Actually it makes little difference, in the context of the question at hand, whether there is a link between the OT priesthood and the NT priesthood. Because in both cases we're talking about the preference of God as He expressed it in practice and in writings. Instead of looking for a legal loophole, perhaps it would be wiser to assume that God knows what He's doing and He doesn't need us second-guessing Him.
Would Peter have been been obeying or disobeying God if he had carried on in his tradition of not associating with Gentiles? .
If the Church of England is being currently led by the Holy Spirit then the Holy Spirit has been hoodwinking us for millennia. I sincerely doubt that the Holy Spirit would misguide the Church. I think the Church of England has thrown the Holy Spirit's guidance out so that it can seem relevant by following the current zeitgeist. It seems the Church of England does not want to struggle through the narrow gate (Matt 7:13-14).
I don't think the Holy Spirit ever intended to lead the church as a corporate entity (i.e., through the intermediary step of earthly fallible mortal leaders) but rather He endeavors to lead each member of the church individually, with personal care and meticulous attention to detail. This is something the papists seem to be unable to grasp, because they have been taught to rely on the pope and the Magisterium to hear the Holy Spirit for them and to transmit the message, and thus the members do not try to learn how to (or even expect to) be led by the Spirit of God.
I think I rather agree more with Rexlion's observation that The Holy Spirit leads individuals rather than organisations. The C of E is an organisation in addition to being composed of 'the body of Christ'. Most individuals in the Church of England Synods, which decided the matter of women in the priesthood, were sensitive to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and I do not believe they were mislead. Their generation had reached a sufficient maturity in understanding the direction in which the Holy Spirit is leading the church through the ages, that they realised that for neary two millenium there has been no valid reason whatever in God's estimation, for women not to be included in the priesthood of all believers, so no valid reason the Anglican church, the body of Christ from which they are ordained just as their male counterparts are, should exclude them from the office of Priest in the Church of England, male or female, both of whose, Great High Priest, is Jesus Christ their Saviour. ALL of the rules of exclusivity for the Levitical Priesthood no longer apply, only the rule that the Priest should owe their very and personal salvation to the Lamb of God, Jesus Christ, and be unashamed to admit it and celebrate it before the entire congregation. This having been evaluated and duly ordained by the 'body of Christ' as administered through an ordained Bishop. Nothing is killed, nothing is sacrificed, on the communion table. Killing and offering is no longer the function of a Priest. None of that is any longer necessary. The offering is to God and is purely of our service and of ourselves. What we receive in the sacrament is the real presence of the spirit of Christ in a spiritual manner, through the faith of those who receive. .
No they thought they were right. This was because they believed they were and their opinions arried more weight than the movings of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit does not mislead and the Synod was not misled. They chose to ignore the Church's teachings based on what had always been. They now choose to ignore the Holy Spirit. It is still followed by the Catholic churches (Eastern and Latin), the Orthodox churches (Eastern and Oriental) and the Ancient Churches of ther East.
There are no 'teachings' on the gender of the priesthood recorded in scripture by any Apostolic authority. But anyway it hadn't always been. There was no Anglican Priesthhood in Apostolic times, it is an innovation, of the Holy Spirit, through the church, itself. The whole of the New Testament scriptures are an innovation of The Holy Spirit. Our Anglican priesthood is not any kind of continuation of the Levitical Priesthood. That is merely a facet of the Old Testament 'tradition' which is passing away, indeed has already passed away. Heb. 8:1-7. The Anglican priesthhod is a continuation of the Roman Catholic priesthood which was itself an innovation brought in after the Apostolic Period AD 29-1oo. The rules and regulations appertaining to the Levitical style priesthood that you seem to think are binding upon the Christian church, are in actual fact, according to Heb.8:1-7 entirely defunct. We are in a new age with a new priesthood, with an everlasting, immortal, great high priest. .
I have never mentioned the Levites. You are jumping to conclusions that you want to reach. Creating an argument I have never made to enable you to draw the [wrong] conclusions you wish to reach. You believe the Church has the power to introduce the novelty of ordaining human female adults as clergy. I believe the Church lacks such power and it has acted ultra vires. You are not going change what I believe. I doubt that I will change your mind. Therefore, we must do what the Church seeks and that is too mutually flourish.
