Jeremy Pryor made a very insightful comment that the reformers we're simply trying to reform the Catholic Church itself, which is why they were all banished and became apostates in the end. But when they came out of the church they never tried to reform the church structure itself. Was that simply neglect or on purpose?
At minute 1930 when Dr Wadsworth says that the church started calling their ministers priests, is he talking about the Roman Catholic Church? Did the Christian churches call their ministers priests?
At minute 53:30 Tom went so far as to say that the popularity of his RU-vid channel is drawing comments from all of "Christendom", and he included the Roman Catholic Church as part of authentic biblical christendom. Why do you think he did that?
I have yet to encounter an elegant interpretation of I Corinthians 11 that accounts for all details. Keep in mind that a couple of translation astonishments are present in many versions. The woman doesn’t have a symbol of authority; she has authority - and, there is no *such* custom, not no *other* custom in the churches. Here so many make a big deal about the head covering for the woman, but how is Paul making shame of a man remaining uncovered - when God commanded the priests to cover their heads? What do the angels care about any of this? Does head mean authority, so that God is authority over Christ who is God? Or does head mean source or at least beginning point, as in Genesis 2’s splitting of the one river into four heads, and Daniel 2’s head of the successive human governments? Did God send Christ? Did Christ create the man? Did the woman come out of the man? Source, source, source - emphasizing oneness? Then the man now coming out of the woman is not a random mitigation of authority but support of the overall point of oneness…. To answer the speculation in this video about taking the silence of women with equal seriousness as the head covering, or vice versa - I Corinthians 11 as clearly as it says anything, says women may prophesy. Which is not silence. Sin is lawlessness, but there is no law of Moses that silences women in the assembly, or for that matter which commands the unilateral submission of women to men in any configuration. So why do verses 34-35 of chapter 14 appeal to laws that cannot be found? This is a significant conflict if we think it’s referring to God’s ethics. But if ekklesia referred to male-only civic assemblies for the Greeks, long before Jesus said he’d build his - mightn’t the quotation theory of these verses be more reasonable than the idea that Paul meant women to be silent in contradiction to his own self a mere three chapters earlier? I commented this on Tom’s copy as well.
And then he said that all these different groups are "all finding something to talk about." Meaning inclusion, or in my view he's talking about ecumenicism.
Again, at minute 17: 28, Dr Wadsworth states that the Roman Catholic Church sees Jesus Christ as the only sacrifice for sin. But in reality, they see the Eucharist as a continuation of the actual sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ for our sins performed daily. This is not a scriptural doctrine.
