophesies.

This brings up an interesting question though regarding the evolution of church/Christian practices. If Paul's instructions could be amended based on particular situations, then why does that stop with Paul? We obviously do not live in the same historical context as the early early church. Things have changed.

If Paul were to visit 2025, would he not provide instructions on how to best build the church based on the context in which we live? He wasn't legalistic and rigid when adapting to different places. It's why he wrote the letters: to provide guidance to those wanting to form churches across various and dynamic situations.

If in 1 Timothy, he exhibits an understanding of Greco-Roman norms and thus silences women in the church to ensure that the church grows in that society, is that a sign of his rhetorical efficacy or a particular commandment of God?

Again, if every verse is a literal spoken word of God for you to abide by, then of course women should not have leadership roles. And of course they should remain silent. And of course they should cover their heads. And if we're going to criticize churches who love and follow Jesus for allowing women to have leadership roles, then we should at the same rate criticize churches who allow women to speak in church.

But I bet we can see the flexibility in Paul's commands when it comes to women being verbal.

Yeah, so my point is that I read your quotes and didn’t think that the ECF were promoting your argument. It seems that you are reaching to interpret your words in a way that is favorable to you. And I don’t see how you can claim to have some superior knowledge of what the early church fathers meant apart from the actual words they wrote.

And the members of the early church, the church that eventually split to form the EOC and the Catholic Churches, were the ones that determined which books made it into the Bible that all of the Protestants read today.

As far as I know, the primary churches that existed before the 16th century, which were the EOC, RC, and Oriental Orthodox churches, all had things in common. Liturgical services, the same understanding of the Eucharist, and no concept of sola fide or sola scriptura.

Were all of those churches just radically failing to interpret scripture and the teachings of the ECF’s? When Martin Luther came along 1500 years after the death of Christ, how is it that he finally got it right? How is it that he was the first one to correctly interpret the teachings of the ECF and scripture?

quote:

---

Essentially if Protestants affirm that justification is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone and that good works to not add to or merit our salvation in any way, then if we die holding to that belief, we die outside the Church and are presumed to be in Hell.

---

You do not understand Catholicism at all. Catholics do not believe that good works get you to heaven. It is the grace of God that makes that happen and that alone. Excommunication from the church does not damn you to hell. Jesus is the way regardless of what any church does in regards to excluding believers.

The good works stem from being a Christian. If you are a Christian and love Jesus, you will do good works. For instance, Samaritan's purse does good works, not to get into heaven, but rather to do what Christ said we should do which is to love one another. Love is simply willing the good of another. Christ commanded this.

quote:

---

I do know that under the last pope, homosexuality was not always condemned as a sin, and an abomination in God’s eyes, while it still is in many protestant churches. The Bible is pretty explicit on the subject. It is men who profess religion in just about all flavors who have muddied the water,

---

i'm very comfortable in the Catholic church and have been 100+ times, but obviously I don't partake of sacraments.

my main hindrance to ever joining the Catholic church is it's adherence to a flawed sinful man with his interpretations. Now every other church has the same flawed sinful man at it's head, but I can leave those churches if that ever comes to a head.

my pastor and I have some random little things we disagree on, but none are gospel issues and I value his leadership and compassion. If he ever gets weird (that would be an extremely drastic buildup,) I can leave to another church.

If I don't like my local priest or pope, the same Pope is going to be in charge at my next Catholic church.

So what if someone declares that Jesus is their Lord and Savior and is baptized on Wednesday, but then turns around and murders someone on Thursday and does not repent? Does that person receive salvation?

My apologies for the different author part, you are correct. I do enjoy these conversations because most people don't know what they believe, only what they were told.

I believe that the Holy Spirit, part of the trinity inspired the letters and gospels that we now know as the new testament. As such, while Paul pinned the letters, I'm less concerned if his intentions were about honoring the male hierarchy of the location and time than I am with the words he pinned and were they from God.

But for argument's sake, let's say Paul wanted to reinforce the hierarchy of male domination, then why mention the women in any manner? Why not just leave them out? Unless they were fulfilling a role that women may do in the church. For example, elder women should be teaching younger women in the church (Titus 2:3-5). As for the heads of women to be covered, that can also be referenced in 1 Corinthians 11: 15 as in long hair can be used.

I still don't know how a woman becomes a pastor or deacon when confronted with the "husband of one wife" parts as well.

If Paul were to visit 2025, I'm sure he'd be surprised and thrilled that we can have these debates openly without being killed for them. God is still here though, as is his church (clearly not all follow Christ) and I think we should move cautiously when we move to the "that has to change because times are now different" phase of Christianity. In fact, God puts a very stark warning for those who wish to add or take away from the Bible (although others argue He is only talking about the Revelation of Christ). Revelation 22: 18 - 19, "18. For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part of out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

This is why I personally don't adhere to things/beliefs when I'm told, well that was the past and it doesn't matter now. But I understand others will and I do believe this can be ok (eating of animals sacrificed to other gods for example) but I do think one should tread very carefully.

quote:

---

So what if someone declares that Jesus is their Lord and Savior and is baptized on Wednesday, but then turns around and murders someone on Thursday and does not repent? Does that person receive salvation?

---

No. Why? Because their profession of faith was not genuine, as evidenced by their actions in this situation. It puzzles me that this concept is often difficult for people to grasp. You can claim to be a Christian as much as you want, but if your life does not reflect a Christian walk, you are simply being deceptive. Even Satan acknowledges that Jesus died for our sins and rose again on the third day, yet he clearly is not a Christian because he willingly chooses to live in rebellion.

Satan has taken over these churches.