You are correct, of course, I had jumped to conclusions besed upon the assumption that nothing in the New Testament actually stipulates specifically what gender a Christian Priesthood should exclusively be. Some references to priesthood in the New Testament seem to imply ALL believers in Jesus Christ are in fact, 'priests' to God. I therefore assumed that any gender bias would have been derived from Old Testament texts such as Leviticus 21:17-21, which is very prescriptive of the disqualifying traits of anyone trying to enter the priesthood from the progeny of Aaron. In fact no other family could enter the ranks of the priesthood under the OT dispensation. Interestingly, if read in a crassly literal way, the text itself does not expressly ban women from entering even the Levitical priesthood, though I'm absolutely certain none ever would have been allowed to under that dispensation. Which itself would imply that women were regarded under The Law as being in every way 'defective' and incapable, by men. That changed under the New Testament dispensation, allowing women to now share the Covenant sealing sign of baptism equally with men as signalling their new found spiritual equality in Christ with men. There being no spiritual difference between male, female, Jew, Greek, slave or Roman. Although my conclusions regarding from where your objections to a 'mixed gender' Anglican priesthood may be derived from were in error, I fail to see how any references in the New Testament to priests or a priesthood can be made to imply they must all refer only to Jews, Isrealites or even only to men. Apart from the obvious reference to Christ as our great High Priest, who was both Jewish and a male human being. Therefore, is your objection 'biblical' or just on the grounds of a long history in the church from yr. 250 onwards, (where reliable secular records of church history probably begin to show a well established male clergy, jealously guarding its exclusivity), re-establishing itself after being carried over from Judaism or other ethnic social conditioning? .
I would like to refer you to the fourth paragraph I wrote in post #3 of this thread. I believe in what is the teaching held by the greater part of the Christian Church. I believe the Church of England to be contradictory in claiming to be a part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church rather than being a full church in its own right and then to make a decision with which the greater part of the Church does not believe to be correct. As I say I am not a theologian but equally I find your argument to be based on your own personal conviction than having shown a theological argument that would allow 1980+ years of constant Church tradition to be overturned. You seem to think that because there is no Biblical prohibition on the ordination of women that it is acceptable to ordain them. If I have understood your position incorrectly I apologise. However, if I have not, is it not rather a dangerous position to take? It would mean we could do anything that is not specifically prohibited in the Bible. Further, to rely exclusively on a scriptural foundation would we not have to reject one of the very core tenets of our faith, i.e. the Holy Trinity. It is my understanding that there is no basis for this belief in the Bible. I understand that in Anglicanism we do not solely basis our Faith on the Bible. We also base it on Tradition: the teachings from the first seven ecumenical councils and the writings of the Church Fathers. I believe in that which is held by the Catholic and Evangelical traditions within the Church of England. What we believe is accepted as being within the spectrum of Anglican Theology. As I have said before I do not believe we are going to come to a meeting of minds. I have absolutely no disrespect for women. However, I believe in obeying what I believe is the mind of God even if I am not fully able, like many human beings, to understand His reasons.
On close examination this claim is not as substantial a bar to a 'mixed' priesthood, of all genders, colours and nationalities, truly representing the whole of mankind, offering thanks to God for their and our salvation, rather than merely only a MALE contingent of the human race, as has been traditionally imposed by men, (claiming it to be God's will), for some considerable time. Suppose the Roman Catholic, Coptic and Orthodox churches came to the conclusion, on the whole, that The Holy Spirit was revealing to them that they had, all this time, (nearly 2000 years), been failing to treat their sisters in the faith as equally qualified to give praise and thanks to God for the, the church's, salvation, in Jesus Christ Our Lord. Because your view would then be outnumbered, would you then change your view in alignment with that of the majority, of the ancient churches, or would you still continue to hold the opinion that you have now? Bear in mind also that in the case of Peter receiving a vision, no less, which caused him to re-think his 'tradition' and step out in faith, when questioned about it he had nothing but HIS OWN single opinion to support his case for associating with Gentiles. So in cases of change brought about by the working of The Holy Spirit, having a majority should not carry the motion. Peter's questioners acted in FAITH and believed Peter's testimony. They didn't have to but they did, and the church developed along very different lines than if they hadn't. Thus FAITH figures highly in the issue of the sacerdotal function of females in the church today. I prefer to think that the Church of England and the Anglican Communion, as a whole, are MORE sensitive to the guidance of the Holy Spirit than other even more ancient and established, (hidebound), denominations. I see it as giving a lead in the direction God wants His Church to go, rather than being stuck in a rut for 2000 years of 'tradition', dubiously attributed to the will of God. Of course, I accept what you say, since there is no Biblical prohibition on female celebrants at the communion, it should be perfectly acceptable for them to do so. I see no problem there at