"I'm" not.

watcherjohnny see my comment above

+watcherjohnny He is hardly "Reverend" if he thinks like this.

@NY C50 As a man I agree. There also should be no women as MPs in any parliament. And no women should be allowed to vote, drive a car, open a bank account, etc.

@@petewenzel2725 Unironically

@@petewenzel2725 Why not?

@@2Uahoj WHY

@petewenzel2725 Those are worldly things - voting, representing constituents in Parliament and legislating on their behalf, obtaining license to drive a vehicle - are things of the world, not of Scripture. The emancipation of women in the world is praiseworthy; the adjustment of Scripture in the name of emancipation is worrying.

J. P. Except he’s incorrect that the Church of England was founded in 597. That’s simple wrong. The arrival of Augustine is not the foundation of the Church of England. I agree with him on many points but that’s historically untrue. (And I have no dog in this fight; I’m a catholic about to become an Anglican).

According to www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2926611/Libby-Lane-female-bishop-Church-England.html he actually interrupted her ceremony with a shout. His first response to a female bishop was not to 'calmly and eloquently dismantle the concept of female bishops using the bible', it was to yell out of a crowd, which had likely landed him this interview.

@@liuxiaokun4012 Because it needed to be said. What would Jesus do? Sit back and watch his Church change for the worse, or stand in the crowd and shout out the error

1 Timothy 2:12New International Version (NIV) 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[a] she must be quiet.

Daniel Mills Timothy spoke and wrote as a man of his time. Jesus speaks to us as the man for all time.

Nigel Baldwin Long before Jesus, many philosophers taught "Jesus Teachings". There's nothing original or new in his preachings

Leo Cozijn Yes, and they're all going to hell; spectacles, tv, KZfaq or whatever.

Spectacles, tv and KZfaq are are objects/means, not moral values. Means change in time, but God's moral values and His preconstituted order do not. Rev. Williamson here is talking about God's order in Creation, which cannot be swapped over, not about objects.

Jefferson...it is clear. That paul was telling Timothy how to run a church in ancient Ephesus. There are cultural directives and Godly directives for all time.

Not really. It's not clear on violence, for one.

@@darinwaynec 🤣

@@liuxiaokun4012 Violence?...Explain...

Well said. His stance makes me so hopeful.

Scripture tells us that each local church should have a group of elders/overseers over it and that they could only be men.

Saint Augustine brought Christianity to England. The Roman Catholic Church began in 1054, centuries later when the Church of Rome broke away from the Orthodox Church. The Church of England as it now stands is a break away from a breakaway.

@@ivandinsmore6217 The Orthodox Church broke with Rome actually. They claim it’s just because of the filioque but it’s mainly to do with the fact that they would not submit to Rome. Eventually the entire eastern church fell away. The Orthodox Church fell apart not long after choosing not to follow the pope. They were invaded and conquered by the Muslims all except Russia. Now there are several orthodox churches which can’t agree on who is in charge. The patriarch of Moscow excommunicated the patriarch of Constantinople over Ukraine. So no The Catholic Church of Rome has always maintained unity of thought while the east began a long series of divisions staring in 1054. Those are facts.

Rome left the Church a long time ago when it decided men had greater authority than Scripture.

@@martinploughboy988 yeah...except they didn't do that.

@@kentadamson6992 Friend i left the Catholic Church to return to Lutheranism for a few reasons but that was one. The Pope singularly defines scripture which is erroneous

Indeed he does

Kent Adamson got it there !

lol she couldn't rattle him with her accusations and started getting nervous xDDD

Rome isn't Catholic, it isn't Christian either. The bishop of Rome historically, only had authority in Rome.

@@martinploughboy988 the pope since Peter to Francis, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ and as pastor of the entire Christian Church, has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole church. Heretical churches and clergy have No Authority.

@@cosmic4037 Peter was never pope & I know of no evidence that he was ever in Rome. Paul makes no mention of him, and clearly Paul spent time in Rome. Rome's bishop had a tendency to throw his weight around from the time of Victor, who made a fool of himself over the date of Easter. Rome has been described as heretical and its pope as antichrist, it certainly has no authority over Christ's Church.

St. Augustine of Canterbury was sent by Pope Gregory

lol he is the total opposite of what they want for that position

Imagine the Roman Catholic church being Christian.

