Advent Talk
Issues & Concerns Category => Womens Ordination & Related Issues => Topic started by: Gailon Arthur Joy on March 24, 2012, 05:48:19 PM
-
Annonymous
a day ago
That is interesting. In a meeting that I and several others had with another of the Mid-America Union's officers, we asked him specifically if the vote was only to affirm their belief that women should be ordained to the Gospel ministry or would they actually ordain women. His response was, "If one of our Conferences sends us the name of a woman, we will consider that name for ordination".
So, either the President or the other officer was mistaken about what was voted by the Executive Committee of the Mid-America Union.
Anonymous
So, anonymous declares that Pastor Lemon whitewashed the intent and the purposes of the Mid-America Union Executive Committee. Shame on Pastor Lemon for the whitewash now exposed.
I find this political game a simple effort to cover-up and whitewash apostacy.
Now, shame on any Executive Committee for taking on a tradition of Fallen Protestantism in a clear attempt to conform to a world nearly bankrupt. It is apostacy to claim that it is shameful for the Laodicean Church to deny ordination to women. The co-founder of this church repeatedly steered very clearly from ordination, electing simple licensure to carry her warning against apostacy to Modern Israel.
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
-
The Southeastern California Conference, in a closely coordinated rebellion against the General Conference with Dr. Lawrence Geraty as a key player and observer, moved to "Ordain" women to the ordained ministry via the laying on of hands more than two decades ago.
Yet at the same time a reform movement did the same thing with Elder Ralph Larsen officiating and was seen and treated as outright rebellion, with Elder larsen paying a very heavy penalty.
The Southeastern California Conference has been in deliberate rebellion against duly constituted Church Authority for quite some time and here we see more bold and deliberate "in your face" rebellion.
I must recommend the North American Division of Seventh-day Adventists begin the process of reconciliation and then proceed with a special constituency to consider the disbanding of the Southeastern California Conference of Seventh-day Adventists.
I am told the issue is the money...since when did money become a foundation for ignoring rebellion, apostocy and heresy?
Shortly, the Lord will manifest His Spirit within the Seventh-day Adventist Church and apostates and heretics will be swept aside so we can prepare for the "Loud Cry". We do not need rebellion, apostacy and heresy and should decisively meet it head on now, lest we fill our cup with the sin of Ommission!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
-
GAJ: Are you not aware the the movement to ordain females is growing stronger in the NAD?
From that perspective alone, your suggestion is unlikely to gain much ground.
-
GAJ: Ellen White, a co-founder of the SDA Chruch carried the credentials of an ordained minister, and was so listed in official records of the denomination for several years.
-
Watching the current administration of the Southern New England Conference has been an eye opening experience in Canadian Union church administration. Not only has the Canadian Union spawned a large number of "Home Churches" but some conferences such as Alberta, the prior assignmment of our conference president, openly tolerated what would be viewed as open rebellion in the US conferences.
We have seen a waste of conference assetts, the loss of our first North American Division College, but have also seen the conference openly tolerate Biblical Adultery within it's conference staff.
I believe it is very probable that the Canadian Union of Mr Jackson's (Yes, Mr and not Elder) roots is likely to follow Mid-America, Columbia Union, Pacific Union (with Southeastern California Conference openly adopting a policy of single "ordination" for men and women and eliminating its dual "Ordination" and "Licensed Commission") in the effort to follow the apostacy of fallen protestantism.
This is the same "Mr Jackson" that suggested he should take Elder David Asherrick to the woodshed for standing solidly in opposition to open endorsement of "Evolution" instruction at La Sierra. The same "Mr Jackson" that tried to politically use the NAD Fall Counsel to allow the NAD to adopt the "ordination" of women.
Mr Jackson's inability to bring spiritual and seasoned wisdom to the office of the NAD Presidency is now well documented and has selected a Special Assistant to the President well known to have covered up serious issues while serving as President of Illionois Conference, many times simply ignoring evidence in favor of political compromise and cover-up.
I will be so bold to call for the resignation of Mr Jackson and his Special Assistant as they are most certainly not in synchronization with the General Conference President's Revival and Reformation Initiative. Mr Jackson is incapable of taking a stand on any great principle other than political self preservation. We do not need his lack of leadership at the NAD level.
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
-
She repeatedly declined the position and is not known to have received the laying on of hands to be ordained. There were some who felt that Mrs White was "ordained of the Lord" but she repeatedly avoided accepting ordaination just as ardently as she avoided the title "prophet" in favor of "Messenger of the Lord".
At no time did Ellen G. White encourage or accept the ordaination of women and adhered to clear biblical principal's.
And, she was clear in declaring herself to be the "lesser light" ardently turning to the Bible as the foundations of Faith. The Bible gives clear and concise guidelines and adhered to a principle of the husband being the "high Priest" of the home.
There is simply no good basis for allowing a deviation from these principles and those churches that have, commonly referred to as "fallen protestantism", have gone on to compromise almost all their orginal protest standards and go well beyond to accept serious deviations from biblical foundations.
Their ultimate endorsement of open and notorious sin is well documented.
I take it, Mr Gregory, you endorse the ordaination of women to the ministry?
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
-
Of course I understand that and I, unlike yourself, would stand solidly in opposition to open apostacy.
My position on Mr. Jackson is also clear and we in the NAD must choose to whom our allegiance is to and to what standards we shall adhere to.
I have found that apostracy always has a vocal voice but the stockholders in the pews frequently do not agree with leadership, or is it lack of leadership? I will call those stockholders in the pews the "silent majority"!!! Remember them?
Lord forbid they oppose open apostacy!!! But, if the NAD moves away from the world church it will likely prove to be far more devastating the dissidence of the early 90's and lead to serious fracture.
As for me and my family, we will follow the word of the Lord clearly enunciated in Holy Scripture.
I would recommend the NAD do the same.
Mr. Gregory, I would recommend you do the same.
Gailon Arthur Joy.
AUReporter
-
1) Yes, I support the ordination of women to ministry. The fundamental issue is NOT ordination, it is ministry. If we are going to allow women to be pastors and perform almost all of the functions that our male clergy perform, we should ordain them.
2) As to what will likely be your second question: Yes, I support female clergy.
3) You are correct that EGW did not recieve the laying on of hands.
4) You are incorrect when you say that she repeatedly declined the position if you mean by that the credentials of an ordained minister. On November 27, 1887 the 26th annual session of the General Conference voted in official session to grant EGW the credentials of an ordained minister. Those credentials were re-issued upon their expiration. As you are well aware, EGW was quite willing to reprove General Conference personnel and GC leadership when she thought they were taking the denomination in awrong direction. She did not reprove them for this action. Rather she accepted the credentials and continued to accept them when re-newed.
5) As to your statement that EGW never encouraged the ordination of women to ministry, that is subject to debate and I will not take a position on it.
6) As you are probably aware because it has been well reported in the REVIEW for several years now: The Seventh-day Adventist denomination accepts the ordination of women in China as most people who are aware of the sistuation there beleive that God has clearly led in that direction.
-
It would be interesting to learn what EGW's opinion would be of the church as it operates now.
-
I ask myself that often. However, I generally expand my question to what she would think about the Chruch in the society of today. Denomilnations exist in a specific time and culture. And such sould be considered. Does that give a denomination license to be anyting? No! But, I like to consider context.
-
That is a great point, Gregory. So I revise my question to this:
What would a modern day EGW think of the current state of the SDA church?
-
1) Yes, I support the ordination of women to ministry. The fundamental issue is NOT ordination, it is ministry. If we are going to allow women to be pastors and perform almost all of the functions that our male clergy perform, we should ordain them.
2) As to what will likely be your second question: Yes, I support female clergy.
3) You are correct that EGW did not recieve the laying on of hands.
4) You are incorrect when you say that she repeatedly declined the position if you mean by that the credentials of an ordained minister. On November 27, 1887 the 26th annual session of the General Conference voted in official session to grant EGW the credentials of an ordained minister. Those credentials were re-issued upon their expiration. As you are well aware, EGW was quite willing to reprove General Conference personnel and GC leadership when she thought they were taking the denomination in awrong direction. She did not reprove them for this action. Rather she accepted the credentials and continued to accept them when re-newed.
5) As to your statement that EGW never encouraged the ordination of women to ministry, that is subject to debate and I will not take a position on it.
6) As you are probably aware because it has been well reported in the REVIEW for several years now: The Seventh-day Adventist denomination accepts the ordination of women in China as most people who are aware of the sistuation there beleive that God has clearly led in that direction.
And therefore, we should ignore Biblical Principle and adopt this new "strange fire" clearly unsupported biblically.
I do not support female clergy but do accept that women can be "messengers" and can do ministry. In fact, I would propogate the premise that God's ideal is that Husband and Wife should be a ministry team.
The designation granted by the GC to Ellen G. White had specific and limited purpose. There is simply no foundation from Ellen G. White to support "women as clergy" and she definitely did ot take such a role as head of any church in which she served. That example alone is enough to support a clear premise that she repeatedly pointed to and stood firmly upon biblical principle. THAT HAS NOT CHANGED and when churches have adopted such a position their history is replete with one compromise after another.
So, can we safely assume that you would graduate into gay men and women also serving as clergy? Maxwell certainly warned against that creeping compromise twenty plus years ago.
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
-
So, can we safely assume that you would graduate into gay men and women also serving as clergy? Maxwell certainly warned against that creeping compromise twenty plus years ago.
GAJ: A typical response for you. Totally unwarrented. Without foundation.
-
And a typical response for you...the premise that we set standards based on contemporary cultural
context would and has naturally lead to "standards promiscuity". You open this door and the results are already clearly known by those who have gone before us. I have no problem clarifying where this apoctasy leads!!!
If you do not like the natural extention of your thought process and that of your contemporaries, you should seriously reconsider the breach of clear "thus saith the Lord"!!! Your reconsideration is a must and if you don't like the results, don't push the button to launch into the undesired future.
And to prevent this natural extention from becoming a reality in the Southeastern California Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, we must discipline them now for this open rebellion and stem the national tide toward open and notorious absolute apostacy.
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
-
1) Yes, I support the ordination of women to ministry. The fundamental issue is NOT ordination, it is ministry. If we are going to allow women to be pastors and perform almost all of the functions that our male clergy perform, we should ordain them.
2) As to what will likely be your second question: Yes, I support female clergy.
3) You are correct that EGW did not recieve the laying on of hands.
4) You are incorrect when you say that she repeatedly declined the position if you mean by that the credentials of an ordained minister. On November 27, 1887 the 26th annual session of the General Conference voted in official session to grant EGW the credentials of an ordained minister. Those credentials were re-issued upon their expiration. As you are well aware, EGW was quite willing to reprove General Conference personnel and GC leadership when she thought they were taking the denomination in awrong direction. She did not reprove them for this action. Rather she accepted the credentials and continued to accept them when re-newed.
