For the first time in history, Swedish female priests outnumber their male counterparts, sixty years after they were first allowed to don the clerical collar, the Church of Sweden said Wednesday.
Of the 3,060 priests currently serving in Sweden, 1,533 are female, or 50.1 percent, according to Cristina Grenholm, secretary for the Church of Sweden.
"From a historical perspective, this parity happened faster than we earlier imagined. A report from 1990 estimated that women would be half of the total clergy in 2090. And it took thirty years," Grenholm told AFP....
B. McCausland wrote: How have you changed, John The real shame is to have views contrary to Scripture, not to men. Regards
Changed, sister? If you ask some of the older contributors on the forum here, going back 15 years or more, they will tell you I have held the 1689 Baptist Confession since I first understood it after my conversion in 1979. That makes it about 40 years.
Disclaimer. This does not mean I accept every jot and tittle of the document. There are certain things I am undecided on, or am experimenting with. But on many subjects, such as the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper, I am happy to say that I believe they got it spot on.
Have you ever read the 1689 Baptist Confession? Or is that out of your experience?
Unprofitable Servant wrote: John it is not so much a matter of not pondering in the past as it is taking time to write it out so it will communicate what I am trying to say in a concise manner this forum dictates.
I know what you're saying brother. No worries then, take as much time as you need, and I look forward to reading your conciseness.
John UK wrote: Brother US, ponder away as you will, it is no problem. I am very much looking forward to reading your completed essay. I will just say that as you are pondering so long on this, it is surely a sign that you have not given it much thought in the past. Well bro, it is no different to myself, as these things are very recent in mine own thinking. There is far more to communion than most fellow believers realise, and it may be time to get out the creeds and confessions of our particular church and see what our founders thought about it. Clearly, the independent and separatist Baptist pastors of 1689 collectively agreed on a most informative and heartwarming exposition of what the communion was all about. And at last I now see that the communion table must be a closed table, even though that produces logistical difficulties. In those days the Baptists were called Strict and Particular Baptists; they held a strict (closed) table and a particular view of the atonement (that Christ died particularly for those chosen by the Father).
John it is not so much a matter of not pondering in the past as it is t taking ime to write it out so it will communicate what I am trying to say in a concise manner this forum dictates.
B. McCausland wrote: John, the Lord's supper is the type of the future supper of the Lamb when all the fruits of the redemptive work will be enjoyed in full. No, we do not eat the lamb at the Lord's supper. We do remember his attonning death. I Corinthians 15, which gives the theological interpretation of it, does not talk about the Lord's supper in that light.
That's okay sister. You have a Bible and the ability to read it; therefore you are responsible for what you believe from it.
It's a shame that your beliefs counter those of the Westminster worthies and the over 100 pastors of the Strict Baptists, but Hey Ho, there is yet time to change. We should always be growing and learning, and I have only just come into this myself over the last few weeks, so I can't complain. No-one ought change overnight. These things require a whole deal of thought and prayer and study of scripture.
John, the Lord's supper is the type of the future supper of the Lamb when all the fruits of the redemptive work will be enjoyed in full. No, we do not eat the lamb at the Lord's supper. We do remember his attonning death.
I Corinthians 15, which gives the theological interpretation of it, does not talk about the Lord's supper in that light.
B. McCausland wrote: You are deviating from the topic by creating rabbit trails. Surely, the type and the reality it points to, do not compare, but the Lord's supper is still a type or emblem of the real thing. Nevertheless, the witness of the Spirit is real by its fruit experienced when in obedience to the seal, but to figure out mystical experiences, which in truth come linked to the 'means of grace' concept, it sounds spurious.
Sister, I sincerely do not know what you mean by creating a rabbit trail. I am trying to answer your questions in all honesty and to the point.
"Surely, the type and the reality it points to, do not compare, but the Lord's supper is still a type or emblem of the real thing."
Sister, the type and reality is a slain lamb/Lamb. The Hebrews ate the lamb, and we eat the Lamb by fulfilment. If you read paragraph 7 you will see it is not physical but spiritual.
"but to figure out mystical experiences, which in truth come linked to the 'means of grace' concept, it sounds spurious."
Who said anything about a mystical experience? Or even an experience at all?
John UK wrote: As for your question, no, no mystical experience, purely remembrance. This is because the passover was a type/shadow of the real thing, Christ our passover being slain for us. Therefore we can expect much more in the fulfilment than in the shadow. And I believe scripture teaches that. eg. 1 Corinthians 10:16.
You are deviating from the topic by creating rabbit trails.
Surely, the type and the reality it points to, do not compare, but the Lord's supper is still a type or emblem of the real thing. Nevertheless, the witness of the Spirit is real by its fruit experienced when in obedience to the seal, but to figure out mystical experiences, which in truth come linked to the 'means of grace' concept, it sounds spurious.
B. McCausland wrote: John, as a reminder to all, men are to teach from Scriptures, not to make compendiums of 'infallible' doctrinal statements to be in place of the script. Any chance of answering to my question? Do you reckon that the Israelites eating the passover had a mystical awareness, or a grateful remembrance of true facts in their past history ?
Sister B, the 1689 Baptist Confession is a compendium of scriptural quotations, formed into readable paragraphs similar to the WCF. Let me give you an example from mine own mind.
The person of Jesus Christ: He is
1. The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. [proof text John 1:29]
2. etc.
When Baptist ministers preach, they usually take a text, say John 1:29, and expound it using their own words and other parts of scripture. I am not one of those who believes only the Bible should be read out in church without commentary.