@@hartleyhare251 That's the original church

@@christopher8341 Well, the original church was formed in Acts, then Paul (nothing to do with Peter) helped to aka the church to other areas, including Rome. There was indeed an early church in Rome, however, the offish Roman Catholic organizational has never been the original Church... even 350 years after Christ was risen, which incidentally was when the Roman Catholic Church formed, then there were two lines of church... the authentic Christian church and the new Cross pagan religion which formed into the Roman Catholic Church. This, the Roman Catholic Church cannot boast of an unbroken chain of Potentates, and it cannot claim to be Christian given her doctrine from pergatory, the priesthood, the idolatory of Mary, the unbiblical Mass, and of course the Pope's claim to being the Vicar of Christ. What mostly concerns me about the adherents of the Roman Catholic Church is how despite all that the Bible says to avoid, the Roman Catholic Church embraces... each one hundred years new theology emerges which takes her further and further away from the gospel truth. The result, a pagan, false religion, with nearly 1.3 billion people being led down the garden path... yet all we ever hear are shallow arguments about the Roman Catholic Church being the true Church... even when history, thirdly, and testimony point to this church being anything of the sorts. Consider the millions slaughtered by the Roman Catholic Church... why? For reading the Bible. The Roman Catholic Church place the Bible on an equal flirting with three Magesterium and Tradition... the problem is is that the Magesterium has created such appalling rules... such as a Priest must not marry, or worse still... confirmation... and this has been bonded by tradition. The result is most Roman Catholics not knowing about their own history, and the sheer evil of the Popary, what the Popary claims, and how what is taught is absolutely, categoricall apposed to the Bible. As one wise person once said... It is perfectly possible for one to read the Bible and become a Christian. But it is impossible for one to read the Bible and become a Roman Catholic. For the claims of the Roman Catholic Church are nowhere to be found in the Bible.

@@christopher8341 No it’s not, they don’t even follow Canon 36 of Synod of Elvira “DO NOT PUT IMAGES INSIDE WORSHIP SERVICE” and besides they went over a 1000 years believing Moses had horns 😂

they will one day

No, the Church of England was founded by St. Augustine, a Benedictine monk, when he arrived on the Isle of Thanet in 597. He arrived there to Christianize England by the orders of Pope Saint Gregory the first, which was at the time a country that practised ancient Celtic rituals. He also came here because of King Aethelberht who had married a Christian princess called Bertha which would make the mission much easier. When Augustine arrived on the Isle of Thanet, he proceeded to the town of Canterbury where King Aethelberht lived and it was there he became the first archbishop of Canterbury. The Church of England became independent NOT founded after the divorce of king Henry the eighth to Catherine of Aragon so that he could marry his next wife Anne Boleyn.

Jonathan Hopper No. The Church of England was born through Henry VIII. The Catholic Church in England appeared with Augustine. Anglicanism bears zero similarity to the true Church

@user-uu5zv9qw1y The Church of England was the Roman Catholic Church before Henry VIII. Henry VIII was raised as a Catholic and never ceased to hold the Catholic faith in his heart or mind, though his behaviour may at times have suggested otherwise. He considered Martin Luther to be a heretic, and deliberately avoided adopting Lutheran ways when making the break with Rome - to the annoyance of English Lutherans who were privately hoping that the break with Rome would enable them to establish Lutheranism in the country. The original articles of the reformed Church of England were all essentially Catholic measures, copied and pasted. Fundamentally, Henry did not want to be beneath anyone - Luther, Pope, anyone - in subjecting England whether temporally or spiritually. It galled him that religious men and women could claim the Pope as a higher authority when it came to the Church; setting himself as the supreme authority was his core motive.

The only reason Henry broke with Rome, is because the Pope would not give him a divorce from Catherine of Aragon, and for only one reason, her uncle had occupied Rome. So King Henry had no other good choice but to break with Rome and all he really was asking the pope to do was to dispense with the dispensation that had allowed him to marry Catherine of Aragon. Henry felt that he had uncovered the nakedness of his brother Arthur's wife, and that God was denying Henry male issue as a result. Sons had indeed come to King Henry and Queen Catherine, but they were either dead at birth (stillborn)or died shortly after they were born.

That has nothing to do with the ordained ministry though.

I love this comment! Very well said.

no mention of marsupial animals either....

*Moscow

It is in 1 Timothy and Titus as well I believe.

+Paul Brandford What about the disciple whom He loved?

These are the same women that console him with their prayers and offerings as nuns throught the day and at daily mass. Your point is invalid. They weren't priests when the loved Jesus then.

The men's lives were in danger, by association. God bless.

How does that even matter?

Those women still weren’t apostles

They're wrong, they should Read the Bible

@Paddy O Look up 'irony' in the OUP.

Mattallica901 yes they are ahem council of Judea.. Read acts of the apostles "laying on of hands"

Read ur Bible.

Bishop Ojo Ayoka he is not 😂

@@abeljoshua170 please don't mansplain this

Coming from an unbiblical female ‘bishop’. Friend please come to the Bible and not your own preference