5) As to your statement that EGW never encouraged the ordination of women to ministry, that is subject to debate and I will not take a position on it.
6) As you are probably aware because it has been well reported in the REVIEW for several years now: The Seventh-day Adventist denomination accepts the ordination of women in China as most people who are aware of the sistuation there beleive that God has clearly led in that direction.
Now this is where we DO disagree. Under NO circumstances should a woman be allowed to be a pastor or be ordained. None whatsoever.
-
1) Yes, I support the ordination of women to ministry. The fundamental issue is NOT ordination, it is ministry. If we are going to allow women to be pastors and perform almost all of the functions that our male clergy perform, we should ordain them.
2) As to what will likely be your second question: Yes, I support female clergy.
3) You are correct that EGW did not recieve the laying on of hands.
4) You are incorrect when you say that she repeatedly declined the position if you mean by that the credentials of an ordained minister. On November 27, 1887 the 26th annual session of the General Conference voted in official session to grant EGW the credentials of an ordained minister. Those credentials were re-issued upon their expiration. As you are well aware, EGW was quite willing to reprove General Conference personnel and GC leadership when she thought they were taking the denomination in awrong direction. She did not reprove them for this action. Rather she accepted the credentials and continued to accept them when re-newed.
5) As to your statement that EGW never encouraged the ordination of women to ministry, that is subject to debate and I will not take a position on it.
6) As you are probably aware because it has been well reported in the REVIEW for several years now: The Seventh-day Adventist denomination accepts the ordination of women in China as most people who are aware of the sistuation there beleive that God has clearly led in that direction.
Now this is where we DO disagree. Under NO circumstances should a woman be allowed to be a pastor or be ordained. None whatsoever.
hhmm... But it is OK for a homosexual to be allowed to pastor or to be ordained?? hhmm...
-
After reading all of these powerful testimonies of your convictions I went back to bed. Most of you have probably experienced how such a discussion can paint a strange picture in your dreams. Here is how I saw it:
Since this question of keeping women out of the ministry appears to have such a strong effect on your eternal destiny I saw before me the hand of God writing in the sky with fiery letters just before the end of probation:
Only those who disapprove of women being ordained for the ministry will enter into my kingdom
Signed: Jesus Christ
Then I saw people scrambling for repentance they had not accepted this most important part in eternal salvation - so they'd not miss His Second Coming.
As I was looking for further details in the picture I saw people like Billy Graham proclaiming that he read through the whole Bible and never saw a word preventing the ordination of woman.
Then I saw Ellen White being deceived by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventist into accepting an ordination certificate and keeping it for many years.
As I was wondering what would happen to such people my dream displayed a total picture of the universe where I saw all of seven heavens. In His great mercy and considering all the work Ellen White and Billy Graham had done for Him the Sky Wagon stopped at either the fifth of sixth heaven where Ellen White and Billy Graham and their adherents were let off. They were told they could remain there for a thousand years while a genderless angel would remain with them for that period of time to straighten them out for their blunders.
A dream or a nightmare?
-
Sitting in the chair by my laptop I felt asleep again. I'll leave it to your imagination what I saw in my dream then.
-
Alex: That is O.K. We do not have to agree on everything.
Snoopy: Let me ask your question in this manner: hhmm... But it is OK for an unmarried heterosexual to be allowed to pastor or to be ordained?? hhmm...
If you had asked that question, I would answer in this manner: Is that unmarried heterosexual celebate? If so, yes.
-
Johann: I am awestruck by your skill with words. It is priceless.
-
GAJ, you said:
And a typical response for you...the premise that we set standards based on contemporary cultural
context. . .
If you do not like the natural extention of your thought process. . .
You are intelligent enough to know that I have never held the premise that we should set standards based upon contemporary cultural context. That has not been my position at any time in the past and it is not my position now.
It is not a natural extension of my thought process.
-
Snoopy asked:
What would a modern day EGW think of the current state of the SDA church?
EGW lived most of her life in the 1800s and died on July 16, 1915. What would she think if the Lord had shown her in vision contemporary society today in the United States?
1) In 1915 she had expelrienced railroad trains and automobiles. Today we fly people to the moon where they walk the surface and return to Earth.
2) She had experienced the telegraph. Today we push a button and we recieve an instant picture and sound from the other side of the Earth.
3) James worked very hard to earn one dollar to suport the work of God on Earth. Today one dollar will not purchase a loaf of bread.
4) She lived in very simple homes delighted to have indoor plumbing and glass winddows. Today our homes may have granite counters from South America and pendent linghts from China or Italy.
5) She spoke of women, modest clothing, and the length of a woman's dress. (Yes, she also spoke of men's clothing.) Today she could walk the streets of any city and visit the ocean-side beaches of any country.
6) She lived in a time when we knew little of the origin and treatment of disease. Today we replace hearts, see pictures of the inside of bodies and do micro-surgery inside eyeballs with surgical instruments that were intorduced into the eye through a 25 guage hole.
7) During the life-time of EGW the electric starter for automobile engines was developed. Today I push a few buttons and a computer generated voice gives me point to point directions on driving to visit my sons who live over 1,000 miles from where I live.
8) In her time, evangelists travel great distances to preach to small groups of people who had never heard God's message for them. Today, with the push of a button on a remote control millions can hear and see the evangelist--think Hope TV.
9) In the lifetime of EGW the growing denomination experienced much discussion of what constituted Biblical truth. Things msy seem to never change. These discussions continue today. Some of the subjects remain the same and some are different.
10) EGW wrote about the U.S. Civil War. Today we push a button and 1,000,000 people can die.
Yes, Snoopy, I often wonder what EGW would think of the SDA Church that she co-founded if she could see it as it exists in our society today. No, I am not advocating culturalo standards.
-
And just what makes you think she did not see our world today?
I firmly believe Ellen G. White saw New York on Sept 11, 2001 and described the same in 9 Testimonies. And I beleive she was given a panoramic view of the world in it's final agony moving forward and gave time pertinent counsel for us to the end of time. And that is what makes her writings so relevant to the very current period.
And Billy Graham has not seen a single text banning women from ordaination but he has also not seen a single text supporting ordaining women. However, there is clear guidance on the qualifications for ordaination. Perhaps, in your dream, you were given clear guidance on just how we get women to fit into this simple but important social model. If so, your enlightenment would be appreciated.
To make it clear, I have utter contempt for much of what I see ordained these days. There are far too many "ordained" that are selected by all too human hand and and fail the tests of Faith and Biblical principle openly and contemptuously. A former catholic turned adventist refers to these SDA pastors as "time servers and hirelings", a term that seems to fit nicely.
I adhere to a firm belief the Bible and the counsels make it clear that we are all engaged in ministry and have a duty to share our faith in our spheres of influence and we are held accountable for our failure to do so.
Ordaination is clearly conferred upon those with a special "atonement" and they are models for the christian community. That model is clearly and definitively given in Biblical Scripture. To ordain outside these clear guidelines is no ordaination at all and simply never happened. In fact, a false ordaination is heresy and of none affect in the Heavenly Courts.
I therefore conclude that to ordain women is a heresy and of none affect. They clearly will have difficulty being the husband of one wife and we leave the rest to your prayerful consideration.
Personally, I feel we need to look upon the entire ordaination process and evaluate just how many "men" meet the standards so clearly set. And if they do not and are not ordained does that prevent their "ministry"? Nor should it prevent women from "ministry". In no way should either man nor woman be "ordained" if they are not a model of Christian Family and Deportment!
We are way too quick to confer ordaination as if it is the ultimate "tenure" rather than the acheivement of atonement with the Spirit and a clear model for the Christian church.
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
-
It would be interesting to learn what EGW's opinion would be of the church as it operates now.
She was shone it and tears rolled down her cheeks until she barely could write. So that should tell somebody with common sense our latter time is only corrupt with the ( left wing justifiers) coming in just like she knew it would and only few Adventist would be saved while others from other denominations came in at the last and grasped the truth.
-
And just what makes you think she did not see our world today?
I firmly believe Ellen G. White saw New York on Sept 11, 2001 and described the same in 9 Testimonies. And I believe she was given a panoramic view of the world in it's final agony moving forward and gave time pertinent counsel for us to the end of time. And that is what makes her writings so relevant to the very current period.
And Billy Graham has not seen a single text banning women from ordination but he has also not seen a single text supporting ordaining women. However, there is clear guidance on the qualifications for ordination. Perhaps, in your dream, you were given clear guidance on just how we get women to fit into this simple but important social model. If so, your enlightenment would be appreciated.
To make it clear, I have utter contempt for much of what I see ordained these days. There are far too many "ordained" that are selected by all too human hand and and fail the tests of Faith and Biblical principle openly and contemptuously. A former catholic turned Adventist refers to these SDA pastors as "time servers and hirelings", a term that seems to fit nicely.
I adhere to a firm belief the Bible and the counsels make it clear that we are all engaged in ministry and have a duty to share our faith in our spheres of influence and we are held accountable for our failure to do so.
Ordination is clearly conferred upon those with a special "atonement" and they are models for the christian community. That model is clearly and definitively given in Biblical Scripture. To ordain outside these clear guidelines is no ordination at all and simply never happened. In fact, a false ordaination is heresy and of none affect in the Heavenly Courts.
I therefore conclude that to ordain women is a heresy and of none affect. They clearly will have difficulty being the husband of one wife and we leave the rest to your prayerful consideration.
Personally, I feel we need to look upon the entire ordaination process and evaluate just how many "men" meet the standards so clearly set. And if they do not and are not ordained does that prevent their "ministry"? Nor should it prevent women from "ministry". In no way should either man nor woman be "ordained" if they are not a model of Christian Family and Deportment!
We are way too quick to confer ordination as if it is the ultimate "tenure" rather than the acheivement of atonement with the Spirit and a clear model for the Christian church.
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
This is exactly right. Make a study just on the word "ordination". Ordination just meant that in early times when the 3rd angels message was to go out they wanted to make sure the messengers or preachers were "knowing" and giving the right message as it was presented and not an impostor that gave his own theories.Other denominations do this to make sure also that another doctrine is not given by their preachers. That is all that means.
It had to be the united doctrine given by "Inspiration" to the small group. and absolutely not did EGW feel that her "credentials" should come from man but knew for sure "God Himself" Holy Spirit gave them to her and therefore would be a slap in the face of God to except from man's credentials even tho organization of church decided to do as they pleased. and all women should follow suit as all through her writings she gave explicit details how important a woman"s work was beside the man. I felt God knew best and therefore did my best in that field..as a woman.