As for your question, no, no mystical experience, purely remembrance. This is because the passover was a type/shadow of the real thing, Christ our passover being slain for us. Therefore we can expect much more in the fulfilment than in the shadow. And I believe scripture teaches that. eg. 1 Corinthians 10:16.
John, as a reminder to all, men are to teach from Scriptures, not to make compendiums of 'infallible' doctrinal statements to be in place of the script.
Any chance of answering to my question?
Do you reckon that the Israelites eating the passover had a mystical awareness, or a grateful remembrance of true facts in their past history ?
B. McCausland wrote: John, confessions are not inspired documents, neither their writers were sinless, perfect or infallible, but subceptive to bagages. Ps. No need to go ad hominem please.
Sister, no ad hominem from me, I assure you, merely observing the scriptural practice and seeking to be conformed to the will of God.
As to the first part of your comment, sure, no problem. I don't have truck with Protestant Popes, whether they be men or women. We are all of us subject to frailty of thought, misinterpretations of scripture, endless eschatological debate, and so on.
But it is a plain fact of scripture, which all must agree on, that God has ordained men to teach the word of God to a flock, whether or not they have all their i's dotted and t's crossed. This is the blueprint, and those who are likened to the gainsaying of Korah, who refused submission to Moses, may have to pay a price for their rebellion, for God will have purity in the camp. This is why some will not attend a church fellowship, they will never live in submission to anyone. Maybe the devil got them into that state, but it is a sad case, and makes for unfruitfulness in the kingdom of God.
B. McCausland wrote: Man made confessions can end up as a bunch of presumptions, well meant intentions, some wrong preconceptions, along with some spiritual truth mingled with assumptions. All these pack and knit together makes it hard to dissect them apart especially when deriving from a long-lived religious tradition.
Sister, the problem you have here, is that these men who compiled the confession, were appointed and anointed by God, to oversee the flock of God particularly purchased by the blood of Christ, and everything in the confession was taught to societies of Christians by the will of God, according to biblical precedent.
Whereas if you, or any other individual, says that you have the truth in your own mind, and that if the truth you hold to is at variance with the 1689 confession, it is the 1689 confession which must bow down to you, and accept your verdict, even though you have no authority from God to make such a declaration, and especially so, being a woman with no authority to teach men, in accordance with scripture.
I'm just being open and honest here, and I hope you can see how I view the situation. And I hope I get all things from scripture, as I'm sure the Baptist pastors did.
John UK wrote: ... the 1689 Confession... Paragraph 7. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, do then also inwardly by faith, spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death; the body and blood of Christ being spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.
Man made confessions can end up as a bunch of presumptions, well meant intentions, some wrong preconceptions, along with some spiritual truth mingled with assumptions. All these pack and knit together makes it hard to dissect them apart especially when deriving from a long-lived religious tradition.
Yes, some truths in the text have spiritual reality, but to bring it to the sensual side per magic mystical feeling is not there any time.
E. G. Do you reckon the Israelites eating the passover had a mystical awareness, or a grateful remembrance of true facts in their past history ?
Let's remember that the phrase 'means of grace' birthed from RC dogma, rather than from Scriptures
In this case the eating of his flesh and blood represents our union with Christ (identification with him) and of being part of him.
Sister, I've no doubt but that there will be those who agree with that sort of thing, but to me it seems a stretch of the imagination.
I agree that we can discount the magic show which the priests of the RCC perform at the mass (so-called).
However, I am happy to accept the 1689 Confession's verdict on the matter, which was Spurgeon's own confession, and which he taught in the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London.
Here is Chapter 30 of the 1689 Baptist Confession, with the negatives taken out for clarity.
Paragraph 7. Worthy receivers, outwardly partaking of the visible elements in this ordinance, do then also inwardly by faith, spiritually receive, and feed upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of his death; the body and blood of Christ being spiritually present to the faith of believers in that ordinance, as the elements themselves are to their outward senses.
Thusly, there is far more to communion than a mere remembrance; here is an active participation owing to the presence of Christ, present that is, to those who are believing.
John UK wrote: ... my question was: John 6:53 KJV (53) Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. So, brother, however you interpret the eating of his flesh and drinking his blood, you will still have to do it, or you have no life in you. So how and when do you eat his flesh and drink his blood?
John, the passage should be taken as one of the types of Christ, the same as he being the door, the bread, the way, etc... A figure of speech as it were. For instance, that Christ is the way, does not mean that in our way to the father we climb over on top of Christ 's slaps of stone.
In this case the eating of his flesh and blood represents our union with Christ (identification with him) and of being part of him.
See, "For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones"
The association of this passage with the Lord's supper as "eating' his flesh and blood is a relic from romanism where it is thought people' feed' on Christ through the host ingestion.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: Still pondering what I have written.
Brother US, ponder away as you will, it is no problem. I am very much looking forward to reading your completed essay.
I will just say that as you are pondering so long on this, it is surely a sign that you have not given it much thought in the past. Well bro, it is no different to myself, as these things are very recent in mine own thinking.
There is far more to communion than most fellow believers realise, and it may be time to get out the creeds and confessions of our particular church and see what our founders thought about it.
Clearly, the independent and separatist Baptist pastors of 1689 collectively agreed on a most informative and heartwarming exposition of what the communion was all about. And at last I now see that the communion table must be a closed table, even though that produces logistical difficulties. In those days the Baptists were called Strict and Particular Baptists; they held a strict (closed) table and a particular view of the atonement (that Christ died particularly for those chosen by the Father).
John UK wrote: So, brother, however you interpret the eating of his flesh and drinking his blood, you will still have to do it, or you have no life in you. So how and when do you eat his flesh and drink his blood? Thank you.
COMMENTS 
locked 
System Notice
