The Rev Dr Alan Clifford

Note by Sean Gabb: The wording of 1 Tim 2:12 is: “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” This can be taken as prohibiting the ordination of women. If it does this, however, there is 1 Tim 6:1: “Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.” In the original, the word “servants” is given as δοῦλοι (slaves). Therefore, if women are prohibited for all time from being ordained, slavery is endorsed for all time.

It seems a more reasonable approach to divide both parts of The Bible into what is essential for salvation and what is a pragmatic acceptance of the current order of things. Slavery was universally accepted in the Ancient World. For whatever reason, St Paul chose not to argue with that acceptance. The subordination of women was equally universal. Though some of the pagan cults allowed priestesses, these were often prostitutes. Therefore, perhaps, the express wording in Timothy.

Times are altered. Women are no longer subordinate, and there is a shortage of male ordinands. There is no argument in itself why women should not be ordained. The only argument worth allowing is that all the women so far ordained by the Church of England seem even madder and more PC than the men.

As for translations, I like the Authorised Version and the Book of Common Prayer. The words are alive and memorable. They are part of our culture. All the other English versions I have seen have about as much resonance as the instruction booklet to a central heating boiler. The few lapses in choice of manuscript and choice of words are nothing beside this. It should be the duty of any competent minister of religion to be fluent in Greek and Hebrew, and to make his congregation aware of these lapses.

When I come to power, I will smite the Church of England with a rod of iron. Half the priesthood I will deprive straight off for heresy and apostasy. The rest I will force to sign and preach on the 39 Articles – after they have demonstrated their competence in Hebrew and Greek. I will then set the new Church Militant loose on the Errors of both Rome and Geneva. I will not rest until the Book of Common Prayer is read in St Peter’s and the Athanasian Creed is recited in the Kaaba of Mecca.

Er….[SIG]

So now the Anglicans have a female bishop, adding some invalid feminine charm to an unbiblical theory of church order. How shocking to see all those unbiblical bishops swarming to lay hands on that woman, in open violation of the Word of God (1 Tim. 2: 12). And where were the vocal Evangelicals? I am informed that the sole protester was ‘Anglo-Catholic’. At least he appealed to the Bible.

Let it be said at the outset: the myth of apostolic succession is utterly invalid on scriptural grounds. By the same authority, a separate office for bishop as distinct from presbyter is unproven, let alone the multiplicity of other hierarchical offices such as archdeacon and archbishop, etc, and (as per Rome), cardinal and pope. A straightforward reading of Acts 20:17-28, Phil. 1:1, Titus 1:5-9 and 1 Pet. 5:1-3 identifies ‘bishop’ (or overseer) and ‘elder’ (or presbyter) as the same office in every instance. Without citing such predictable Presbyterian authorities as John Calvin and numerous Puritans and Huguenots, one may appeal to the church father Jerome and the medieval writer Marsilius of Padua for this view. Furthermore, such nineteenth-century Anglican authors as Dean Stanley, Bishop Lightfoot and Dean Alford argue likewise.

Compared with the NIV and ESV in this instance, even the AV and NKJV are inconsistent and misleading. English Presbyterian leader Dr Edmund Calamy (1671-1732) pointed out that had the AV translators translated the Greek ‘episkopos’ as ‘bishop’ and not ‘overseer’ in Acts 20:28, the single identity of the two offices would have been more obvious. That would have given the game away, to the displeasure of King James I who was determined to destroy the Puritans’ radical biblical case. The NIV and ESV get close in their margins, rightly using ‘overseer’ rather than ‘bishop’ (with all its later fallacious connotations) in the various main texts. So, on grounds of accuracy, honesty demands the acknowledgement of the AV’s errors, not least where dubious ecclesiastical ideas arise. It was in fact an Anglican ‘PC’ version (despite the scholarly input of intimidated Puritans), and far from perfect on several issues.

So, without denying that liberal ecumenism has wrought havoc in all Christian denominations, as the latest chapter in Anglican apostasy begins, it is time for some new radical Bible-based ‘across the board’ reformation. If one starts with the New Testament, the evidence never leads to Anglicanism, let alone Romanism. So, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, the true and only living Head of the Church, let us go back to ‘roots’, for the glory of God and the true saving and caring of souls.

Dr Alan C. Clifford

Norwich Reformed Church

PS: further reading in his quatercentenary year, see Richard Baxter’s Treatise of Episcopacy (1681).

Related posts:

The Meaning and Importance of Righteousness The Universal Life Church Why Would I Bother to Believe in God?

Powered by YARPP.