Women that jump up to their own causes (in the preaching world) certainly cannot be "ordained" against the SP council nor for the "aggressive liberated" women that seek men's man made preaching "credentials" for the purpose of a pay check or taking the liberated women's stand of equal in the man's part, and just what would that do for them?? seeking the kingdom that is?? nothing!!! )Now how silly in reality do you want to get?? picture this, a little old "ordained women" dipping a great big huge man into the baptistery, it definitely has many draw back in reality and pretty funny ) and that is the stance of EGW if you read it at all and do not add between lines of what she actually did and (Gregory if you read this, this day and age makes no change but the change only that comes in man's justifications of riding the fence in so many issues is corruption that will cause many Adventist to lose eternity which she clearly states (as shown with tears running down her cheeks as she wrote knowing the future of Adventist downfall). I have had my opinion long before I saw you on 3abn talks and you posted here your stance on most all issues. At your age like mine and much more education, should know without following "new age" changes. So here we are with the liberal teachers into evolution bringing down the schools and the whole other conglomeration of plain old devil intrusions of the SDA that will follow instead of devouring our last message into following truth without prejudice of ones own opinions. So in ones own salvation make sure your English is up to par in the right contexts and words of SP the same as you would God's Bible and word. Sorry Gailon if I addressed another on my agreeing reply to yours.
It's got to end soon- as all we are now talking about and separated in foundational beginnings- we must know it all has come to pass as shown to EGW.
-
Johann: I am awestruck by your skill with words. It is priceless.
What is the redemptive value of verbosity?
-
Snoopy asked:
What would a modern day EGW think of the current state of the SDA church?
EGW lived most of her life in the 1800s and died on July 16, 1915. What would she think if the Lord had shown her in vision contemporary society today in the United States?
1) In 1915 she had expelrienced railroad trains and automobiles. Today we fly people to the moon where they walk the surface and return to Earth.
2) She had experienced the telegraph. Today we push a button and we recieve an instant picture and sound from the other side of the Earth.
3) James worked very hard to earn one dollar to suport the work of God on Earth. Today one dollar will not purchase a loaf of bread.
4) She lived in very simple homes delighted to have indoor plumbing and glass winddows. Today our homes may have granite counters from South America and pendent linghts from China or Italy.
5) She spoke of women, modest clothing, and the length of a woman's dress. (Yes, she also spoke of men's clothing.) Today she could walk the streets of any city and visit the ocean-side beaches of any country.
6) She lived in a time when we knew little of the origin and treatment of disease. Today we replace hearts, see pictures of the inside of bodies and do micro-surgery inside eyeballs with surgical instruments that were intorduced into the eye through a 25 guage hole.
7) During the life-time of EGW the electric starter for automobile engines was developed. Today I push a few buttons and a computer generated voice gives me point to point directions on driving to visit my sons who live over 1,000 miles from where I live.
8) In her time, evangelists travel great distances to preach to small groups of people who had never heard God's message for them. Today, with the push of a button on a remote control millions can hear and see the evangelist--think Hope TV.
9) In the lifetime of EGW the growing denomination experienced much discussion of what constituted Biblical truth. Things msy seem to never change. These discussions continue today. Some of the subjects remain the same and some are different.
10) EGW wrote about the U.S. Civil War. Today we push a button and 1,000,000 people can die.
Yes, Snoopy, I often wonder what EGW would think of the SDA Church that she co-founded if she could see it as it exists in our society today. No, I am not advocating culturalo standards.
All of this shows lack of reading every book every context and denying all foundational beginning of denomination and going for world events put into justifications for following change of all new age competitiveness. Her writings like the Bible can be used in any era the same as Bible no matter the progression of science.
The women of today have lost their calling, destroyed their families, while trying to compete when not necessary and some poor women having to out of necessity. But the ones that do it out of shear equal to man is the ones that show out obvious and I reject to anything they say or do. They already got an idenity of"domination" and of course that does not make them equal but a character to dominate. Does a man like this in marriage? how about what it does to children? Do same sex couples give the right distinction to adopted children. What a mess this all can branch off too. Just because.....oh,oh, here we go again. lol The women's power vote because they like the looks of Romney? Now how smart is that?? Who knows what we got for this upcoming corruption again? Something sure is wrong someplace when we got this much diversion within our own denomination.
-
....and the church seems to fall. (quote)
This has to be the era and time for this to happen as all seem to be falling away as separation begins.
What else is it and how can it stop?
-
....and the church seems to fall. (quote)
This has to be the era and time for this to happen as all seem to be falling away as separation begins.
What else is it and how can it stop?
If this is what has to happen before the Second Coming, do we really want it to stop?
-
The Jesuits are still hard at work convincing the very elect to follow a thousand year old sanctified Roman Catholic tradition in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, as well as sections of other denominations. If the Jesuits cannot gain hold of these churches in other areas they will do their utmost to be sure that also the very elect will fall at the feet of Rome, thinking they are the true messengers of God. At the end all will worship Rome, so lots is at stake.
-
Some years back I made the life and teachings of Augustine of Hippo the theme of a special study. I read a few of his biographies, volumes of his own writings and of his sermons and the effects of Augustine on the Roman Catholic Church through the centuries. I discovered that the writings of Augustine had much greater impact on the church of Rome throughout the middle ages than Scripture or anything else. A preacher had to use about 75% of his material from Augustine. . .
Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk and he never discarded all of Augustine. Augustine might even have a greater impact on the teachings of some Seventh-day Adventists than we imagine. Even among the very elect. We have a tendency to adhere to traditions.
While Augustine was a professor of speech at the Universities of Carthage, Rome, and Milan he was still a pagan. He became a Christian by watching the Bishop of Milan, greatly impressed that the Bishop managed life without a woman. So he sent his own woman back to North Africa where she came from. For a while he had to have another woman, but he finally won the full victory over women in his life.
When Augustine joined the Church he discovered the Church had no theology to support infant baptism, nor the priesthood, nor the cloisters. So he started twisting Scripture to formulate the new theology and doctrine. And this is where Rome has its foundation which many protestant churches have accepted. It is amazing to discover how some otherwise solid Seventh-day Adventist are beguiled by these teachings of Augustin of Hippo and following it rather than Scripture. What will prevent them from taking the next steps in following Rome when they discover they have already clasped the hands of Rome across the gulf?
-
You are intelligent enough to know that I have never held the premise that we should set standards based upon contemporary cultural context. That has not been my position at any time in the past and it is not my position now.
Then Gregory, I assume from this comment that you reject the making of none effect of Paul's instruction on this question, using the argument that it Paul was merely reflecting the culture of his day? I welcome hearing a more biblical, non-cultural approach to interpreting Paul's words that would still allow for ordaining women to the gospel ministry.
The Jesuits are still hard at work convincing the very elect to follow a thousand year old sanctified Roman Catholic tradition in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, as well as sections of other denominations.
Johann, are you suggesting that the Jesuits are the ones who want us to follow Paul's instruction on this question? It's the Jesuits that are telling us to follow the Bible?
-
Gregory and Johann,
Last fall the GC Annual Council voted down the NAD request to permit commissioned ministers to serve as conference and mission presidents. Then the NAD voted to do it anyway. Then by Jan. 31, the NAD had to backtrack since they didn't have authority to do that.
We have official GC Session votes in 1990 and 1995 against the ordination of women. According to 9T 261, Ellen White believed that GC Session votes have authority. How much authority? That statement was made within a discussion of whether the GC was the voice of God. NAD Working Policy states that GC Session votes are the highest authority under God.
Kevin Paulson claims that in the spring of 2010, 8 divisions did not want to revisit the issue of women's ordination, and 3 divisions did. At the 2010 GC Session, it was voted to have a worldwide study of the biblical theology of ordination, leading up to the 2014 Annual Council and 2015 GC Session.
Why did the NAD last fall vote to do what they had been told not to do? Why aren't these unions and conferences waiting until after the study commission process is completed? Why are they refusing to acknowledge and submit to the authority of the GC Sessions on this question?
If there was a clear biblical mandate to ordain women to the gospel ministry, it would be different. But there isn't. Instead we have Paul stating that women are not to take the leading positions because of creation-based and fall-based arguments.
Do you support the current rebellion, or do you support the world church?
-
Johann,
In what specific ways are Adventists today following the teachings of Augustine?
-
It seems that following Scripture is a precarious endeavor. SDAs, Catholics, Baptists, Amish, and many others are each more Scriptural than each of the others, and they each have powerful scriptural argument for their positions. Yet each, without exception, only follow the scriptures they choose to follow, brazenly ignoring or discounting those they choose not to. Where it suits them, they interpret various scriptures as literal, non-literal, subject to the culture, or no longer valid. This results in a fast increasing population of young, educated members viewing the corporately held beliefs to be without veracity, and rightfully so. The protection of traditional identity is traditionally far more important than the pursuit of truth.
-
I see it is the time for me to stand for TRUTH in this matter, since so many are completely blinded by Rome.
What is the reason why our leadership is spreading the Great Controversy with one hand while they bow at the altar of Rome with the other knee? That makes the Great Controversy of no effect?
Yes, you have the words of Paul - as interpreted by the ancient Roman tradition while there is, as far as I have seen, not the slightest support for this in any of Ellen G White's writings.
The history of how this has been handled by the various sessions of the General Conference only indicate how deeply our church is infiltrated by the teachings of Rome, and it indicates that, except by the strong work of the Holy Spirit, our church will remain in this deception for years to come. I will not condemn you for remaining within the ties of Rome, but I think it is my duty to warn, because the end of our history is at hand.
Pray about it!
-
It seems that following Scripture is a precarious endeavor. SDAs, Catholics, Baptists, Amish, and many others are each more Scriptural than each of the others, and they each have powerful scriptural argument for their positions. Yet each, without exception, only follow the scriptures they choose to follow, brazenly ignoring or discounting those they choose not to. Where it suits them, they interpret various scriptures as literal, non-literal, subject to the culture, or no longer valid. This results in a fast increasing population of young, educated members viewing the corporately held beliefs to be without veracity, and rightfully so. The protection of traditional identity is traditionally far more important than the pursuit of truth.
Excellent post, Murcielago. In my opinion, the GC is most certainly NOT the voice of God!! I don't pretend to be a Biblical or SOP scholar, but if EGW were here now I am quite certain she would agree with me!!
-
Johann,
In what specific ways are Adventists today following the teachings of Augustine?
By following his teachings on the role of women. He seemed to tie this all together, so if Rome gains your little finger they will try to catch the whole hand as well. The next step could be infant baptism. Why not just sprinkle a few drops of holy water as you have your child dedication? Not too many at first, it should not create a suspicion right at the beginning.