all. I also see no problem in there being no specific approbation or approval of females celebrating the Eucharist. The Bible actually does not contain any specific record of a woman ever receiving communion, and THAT has never been regarded as a bar to women receiving the sacrament of The Lord's Supper. So Scripture does not present any problem or prohibition. Although the word 'Trinity' appears nowhere in Holy Writ, nevertheless the many references to Jesus Christ, God the Father and The Holy Spirit in various contextual situations as GOD or THE LORD, would render Holy Scripture as being irreconcilably contradictory except for the Doctrine of The Holy Trinity. The only way one of those scriptures can be reconciled with any of the others, is by accepting the truth of the Doctrine of the Trinity by faith. The Anglican church actually places it's praxis on a combination of all three, but not necessarily all of equal weighting in deciding how it moves with the guidance of The Holy Spirit in its praxis. That's why it took a long time to come to a decision. So do I but, like those who questioned Peter about his visionary sheet full of unclean creatures, I am willing to take a risk with my talent, exercise faith, and give my consent to a new innovation and initiative of God, for the church. If they had relied solely on their established tradition, and kept rigidly to it, they may have made the church entirely Jewish, and Gentiles like you and I wouldn't have heard the gospel or been welcomed in their company. I thank them for their faith in believing Peter's visionary experience. I appreciate you dichotomy. On the one hand you believe you know the mind of God on the matter and seem to be certain you know God has reasons, but not perhaps why God holds those opinions. Has it never occurred to you to question whether you actually, accurately know the mind of God though? Paul supposed that we have the mind of Christ, and that seems to be telling me Jesus doesn't mind what gender the person is who's giving thanks for His sacrifice for us all on the cross. It was for us all and any human being can remind us all of it, if the church has seen fit to duly ordain them to do so. .
That seems to be quite the overstatement. Num 18:1 So the LORD said to Aaron, “You and your sons and your father's house with you shall bear iniquity connected with the sanctuary, and you and your sons with you shall bear iniquity connected with your priesthood. Num 18:2 And with you bring your brothers also, the tribe of Levi, the tribe of your father, that they may join you and minister to you while you and your sons with you are before the tent of the testimony. Num 18:3 They shall keep guard over you and over the whole tent, but shall not come near to the vessels of the sanctuary or to the altar lest they, and you, die. Num 18:4 They shall join you and keep guard over the tent of meeting for all the service of the tent, and no outsider shall come near you. Num 18:6 And behold, I have taken your brothers the Levites from among the people of Israel. They are a gift to you, given to the LORD, to do the service of the tent of meeting. Num 18:7 And you and your sons with you shall guard your priesthood for all that concerns the altar and that is within the veil; and you shall serve. I give your priesthood as a gift, and any outsider who comes near shall be put to death.” God expressed His will that the sons (not daughters) of Aaron serve as priests, and it can reasonably be inferred from the context that Aaron understood God's instructions concerning the Levites to mean that only the sons of Levi were to serve as the Levites.
You are quite right in your assumption, (and that is actually what it is), that daughters are excluded from service in the sanctuary, along with eunuchs, blind men, cripples etc. but at least women are not specifically singled out as excluded by God, (actually specifically by Moses, - God only wrote down the ten commandments, the rest came through Moses and was 'inspired' rather than actually written by God). The point is though that NONE of those prohibitions on the priesthood of the sons of Aaron probably apply to the Priesthood of the order of Melchiz′edek. THAT priesthood is of all believers, i.e. the invisible church of the baptised, regenerate redeemed, in Christ, their Great High Priest. Eunuchs are obviously now included, why not women as well, in fact anyone chosen and ordained by the church from among the regenerate. .
By that reasoning, my wife (who is of the order of Mechizedek) should be able to consecrate the elements right here at home, and we can partake of the Eucharist any day of the week. Would you agree?
Has your wife been selected to attend a Bishops Panel, been examined and found suitable for ordination into the Priesthood of the Anglican Church and been duly ordained to preside at The Eucharist? If so yes, she could. If not, she could not use any rites of the Anglican Church legally, to celebrate an Anglican Communion Service. She could though, if you, the believer, spiritually accept the gifts of bread and wine as having been consecrated by Christ at her request, as a believer, duly receive them, and all the blessings they would convey to you, as promised by Our Lord Jesus Christ in the scriptures. But its validity would depend upon her faith and yours. Without both it might be invalid. Bear it in mind though that this is merely my own opinion, not the opinion of The Church as a whole. .
I have not made that claim. Nor will I ever. I do not know the mind of God. I have not seen one theological reason why women should be ordained. Rather just a series of claims that attempt to refute what I have said. That latter task is no great achievement as I admit to lacking in the science of theology. I do believe if you could substantiate a theological reason why females should be ordained you would have done so before now. Your long posts have not changed my mind one iota. As I suspect such posts will most likely be your continuing contribution to this thread I am going to 'unwatch' it as I do not believe there is anything further for me to gain. God bless!