-
The Apostle Paul in the book of Timothy, clearly states that a pastor a deacon is to be a man of one wife.
It is also understood that a man represents the head of a family. Same is true within the church.
There is no biblical grounds to support women clergy. The Bible is clear.
-
And Snoopy, YES, as long as they are not engaging in sex.
-
The Apostle Paul in the book of Timothy, clearly states that a pastor a deacon is to be a man of one wife.
It is also understood that a man represents the head of a family. Same is true within the church.
There is no biblical grounds to support women clergy. The Bible is clear.
There is biblical support for any position a person cares to take on almost any subject. Paul implies that he supports the position you take on this subject. He is also equally clear in his support for positions that you disagree with. The Bible is equally clear to you, Johann, Gailon, Bob, Gregory and Horsethief.
-
And Snoopy, YES, as long as they are not engaging in sex.
Huh? YES what? I don't remember the question - sorry...
-
The Apostle Paul in the book of Timothy, clearly states that a pastor a deacon is to be a man of one wife.
It is also understood that a man represents the head of a family. Same is true within the church.
There is no biblical grounds to support women clergy. The Bible is clear.
Not at all, Alex. You are basing your "faith" on a translation which is an interpretation in tune with the Roman Catholic view. Most modern translations make it clear that this could apply to both male and female deacons.
The Roman mark has left its impression everywhere around us - just to make sure that fhe whole world shall worship it. To me this is a clear mark of deception.
-
The Apostle Paul in the book of Timothy, clearly states that a pastor a deacon is to be a man of one wife.
It is also understood that a man represents the head of a family. Same is true within the church.
There is no biblical grounds to support women clergy. The Bible is clear.
There is biblical support for any position a person cares to take on almost any subject. Paul implies that he supports the position you take on this subject. He is also equally clear in his support for positions that you disagree with. The Bible is equally clear to you, Johann, Gailon, Bob, Gregory and Horsethief.
And it does not force you to make your own decision if that is against your "nature"!
-
The Apostle Paul in the book of Timothy, clearly states that a pastor a deacon is to be a man of one wife.
It is also understood that a man represents the head of a family. Same is true within the church.
There is no biblical grounds to support women clergy. The Bible is clear.
There is biblical support for any position a person cares to take on almost any subject. Paul implies that he supports the position you take on this subject. He is also equally clear in his support for positions that you disagree with. The Bible is equally clear to you, Johann, Gailon, Bob, Gregory and Horsethief.
And it does not force you to make your own decision if that is against your "nature"!
Very true. One can choose a dogma or not. But most people tend to stay with whatever they were raised with in religion and politics, as that forms the foundations of their long-term identity.
-
Most Baptist, especially the Southern Baptist, where I belong is TOTALLY against women clergy.
I stand firm on my belief that a woman's job within the church is to remain quiet.
-
Most Baptist, especially the Southern Baptist, where I belong is TOTALLY against women clergy.
I stand firm on my belief that a woman's job within the church is to remain quiet.
But Alex, most Baptists, and especially Southern Baptists, are completely against you on other strongly held positions that you adhere to. Would you agree that you are wrong on those matters, as per the firmly held beliefs/doctrines of the Baptists? If you are right and the Southern Baptist Convention is wrong on those matters, could they be wrong on others?
-
The Faith and Message [enacted in 2000] change did not address of whether women should be ordained, only whether they could be pastors who lead congregations. The change also did not say what should happen to the 1,600 or so Southern Baptist clergywomen who existed at the time, about 100 of whom were leading congregations.
Because of the traditional Baptist emphasis on the autonomy of individual churches and the fact that the Southern Baptist Convention is more of a congregation union than an hierarchical denomination, the change was not binding on individual Southern Baptists and the denomination’s 41,000 local congregations remained free to ordain women and hire them as pastors. Still, the fact that a change was made at all sent a powerful message and was designed to influence decisions at the congregational level.
Here it is in a nutshell:
1) The Suthern Baptist Revised Statement of belief in 2000 restricted clergy to males. It did not address ordination.
The 200 revision was a change from the 1963 revision of the 1925 statements of belief.
2) In Southern Baptist practice individual churches are independent as to who they select a pastors and who they ordain.
In soummation: Suthern Baptist statements of belief discourage female clergy but local congregations may ordain and elect female clergy and ramain within the Southern Baptist denomination.
Julie Pennington-Russell was voted on Sunday [JUne 19, 2007] to become senior pastor of an Atlanta-area megachurch. The historic decision that went without dispute makes the congregation the largest church of Southern Baptist heritage to be led by a woman.
"Without a doubt, this is a major development," commented the Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and one of America's pre-eminent Evangelical leaders, in a blog post when initial reports about Pennington-Russell's near-confirmation as head of First Baptist Church of Decatur, Ga., came out.
In a closed session on Sunday after morning worship, some 500 members elected the married mother of two to lead the nearly 2,700-member church, according to The Waco Tribune-Herald. Only five hands of dissent were visible at most, said First Baptist's interim pastor, Dock Hollingsworth.
Pennington-Russell, 46, currently pastors Calvary Baptist Church in Waco, Texas. According to the female pastor, Calvary was the first Baptist church in Texas to call a woman as a senior pastor in 1998.
-
If you are referring to whether a homosexual can pastor, I believe the Southern Baptist Church would agree with me that it would be ok as long as the homosexual was not engaging in homosexual sex.
Gregory: Come to the southern baptist association I beong too. I will assure you that the pastors would overwelmingly agree with my stand on women clergy.
-
Johann,
In what specific ways are Adventists today following the teachings of Augustine?
By following his teachings on the role of women. He seemed to tie this all together, so if Rome gains your little finger they will try to catch the whole hand as well. The next step could be infant baptism. Why not just sprinkle a few drops of holy water as you have your child dedication? Not too many at first, it should not create a suspicion right at the beginning.
Johann, in what way are Adventists today following the teachings of Augustine on the role of women? I do not recall reading any Adventists who quote Augustine on this topic. They may cite Ellen White, Paul, Moses, etc., but not Augustine.
Self-proclaimed anti-trinitarians make the same sort of claim regarding Adventists who believe in the Trinity, that those Adventists got the Trinity doctrine from Rome. But while I hear such Adventists quote Desire of Ages, I do not hear them basing their beliefs on Roman Catholic authors.
So we need more than just the claim that it comes from Rome. We need a clear-cut paper trail, showing how Adventists have gotten their understanding of the role of women from Augustine rather than from Paul.
-
Also, if God did not create homosexuals, why do animals also engage in homosexual activity?
-
It is an irony that the evangelicals so clearly understand the issue of ordination while we vet the issue and indeed fondly follow Fallen Protestantism on it's road to Rome.
I have had the pleasure of doing a dozen seminars for evangelical pastors entitled "The Power of Exemption". These are mostly small "congregational" governance churches, some with and some without a 501(c) 3 designation. While the focus is on positioning the church community to help their own paritioners and communities via several programs, it has been noticable that not a single "pastor" has participated that is of the female gender, yet many women have come out to find ministries they can use to enhance the church in their communities.
I can tell you that is the Seventh-day Adventist church adopts the Odination of women we will become the laughing stock of the evangelical world as they see us abrogate the Bible as our standard of Faith.
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
-
....and the church seems to fall. (quote)
This has to be the era and time for this to happen as all seem to be falling away as separation begins.
What else is it and how can it stop?
If this is what has to happen before the Second Coming, do we really want it to stop?
Bring it on -and that is why it is very interesting to watch and read where everybody comes from on their comments. Reasoning for the "new age" change is really amazing.
-
Not at all, Alex. You are basing your "faith" on a translation which is an interpretation in tune with the Roman Catholic view. Most modern translations make it clear that this could apply to both male and female deacons.
Johann, one very real problem is that the women's ordination movement relies at least in part in misinformation. I say "misinformation" because a proponent recently told me that they understood that no GC Session had ever voted against ordaining women, and that the 1881 GC Session had voted for it, none of which is true.
I do not see how 1 Tim. 3:2 and Tit. 1:6 are verses that, in the Greek, can apply to both genders. Are either of these verses what you were thinking of?
What is the reason why our leadership is spreading the Great Controversy with one hand while they bow at the altar of Rome with the other knee?
This sounds like a pretty extreme statement. Can you support it with solid evidence?
Yes, you have the words of Paul - as interpreted by the ancient Roman tradition while there is, as far as I have seen, not the slightest support for this in any of Ellen G White's writings.
Do you find anything in her writings that says anything different? I do not base my understanding of Paul's words on Roman tradition.
Do you support the current, apparent rebellion, even though it violates the SoP? Or do you think these unions and conference should wait until after the study commission process is completed in 2014/2015?
-
"How far-reaching in its results was the influence of that one Hebrew woman, and she an exile and a slave! The whole future life of Moses, the great mission which he fulfilled as the leader of Israel, testifies to the importance of the work of the Christian mother. There is no other work that can equal this. To a very great extent the mother holds in her own hands the destiny of her children" (PP 244).
Thus, there is no higher calling for a woman than that of being a Christian mother. That doesn't mean that there's nothing else she can do. But it does mean that there is nothing else that can equal that. The position of local pastor or even GC president is at the very least one notch lower than that of Christian mother.
-
1881: I think that you meant 1887, but I could be wrong.
As to 1887, the General Conference (26th annual session) voted to give EGW the credentials of an ordained minsiter. No, they did not vote to ordain woman.
-
No, I really was told that in 1881 a resolution to ordain women was voted by a GC Session. So I checked it out in the GC Session minutes and found out that that was the only one of around 40 resolutions that isn't marked adopted, carried, or approved.
It, like at least two other resolutions, was referred to a committee, that one to the GC Comm., and the other two to the Committee on Resolutions. The other two were brought back in separate meetings, one being modified, and were then adopted. But the one on ordaining women, I couldn't find anywhere where it was brought back to the session for a vote.
And yet I was told that the only resolution not adopted was adopted.
Another problem amongst women's ordination proponents is other views held by some of the more vocal ones. For example, this month one has publicly stated that Desire of Ages is inspired fiction. Another one has stated that he believes that other Bible writers as well as Ellen White misunderstood what Gen. 3:16 really says, as a way to discount what Paul's writings say on the subject. And yet another stated that Matthew and Luke "discovered" the virgin birth in 80 AD, 75 years after the alleged event occurred, thus indicating that the virgin birth never occurred.
So of course when you have skeptics like that trumpeting the issue of women's ordination, you wonder where all this is heading. Not that everyone trumpeting it is a skeptic, but I have not heard anti-women's ordination proponents spouting off such infidel nonsense.
(Since I assume you do not hold such sentiments yourself, I felt I could use the phrase "infidel nonsense" without offending you. :))
-
1881: You are stimulating my mind and bringing back memories long forgotten. I don't have it all yet. I will take your word for it. :) :)
-
She was given those credentials to speak to that conference.
Shortly thereafter she was sent to Siberia only to be victims of her providential interventionary missives from down under. They did not send her with credentials and sent Daniels to keep her in check. And Daniels knew just how to make the best of his opportunity.
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
-
1881: You are stimulating my mind and bringing back memories long forgotten. I don't have it all yet. I will take your word for it. :) :)
http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/GCB/GCB1863-88.pdf#Page=197
That's the minutes. The initial 15 resolutions or so appear on pp. 193-198, I believe. Later sessions had an additional 25 resolutions or so. The one on women's ordination is the only one that wasn't adopted, from what I could tell.
The resolution is quoted in the minutes when it is introduced. Then when it was approved it is clearly labeled as such, either at the time of introduction, or later.
-
She was given those credentials to speak to that conference.
False.
She was given those credentials at the very end of the conference. See: A. L. White, ELLEN G. WHITE, Vol 3, THE LONELYYEARS, 1876 - 1891, R & H Publilshing, 1984, Page 377.
In the years that followed, her credentials were renewed. IOW, she kept them for years.
-
The Committee on Credentials and Licenses made recommendations as
follows:--
For Credentials: G. I. Butler, S. N. Haskell, O. A. Olsen, W. C. White,
R. A. Underwood, U. Smith, R. M. Kilgore, Mrs. E. G. White, B. L. Whitney, D. T. Bourdeau, A. A. John, J. H. Matteson, E. W. Whitney, E. G. Olsen, J. H. Durland, A. C. Bourdeau, L. R. Conradi, S. H. Lane, William Ings, M. C. Israel, D. A.
Robinson, C. L. Boyd, E. W. Farnsworth, H. Shultz, W. D. Curtis, W. H. Saxby,
J. F. Hansen, A. G. Daniells, S. Fulton, T. H. Gibbs, S. H. Kime, L. P. Hodges,
J. C. Laubhan, J. M. Rees, G. C. Tenney, H. P. Holser, Ira J. Hankins, D. E.
Lindsey, O. C. Godsmark, G. G. Rupert, N. Orcutt, Victor Thompson, J. P.
Henderson, J. M. Erickson, M. Enoch, N. Clausen, O. Hill.
For License: C. Eldridge, W. Baird, N. B. England, A. Barry, A. LaRue,
Henry Scott, L. H. Crisler, J. I. Tay, G. E. Langdon, Mrs. Ruie Hill.
Report was adopted.
Bob: Your reference is interesting. I shall have to spend more time with it, when I have time. As I read the above, it states that the recommendation to grant credentials to EGW was adopted.
Also, as I understand it, Mrs. Ruie Hill, I assume that the "Mrs." means she was female, was recommended for and granted a License, rather than credentials as EGW was granted.
-
If you are referring to whether a homosexual can pastor, I believe the Southern Baptist Church would agree with me that it would be ok as long as the homosexual was not engaging in homosexual sex.
Gregory: Come to the southern baptist association I beong too. I will assure you that the pastors would overwelmingly agree with my stand on women clergy.
I'm sorry, I didn't clarify what I was talking about. I wasn't referring to the practice of homosexuality as a pastor, I was referring to the practice of homosexuality in general, which I understand the Southern Baptist Convention disapproves of entirely, as per their understanding of the writings of Paul et al. Which, I understand, is also what they base their disapproval of the ordination of women on.
The point I am approaching in this is that personal or corporate experience, biases, culture, etc can, and usually do, trump the Bible in term of personal belief. E.g., a person or organization can adhere to one thing that Paul says because it agrees with what they want to believe, and they can disagree with something else he is equally clear on because it disagrees with their personal or corporate needs or desires.
-
Also, if God did not create homosexuals, why do animals also engage in homosexual activity?
I'm just just stating that if one cites Paul as the final authority on one matter (e.g. ordination of women), they should be prepared to accept him as the final authority on all matters that he clearly addresses.
-
....and the church seems to fall. (quote)
This has to be the era and time for this to happen as all seem to be falling away as separation begins.
What else is it and how can it stop?
If this is what has to happen before the Second Coming, do we really want it to stop?
Bring it on -and that is why it is very interesting to watch and read where everybody comes from on their comments. Reasoning for the "new age" change is really amazing.
It is interesting to see what arguments are used. There is absolutely no connection with this and "new age". We are dealing with the sacred Word of God and reading it with the understanding given us also through the Spirit of Prophecy - warning against the infiltration of Antichrist. This question was dealt with in an article in our own MINISTRY MAGAZINE about 50 or 60 years ago long before there was any "new age" but people were not ready for the warning given then. Tinka, I challenge you to give me one quotation from Ellen G. White which supports your present view on this issue. Are you ready to stand for truth, or do you prefer bowing your knees before BAAL?
-
It really hurts me to see to what length you will go to seek support for your stand in support of Rome. But we do have Freedom of Religion.
-
Johann,
In what specific ways are Adventists today following the teachings of Augustine?
By following his teachings on the role of women. He seemed to tie this all together, so if Rome gains your little finger they will try to catch the whole hand as well. The next step could be infant baptism. Why not just sprinkle a few drops of holy water as you have your child dedication? Not too many at first, it should not create a suspicion right at the beginning.
Johann, in what way are Adventists today following the teachings of Augustine on the role of women? I do not recall reading any Adventists who quote Augustine on this topic. They may cite Ellen White, Paul, Moses, etc., but not Augustine.
Self-proclaimed anti-trinitarians make the same sort of claim regarding Adventists who believe in the Trinity, that those Adventists got the Trinity doctrine from Rome. But while I hear such Adventists quote Desire of Ages, I do not hear them basing their beliefs on Roman Catholic authors.
So we need more than just the claim that it comes from Rome. We need a clear-cut paper trail, showing how Adventists have gotten their understanding of the role of women from Augustine rather than from Paul.
One doesn't have to cite/quote Augustine or any other Roman Catholic leaders and authors in order to follow their lead.
-
Johann,
Cite a single passage from the Bible or the Spirit of Prophecy that supports ordaining women. It simply does not exist. And the "credentials" Mr Gregory repeatedly relies upon is nothing more than can be conferred to this date and does not constitute "Ordination".
The premise that the Paulean Standard for Ordination should be abandoned is simply heresy!!! One who believes we should change this in light of the Biblical Standard and the Principled Model it so clearly establishes is setting up the church for further Apostacy as I do not believe the church has properly established Ordination Practices based upon the Biblical Standard but has simply used the Laying on of Hands to confer tenure to "qualified" and "loyal" pastors, regardless of the biblical qualifications of the pastor.
I can find no basis for believing that following the Paulean Standard in any way violates protestantism and leads to Romanism. In fact, the current Ordination is heirarchal but not because it excludes women, but rather because it is of man and not a God Given Gift conferred for holiness but rather human loyalty.
Gailon Arthur joy
AUReporter
-
And now that the Southeastern California Conference has moved to a single Gender Neutral Ordination, should we move to disband that conference from the fellowship of churches?
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
-
Johann,
In what specific ways are Adventists today following the teachings of Augustine?
By following his teachings on the role of women. He seemed to tie this all together, so if Rome gains your little finger they will try to catch the whole hand as well. The next step could be infant baptism. Why not just sprinkle a few drops of holy water as you have your child dedication? Not too many at first, it should not create a suspicion right at the beginning.
Johann, in what way are Adventists today following the teachings of Augustine on the role of women? I do not recall reading any Adventists who quote Augustine on this topic. They may cite Ellen White, Paul, Moses, etc., but not Augustine.
Self-proclaimed anti-trinitarians make the same sort of claim regarding Adventists who believe in the Trinity, that those Adventists got the Trinity doctrine from Rome. But while I hear such Adventists quote Desire of Ages, I do not hear them basing their beliefs on Roman Catholic authors.
So we need more than just the claim that it comes from Rome. We need a clear-cut paper trail, showing how Adventists have gotten their understanding of the role of women from Augustine rather than from Paul.
Bob I challenge you to make an hones study of this. You would also see that an Adventist holding your view would be an utter fool if he'd quote Augustine himself. He just keeps misquoting Paul, Ellen White - and perhaps other authorities attempting to conceal that he is really worshiping Rome.
-
There could be lots of other reasons for "condemning" certain actions within our Church. What i deplore is that we make fools out of ourselves when condemning them for doing what is right, according to he Word of God and Ellen White ´and thereby seeking a closer connection with the church of Rome.
Now I have to sleep, but I¨ll have plenty to say later. Be prepared.
-
....and the church seems to fall. (quote)
This has to be the era and time for this to happen as all seem to be falling away as separation begins.
What else is it and how can it stop?
If this is what has to happen before the Second Coming, do we really want it to stop?
Bring it on -and that is why it is very interesting to watch and read where everybody comes from on their comments. Reasoning for the "new age" change is really amazing.
Amen, sister tinka!! I agree! Bring it on - let's get this over with!
-
My opinion is that soon the carefully laid plans, the well studied theologies, the thoughts and philosophies that run society will be urine flushing down the toilet, dragging those who still cling to its nasty draw with it. A new time is breaking out of the box. We will learn it as we go, or it will destroy us. Enjoy a moment of recognition, but endure a lifetime of hell for it. People are people and that should never be forgotten.
-
What is the problem with ordaining women? At lease they will have something to do because for definite they are not going back into the kitchen or into doing the child rearing thing again. Most women I know now work eight hours a day just like the men do. And a lot of the women I know are just as power hungry as the men are, they want the position and power that is held as an elder and leader of the church. I find it most refreshing around that time of the month when they become embittered with the men and speak the truth boldly from the pulpit. So I think it is all a thing of money ordination gives you more money. As conference presidentest she will be more effective and besides we need another Margaret Thatcher in charge. That text in the bible about the women being quiet needs to be deleted from the scriptures. Today the church is at least 75% women and most of the women are more fervent than the men and don't seem to struggle as much as the men with sexual sins. So someone please tell me the dangers of women being at the head, what harm will it cause?
-
Gregory: Come to the southern baptist association I beong too. I will assure you that the pastors would overwelmingly agree with my stand on women clergy.
Alex, I do not challenge you at all. You are accurately stating the position of the national convention. That 2000 revision was taken because a substantial number of Southern Baptist delagates agreed with it.
My point simplly added to your point. That point is that Southern Baptist local congregations have a lot of indep[endence. That independence allows them to ordain females, which is not prohibited and to install females as clergy.
-
And now that the Southeastern California Conference has moved to a single Gender Neutral Ordination, should we move to disband that conference from the fellowship of churches?
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
In our part of the world there are quite a few female church pastors as well.It is amazing how people change their opinion after they have experience a female pastor in their local church. Even fierce opponents of female clergy suddenly realize they have never had such an excellent pastor serving their church before.
Ellen White wrote:
"Women who are willing to consecrate some of their time to the service of the Lord should be appointed to visit the sick, look after the young, and minister to the necessities of the poor. They should be set apart to this work by prayer and laying on of hands. In some cases they will need to counsel with the church officers or the minister; but if they are devoted women, maintaining a vital connection with God, they will be a power for good in the church. This is another means of strengthening and building up the church. We need to branch out more in our methods of labor" (RH July 9, 1895).
Was Ellen White not true to her calling when she made this statement?
-
Not at all, Alex. You are basing your "faith" on a translation which is an interpretation in tune with the Roman Catholic view. Most modern translations make it clear that this could apply to both male and female deacons.
Johann, one very real problem is that the women's ordination movement relies at least in part in misinformation. I say "misinformation" because a proponent recently told me that they understood that no GC Session had ever voted against ordaining women, and that the 1881 GC Session had voted for it, none of which is true.
I have no idea which people may have told you something that was wrong. How can you quote someone else making a wrong statement to suggest I am wrong? Is that fair?
I do not see how 1 Tim. 3:2 and Tit. 1:6 are verses that, in the Greek, can apply to both genders. Are either of these verses what you were thinking of?
Neither do I. It is verse 11 in 1 Tim 3 which states clearly in Greek that the same things apply to male or female. Many new translations recognize this except those who try to cater also to the Roman Catholic members. They usually fall back on the faulty traditional - Rome inspired - wording in this verse. How else would they manage to get the whole world to worship the beast?
What is the reason why our leadership is spreading the Great Controversy with one hand while they bow at the altar of Rome with the other knee?
This sounds like a pretty extreme statement.
I agree with you! Can you support it with solid evidence?
No, because it is my firm conviction based on what I have read in our publications. Don't tell me you haven't?
Yes, you have the words of Paul - as interpreted by the ancient Roman tradition while there is, as far as I have seen, not the slightest support for this in any of Ellen G White's writings.
Do you find anything in her writings that says anything different? I do not base my understanding of Paul's words on Roman tradition.
Of course you don't know, or I would not need to tell you. You have not yet traced your traditional interpretation far enough back.
Do you support the current, apparent rebellion, even though it violates the SoP? Or do you think these unions and conference should wait until after the study commission process is completed in 2014/2015?
So you think it is proper to let the Roman ideas rule in our church hoping that a commission one day in the distant future recognizes the dangerous situation we are in? Will you just let Rome rule more and more in our churches until they manage to grab it all?
On the other hand, can you honestly say that any conference or institution has done their "campaigning" in an illegal way, knowing they are in the right? How else can they prevent Jesuit supporters from ruining our Church before it is too late?
-
Johann,
Cite a single passage from the Bible or the Spirit of Prophecy that supports ordaining women. It simply does not exist.
"Women who are willing to consecrate some of their time to the service of the Lord should be appointed to visit the sick, look after the young, and minister to the necessities of the poor. They should be set apart to this work by prayer and laying on of hands. In some cases they will need to counsel with the church officers or the minister; but if they are devoted women, maintaining a vital connection with God, they will be a power for good in the church. This is another means of strengthening and building up the church. We need to branch out more in our methods of labor" (RH July 9, 1895 italics supplied).
The premise that the Paulean Standard for Ordination should be abandoned is simply heresy!!! One who believes we should change this in light of the Biblical Standard and the Principled Model it so clearly establishes is setting up the church for further Apostacy as I do not believe the church has properly established Ordination Practices based upon the Biblical Standard but has simply used the Laying on of Hands to confer tenure to "qualified" and "loyal" pastors, regardless of the biblical qualifications of the pastor.
I can find no basis for believing that following the Paulean Standard in any way violates protestantism and leads to Romanism. In fact, the current Ordination is heirarchal but not because it excludes women, but rather because it is of man and not a God Given Gift conferred for holiness but rather human loyalty.
Gailon Arthur joy
AUReporter
[/quote]
Why does the Paulean standard apply to women as well as to men according to the Greek wording of 1 Tim 3:11? (not according to the Roman inspired wording - they would want to turn it to make the whole world worship the beast! If that is your burden I just don't follow you on that point, though we agree on many points.)
-
Johann, the RH 7-9-1895 statement is talking about women being ordained to do a work akin to that of deaconesses, correct?
What i deplore is that we make fools out of ourselves when condemning them for doing what is right, according to he Word of God and Ellen White ´and thereby seeking a closer connection with the church of Rome.
1) I challenge you to find one single statement by Ellen White that endorses the violating of a GC Session vote that does not explicitly contradict the Word of God. Unless you can find even one statement, you cannot correctly say that SECC's rebellion against the 1990 and 1995 GC Session votes are according to Ellen White.
In particular, SECC's rebellion is a blatant violation of 9T 261.
2) Rome exalts the decisions and votes of mere mortals and church councils above the Bible. If we ever get to the point where we think it is all right to do something because a committee somewhere voted it, even though the Bible forbids, it is then that we are following Rome.
Therefore, if we ignore the vital role of women in the church as outlined in Scripture, and choose to give them a role that Scripture does not approve of, despite what Scripture says on the topic, then we are certainly following in the footsteps of Rome.
And where will departure from Scripture lead us?
-
No, because it is my firm conviction based on what I have read in our publications. Don't tell me you haven't?
No I have not. I have seen recent claims by David Newman that ordination as whole comes from Rome, but I am disinclined to give such notions any credence.
So you think it is proper to let the Roman ideas rule in our church hoping that a commission one day in the distant future recognizes the dangerous situation we are in? Will you just let Rome rule more and more in our churches until they manage to grab it all?
Johann, if the women's ordination movement has to resort to accusing those on the other side of following Rome, instead of simply explaining from the Bible how their interpretation of certain texts is incorrect, then it shows how weak the pro-ordination side really is.
On another site someone claimed that Paul's statements were based on the culture of the times. I asked why Paul used creation-based arguments. No reply.
Another claimed that not ordaining women as gospel ministers is discrimination. I responded that God was not discriminating against women in Gen. 3:16. No reply, except to say that my exegesis of Gen. 3:16 was very poor. I then gave a SoP comment which agreed with my stance, asked how my exegesis was "very poor," and asked for an alternative interpretation. The lengthy response explained why he wasn't going to respond.
Yet another claimed that through the cross the penalties added down by God at Eden are done away. So I asked why women still have pain in childbirth, and why men still have to work hard to eat, and why women are still afraid of snakes. Several responded about how we can use analgesics to alleviate the pain of childbirth, and machines to make it less laborious to grow our food. Yet the use of analgesics today is an admission that God never removed the penalty of pain in childbirth at the cross.
Over and over again, the pro-ordination proponents on that other site seem unable to reason from the Scriptures in a clear, simple, coherent fashion. But they at the same time are well able to deny the virgin birth, call DA inspired fiction, and say that Bible writers misinterpreted Gen. 3:16.
On the other hand, can you honestly say that any conference or institution has done their "campaigning" in an illegal way, knowing they are in the right?
If they "know" they are in the right, then they are mistaken. Sometimes decisions have been made by individuals who were misinformed. Yes, I can show that it is improper. I will not elaborate publicly, but if you want to call me I will tell you more.
-
You would also see that an Adventist holding your view would be an utter fool if he'd quote Augustine himself. He just keeps misquoting Paul, Ellen White - and perhaps other authorities attempting to conceal that he is really worshiping Rome.
Such comments, unsupported by any accompanying evidence, are offensive, and I think it is not helpful to keep making them. So I would kindly suggest that you should either support your statements with evidence, or stop accusing committed Adventists of worshiping Rome.
-
Why does the Paulean standard apply to women as well as to men according to the Greek wording of 1 Tim 3:11?
If for the sake of discussion we admit that 1 Tim. 3:11 is referring to deaconesses (which may or may not be the case), how can we then use that fact to justify women serving as elders or local pastors? Where is the justification for applying something that refers to deacons to elders?
-
In Galatians 3:28 Paul is very specific that there is no distinction between male and female in Christ. Does he get specific in saying that women are not to be ordained?
-
Bob, does Paul specifically forbid women from being ordained to ministry?
-
Johann, the RH 7-9-1895 statement is talking about women being ordained to do a work akin to that of deaconesses, correct?
What i deplore is that we make fools out of ourselves when condemning them for doing what is right, according to he Word of God and Ellen White ´and thereby seeking a closer connection with the church of Rome.
1) I challenge you to find one single statement by Ellen White that endorses the violating of a GC Session vote that does not explicitly contradict the Word of God. Unless you can find even one statement, you cannot correctly say that SECC's rebellion against the 1990 and 1995 GC Session votes are according to Ellen White.
In particular, SECC's rebellion is a blatant violation of 9T 261.
2) Rome exalts the decisions and votes of mere mortals and church councils above the Bible. If we ever get to the point where we think it is all right to do something because a committee somewhere voted it, even though the Bible forbids, it is then that we are following Rome.
Therefore, if we ignore the vital role of women in the church as outlined in Scripture, and choose to give them a role that Scripture does not approve of, despite what Scripture says on the topic, then we are certainly following in the footsteps of Rome.
And where will departure from Scripture lead us?
I have to agree with you that it is OK to go against the vote of GC when it contradicts Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy. But
1. I do not consider any Church identity having done that. They have not gone as far as you accuse them of doing, although they advocate the possibility of going further in the future than what your Rome-inspired ideology claims to be right.
2. All have the full right to claim what they consider right according to Scripture. You do not have the right to limit their right in this direction. As long as you are unable to convince them on the base of Scripture that they are wrong, it would be wise of you to keep your Rome inspired vocation to yourself.
-
You would also see that an Adventist holding your view would be an utter fool if he'd quote Augustine himself. He just keeps misquoting Paul, Ellen White - and perhaps other authorities attempting to conceal that he is really worshiping Rome.
Such comments, unsupported by any accompanying evidence, are offensive, and I think it is not helpful to keep making them. So I would kindly suggest that you should either support your statements with evidence, or stop accusing committed Adventists of worshiping Rome.
I am doing it for your own sake because you do not see it.
-
No, because it is my firm conviction based on what I have read in our publications. Don't tell me you haven't?
No I have not. I have seen recent claims by David Newman that ordination as whole comes from Rome, but I am disinclined to give such notions any credence.
Why not consider the possibility. I am not saying that David, who used to be part of the Ministerial Department of GC until he volunteered pastoring a break-away church to lead them back into the fold, is 100% right. But there might be more to it than you think.
So you think it is proper to let the Roman ideas rule in our church hoping that a commission one day in the distant future recognizes the dangerous situation we are in? Will you just let Rome rule more and more in our churches until they manage to grab it all?
Johann, if the women's ordination movement has to resort to accusing those on the other side of following Rome, instead of simply explaining from the Bible how their interpretation of certain texts is incorrect, then it shows how weak the pro-ordination side really is. How else can I get a reaction from you, if I do not make it as serious as I consider it to be?
On another site someone claimed that Paul's statements were based on the culture of the times. I asked why Paul used creation-based arguments. No reply.
Another claimed that not ordaining women as gospel ministers is discrimination. I responded that God was not discriminating against women in Gen. 3:16. No reply, except to say that my exegesis of Gen. 3:16 was very poor. I then gave a SoP comment which agreed with my stance, asked how my exegesis was "very poor," and asked for an alternative interpretation. The lengthy response explained why he wasn't going to respond.
Yet another claimed that through the cross the penalties added down by God at Eden are done away. So I asked why women still have pain in childbirth, and why men still have to work hard to eat, and why women are still afraid of snakes. Several responded about how we can use analgesics to alleviate the pain of childbirth, and machines to make it less laborious to grow our food. Yet the use of analgesics today is an admission that God never removed the penalty of pain in childbirth at the cross.
Over and over again, the pro-ordination proponents on that other site seem unable to reason from the Scriptures in a clear, simple, coherent fashion. But they at the same time are well able to deny the virgin birth, call DA inspired fiction, and say that Bible writers misinterpreted Gen. 3:16.
I might not have reacted to any of those comments either because I fail to see their relevance in this context. Seems to me you are merely using their lack of reaction as a reason for you to keep on in a faulty track. When I start considering your case here, Bob, I am astonished how a man of your integrity can be led that far astray in this area. But then, on the other hand, how else would Rome get hold of a man of your caliper?
On the other hand, can you honestly say that any conference or institution has done their "campaigning" in an illegal way, knowing they are in the right?
If they "know" they are in the right, then they are mistaken. Sometimes decisions have been made by individuals who were misinformed. Yes, I can show that it is improper. I will not elaborate publicly, but if you want to call me I will tell you more. What authority do you have to say they are mistaken? Thus far you have failed in convincing me they are. If you cannot elaborate publicly, then you should keep it to yourself.
I have often heard at General Conference Sessions I have attended (4 or 5) and also been a delegate, that the vote against the ordination of women is largest from areas where the Roman Catholic Church dominates. Does that not tell you anything that we as a protestant church are in such fear of reactions from the Roman Catholic Church that we dare not cast our votes in any other direction? Does that not indicate we are subdued to an extent by Rome? In stead of fighting this you attempt to justify it or try to discover any means by which you can cast a shadow on those in your church who are fighting Rome. Is it about time you do some reconsideration in this area, Bob?
-
Johann,
Cite a single passage from the Bible or the Spirit of Prophecy that supports ordaining women. It simply does not exist.
"Women who are willing to consecrate (some of their time outside their duties in the home would be my understanding here)to the (service) a service that is better then a man can do in a lot of circumstances relating women to women of the Lord should be appointed to visit the sick, look after the young this is mostly a womens job or service , and minister to the necessities of the poor. which a women was instructed to do by counsel EGW They should be set apart (to this work) where does it say preaching here?????? by prayer and laying on of hands just like a deconess no where does this suggest an ordained preacher. In some cases they will need to counsel with the church officers or the minister; so here is the main key to understanding because if the reasoning was women were to be ordained she would not have had to go to the pastor or church officers as she would already have had ordained credentials but if they are devoted women, maintaining a vital connection with God, they will be a power for good in the church. This is another means of strengthening and building up the church. We need to branch out more in our methods of labor" (RH July 9, 1895 italics supplied). That was the beginning of "dorcus and dorcus service. Not to be ordained pastors anywhere in this statement at all or all input of made up suggestions in this writing.
The premise that the Paulean Standard for Ordination should be abandoned is simply heresy!!! One who believes we should change this in light of the Biblical Standard and the Principled Model it so clearly establishes is setting up the church for further Apostacy as I do not believe the church has properly established Ordination Practices based upon the Biblical Standard but has simply used the Laying on of Hands to confer tenure to "qualified" and "loyal" pastors, regardless of the biblical qualifications of the pastor.
I can find no basis for believing that following the Paulean Standard in any way violates protestantism and leads to Romanism. In fact, the current Ordination is heirarchal but not because it excludes women, but rather because it is of man and not a God Given Gift conferred for holiness but rather human loyalty.
Gailon Arthur joy
AUReporter
Why does the Paulean standard apply to women as well as to men according to the Greek wording of 1 Tim 3:11? (not according to the Roman inspired wording - they would want to turn it to make the whole world worship the beast! If that is your burden I just don't follow you on that point, though we agree on many points.)
[/quote]
-
One other thing as inserts of English understanding in context of writing of the above posts.
If you really check the church manual and later day rules that the church went against her then also when they decided or wanted to because of "what the people's excuse for change was" was on the wearing of the wedding ring and just because the church back then wanted and voted to give her credentials, no--do not state anything that she wanted them, okey them, or used them or felt good about them in anyway. She did not approve of it and the liberal women and church insisted. and that is as far as she went to make waves. She made very clear that she did not need man's credentials that she already knew she had from God. There should not be any misunderstanding (of course if you read cover to cover on all books) about this at all -except for the "pushing against from the misled side" that feel modern day time is beyond her knowledge of what would go down in the end.
-
Why does the Paulean standard apply to women as well as to men according to the Greek wording of 1 Tim 3:11?
If for the sake of discussion we admit that 1 Tim. 3:11 is referring to deaconesses (which may or may not be the case), how can we then use that fact to justify women serving as elders or local pastors? Where is the justification for applying something that refers to deacons to elders?
Elsewhere in the New Testament deacons preached, baptized, etc. Acts 7, 8
-
So far this discussion has not produced a single scripture forbidding women from ordination to ministry. Perhaps Johann has point here. In the Roman Catholic Church the writings of the saints, the votes of the Councils, and tradition hold as much weight in the creation of dogma as does the Bible. If there is not a scripture specifically forbidding the ordination of women to ministry is it possible that it is indeed a doctrine created by people and held as dogma on the authority of human votes and tradition?
-
So far this discussion has not produced a single scripture forbidding women from ordination to ministry. Perhaps Johann has point here. In the Roman Catholic Church the writings of the saints, the votes of the Councils, and tradition hold as much weight in the creation of dogma as does the Bible. If there is not a scripture specifically forbidding the ordination of women to ministry is it possible that it is indeed a doctrine created by people and held as dogma on the authority of human votes and tradition?
Indicating that Roman traditions galore among the saints? When will they wake up? Or does dormant recognition of danger provide security?
-
2) Rome exalts the decisions and votes of mere mortals and church councils above the Bible. If we ever get to the point where we think it is all right to do something because a committee somewhere voted it, even though the Bible forbids, it is then that we are following Rome.
Therefore, if we ignore the vital role of women in the church as outlined in Scripture, and choose to give them a role that Scripture does not approve of, despite what Scripture says on the topic, then we are certainly following in the footsteps of Rome.
And where will departure from Scripture lead us?
Is it possible that we are exalting the decisions and votes of mortals and church councils above the Bible in disallowing the ordination of women?
-
It is unfortunate, but also important to remember, that the Southeastern California Conference constituents that are currently jumping up and down for joy that the conference has made this move are also the individuals who are advocating homosexuality in the church, theistic evolution, and greater respect for other religions, namely Catholics.
I think Bob Pickle is aware of this, but others, such as Gregory, may not have noticed this fact so much.
-
It is unfortunate, but also important to remember, that the Southeastern California Conference constituents that are currently jumping up and down for joy that the conference has made this move are also the individuals who are advocating homosexuality in the church, theistic evolution, and greater respect for other religions, namely Catholics.
I think Bob Pickle is aware of this, but others, such as Gregory, may not have noticed this fact so much.
That may be true in some cases. Being right or wrong on one thing doesn't make one right or wrong on all things. For example, Martin Luther, father of the reformation. We would probably all agree that he was right in his finding for righteousness by faith and the 95 thesis he nailed to the church door, yet he wrote a book called "Von den Juden und ihren Lügen" which means "On the Jews and Their Lies." In section XI of the book Luther makes the following recommendations:
1. for Jewish synagogues and schools to be burned to the ground, and the remnants buried out of sight;
2. for houses owned by Jews to be likewise razed, and the owners made to live in agricultural outbuildings;
3. for their religious writings to be taken away;
4. for rabbis to be forbidden to preach, and to be executed if they do;
5. for safe conduct on the roads to be abolished for Jews;
6. for usury to be prohibited, and for all silver and gold to be removed and "put aside for safekeeping"; and
7. for the Jewish population to be put to work as agricultural slave labor.
-
What does that have to do with anything, Murcielago?
-
Welcome back, GJ. You never fail to show with a bang. You are soo funny! Proceeed!
Artiste, you know I don't believe in evolution, and I do respect other's beliefs mainly because I have no heaven or hell to put them in, so if God allows them to be where they are, what else can I do? However, I do believe that homosexual activity to be a sin, but no greater than any other. I believe in ordination of women, because ordination(not the laying on of hands like in the Bible) is some that is man made and subject to discriminatory actions by men(and some women) in order to maintain "control". There are too many instances in the Bible of women, in authority to men both politically and spiritually(just for two examples, Miriam, Deborah, Anna...I'll throw in a NT example to show consistency). So, if God placed women in authority when He ruled Israel, Why would I? If God not only said it, but gave His own example of it, that is good enough for me. No rationalization by men about why they should be in control can sway me. It is also part of SDA history. We had women who were ordained(30+ during the time of EGW.). SDAS only took issue with this after those women and EGW died. So at this point, we are inconsistent at best. But you know to each his own........If God'w own example is not good enough then as I said, proceed..........
-
What does that have to do with anything, Murcielago?
It has to do with the fact that because some of the SECC constituents may be supportive of some questionable or wrong positions does not make everything they support questionable or wrong. I used Martin Luther as an example of someone who was right on some things and very wrong on others.
-
It is unfortunate, but also important to remember, that the Southeastern California Conference constituents that are currently jumping up and down for joy that the conference has made this move are also the individuals who are advocating homosexuality in the church, theistic evolution, and greater respect for other religions, namely Catholics.
I think Bob Pickle is aware of this, but others, such as Gregory, may not have noticed this fact so much.
That may be true in some cases. Being right or wrong on one thing doesn't make one right or wrong on all things. For example, Martin Luther, father of the reformation. We would probably all agree that he was right in his finding for righteousness by faith and the 95 thesis he nailed to the church door, yet he wrote a book called "Von den Juden und ihren Lügen" which means "On the Jews and Their Lies." In section XI of the book Luther makes the following recommendations:
1. for Jewish synagogues and schools to be burned to the ground, and the remnants buried out of sight;
2. for houses owned by Jews to be likewise razed, and the owners made to live in agricultural outbuildings;
3. for their religious writings to be taken away;
4. for rabbis to be forbidden to preach, and to be executed if they do;
5. for safe conduct on the roads to be abolished for Jews;
6. for usury to be prohibited, and for all silver and gold to be removed and "put aside for safekeeping"; and
7. for the Jewish population to be put to work as agricultural slave labor.
The Wiesanthat Institute in USA seems to be rubbing these writings under the nose of people to make them feel sorry for the Jews.
-
Good to see you keep injecting your presence here from time to time, Princess.
-
In Galatians 3:28 Paul is very specific that there is no distinction between male and female in Christ. Does he get specific in saying that women are not to be ordained?
I have asked pro-women's ordination proponents why, if they quote Gal. 3, they don't consider the rest of what Paul said on the topic.
What Paul did say was that women were not to have the leading positions in the churches. Ordination to the gospel ministry within the Adventist Church puts the recipient at the highest level.
-
On another site someone claimed that Paul's statements were based on the culture of the times. I asked why Paul used creation-based arguments. No reply.
Another claimed that not ordaining women as gospel ministers is discrimination. I responded that God was not discriminating against women in Gen. 3:16. No reply, except to say that my exegesis of Gen. 3:16 was very poor. I then gave a SoP comment which agreed with my stance, asked how my exegesis was "very poor," and asked for an alternative interpretation. The lengthy response explained why he wasn't going to respond.
Yet another claimed that through the cross the penalties added down by God at Eden are done away. So I asked why women still have pain in childbirth, and why men still have to work hard to eat, and why women are still afraid of snakes. Several responded about how we can use analgesics to alleviate the pain of childbirth, and machines to make it less laborious to grow our food. Yet the use of analgesics today is an admission that God never removed the penalty of pain in childbirth at the cross.
Over and over again, the pro-ordination proponents on that other site seem unable to reason from the Scriptures in a clear, simple, coherent fashion. But they at the same time are well able to deny the virgin birth, call DA inspired fiction, and say that Bible writers misinterpreted Gen. 3:16.
I might not have reacted to any of those comments either because I fail to see their relevance in this context.
Fail to see their relevance? Could you please explain? When trying to see if someone's position is biblical or not, checking to see if it's biblical or not is not relevant? Then, based on what you just said, the issue of whether or not to ordain women is taking the Adventist Church away from the position of sola scriptura. And thus it must be opposed.
Seems to me you are merely using their lack of reaction as a reason for you to keep on in a faulty track.
Sticking with the Bible is never a faulty track.
But then, on the other hand, how else would Rome get hold of a man of your caliper?
Rome wants me to surrender my allegiance to Scripture. I refuse to.
What authority do you have to say they are mistaken?
Because I am the one who received the email, and I was able to research in the GC archives to prove that the claims made in that email were false.
If you cannot elaborate publicly, then you should keep it to yourself.
I'm not going to state publicly who sent me the email. But you are more than welcome to call. But then, maybe you don't want to be convinced?
I have often heard at General Conference Sessions I have attended (4 or 5) and also been a delegate, that the vote against the ordination of women is largest from areas where the Roman Catholic Church dominates.
Have you checked to verify if that is true or not? At the 1995 GC Session, Ted Wilson, Damsteegt, and Pipim spoke against the motion. Did they come from areas of the world where the Roman Catholic Church dominates?
-
Bob, does Paul specifically forbid women from being ordained to ministry?
That's not the issue, Murcielago. The issue is the role that the ordination service is setting apart the person for. Damsteegt made that point at the 1995 GC Session, I believe, and David Read has made that point recently online.
So the real question is whether Paul forbids women to hold the position that ordination today puts a person in.
-
So far this discussion has not produced a single scripture forbidding women from ordination to ministry.
1 Timothy 2:12-15 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
-
Sticking with the Bible is never a faulty track.
Then why haven't you answered the question Murcielago has posed in a couple of different threads on the topic:
Where in the Bible is the ordination of women specifically prohibited?
-
I'm not sure why we need three different threads on this topic.
EDIT: OK - fixed that.
-
I believe he has, Snoopy.
-
They have not gone as far as you accuse them of doing, although they advocate the possibility of going further in the future than what your Rome-inspired ideology claims to be right.
That's not how published reports have portrayed their votes. When asked for clarification, one individual declined to say that they would not move forward now. I repeat, when explicitly asked for clarification on this particular point, one individual declined to say that they would not move forward now.
Please knock off the "Rome-inspired" stuff.
-
I believe he has, Snoopy.
Thanks for that Alex. I just saw his response in another thread on the same topic. However, I disagree with him.
-
Welcome back, GJ. You never fail to show with a bang. You are soo funny! Proceeed!
Artiste, you know I don't believe in evolution, and I do respect other's beliefs mainly because I have no heaven or hell to put them in, so if God allows them to be where they are, what else can I do? However, I do believe that homosexual activity to be a sin, but no greater than any other. I believe in ordination of women, because ordination(not the laying on of hands like in the Bible) is some that is man made and subject to discriminatory actions by men(and some women) in order to maintain "control". There are too many instances in the Bible of women, in authority to men both politically and spiritually(just for two examples, Miriam, Deborah, Anna...I'll throw in a NT example to show consistency). So, if God placed women in authority when He ruled Israel, Why would I? If God not only said it, but gave His own example of it, that is good enough for me. No rationalization by men about why they should be in control can sway me. It is also part of SDA history. We had women who were ordained(30+ during the time of EGW.). SDAS only took issue with this after those women and EGW died. So at this point, we are inconsistent at best. But you know to each his own........If God'w own example is not good enough then as I said, proceed..........
Di, no one questions whether a woman can be called to be a prophet.
Do you know the names of any women ordained prior to Ellen White's death?
The 1881 GC Session did not approve a resolution to ordain women, and that was the only resolution of 40 that they did not approve. On what basis do you think that this only became an issue after Ellen White died in 1915, when that resolution was not adopted 34 years earlier?
-
I believe he has, Snoopy.
Thanks for that Alex. I just saw his response in another thread on the same topic. However, I disagree with him.
Do you disagree with the use of the text in question, or with the idea that it is the role that matters, not the service itself?
-
I disagree with your argument based on that text. Nowhere does the Bible say "thou shalt not ordain women". I agree with Murcielago's point that it is quite possible that such a prohibition exists only in the minds and on the agendas of church leaders. Saying that a women should not usurp man's authority is absurd in today's world.
-
I disagree with your argument based on that text. Nowhere does the Bible say "thou shalt not ordain women". I agree with Murcielago's point that it is quite possible that such a prohibition exists only in the minds and on the agendas of church leaders. Saying that a women should not usurp man's authority is absurd in today's world.
That isn't the only text on the question, but we can start with that one. What do you think Paul was saying in that text?
Note that Paul uses creation-based and fall-based arguments to support his position, whatever that position may be.
If today's world is what makes Paul's statement absurd, then that illustrates the problem. Other denominations that have grappled with this issue ended up having to also grapple with whether they should ordain practicing homosexuals. Many would claim that in today's world, not ordaining such would be absurd.
For Adventists there is a greater issue: If today's culture mandates that we set aside some texts, then what about the Sabbath/Sunday issue? In today's world the culture is different than in Bible times, and Sunday is now a special day in society rather than the Sabbath. Must we be so rigid regarding the text that we stick with the Sabbath despite today's culture?
So what we need to ensure unity is a way to deal with Paul's statements that does not set aside the text because of today's culture. Unfortunately, this is a major weakness in the women's ordination camp, and that is a big reason why they have not been more persuasive.
-
I didn't say to set the text aside, or any other. I simply do not agree with your interpretation of the text.
And sorry, but it will be a cold day you know where before I listen to a sermon preached by a practicing homosexual, male or not male!!!
-
Please define a practicing homosexual, Snoopy.
-
Snoopy: Do you believe it is wrong for someone who admits they are homosexual to preach if they have not ever engaged in homosexual sex and if so why?
-
I disagree with your argument based on that text. Nowhere does the Bible say "thou shalt not ordain women". I agree with Murcielago's point that it is quite possible that such a prohibition exists only in the minds and on the agendas of church leaders. Saying that a women should not usurp man's authority is absurd in today's world.
That isn't the only text on the question, but we can start with that one. What do you think Paul was saying in that text?
Note that Paul uses creation-based and fall-based arguments to support his position, whatever that position may be.
If today's world is what makes Paul's statement absurd, then that illustrates the problem. Other denominations that have grappled with this issue ended up having to also grapple with whether they should ordain practicing homosexuals. Many would claim that in today's world, not ordaining such would be absurd.
For Adventists there is a greater issue: If today's culture mandates that we set aside some texts, then what about the Sabbath/Sunday issue? In today's world the culture is different than in Bible times, and Sunday is now a special day in society rather than the Sabbath. Must we be so rigid regarding the text that we stick with the Sabbath despite today's culture?
So what we need to ensure unity is a way to deal with Paul's statements that does not set aside the text because of today's culture. Unfortunately, this is a major weakness in the women's ordination camp, and that is a big reason why they have not been more persuasive.
Perhaps we do set aside some texts? Romans 14:14, 1 Timothy 4:1-4
-
Please define a practicing homosexual, Snoopy.
Ask Bob - I was responding to what he posted.
-
Snoopy: Do you believe it is wrong for someone who admits they are homosexual to preach if they have not ever engaged in homosexual sex and if so why?
I don't see your point.
-
My question is do you have an issue with someone who believes they are homosexual pastoring a church or being ordained if they have never engaged in homosexual sex.
If God created some humans to be attracted to the same sex....that being it is not a choice....do you have an issue with a homosexual preaching if they have chosen not to engage in homosexual sex.
-
My question is do you have an issue with someone who believes they are homosexual pastoring a church or being ordained if they have never engaged in homosexual sex.
If God created some humans to be attracted to the same sex....that being it is not a choice....do you have an issue with a homosexual preaching if they have chosen not to engage in homosexual sex.
Yes. I have an issue with homosexuality in general, and I do not believe that God created people that way in the first place. There is absolutely nothing natural about it at all. If God had intended for homosexuality to be an acceptable way of life, why didn't He create an Eve and an Evan so Adam could have his "choice"?
-
I disagree. Where is the sin? If a homosexual choses not to engage in sex what wrong or sin have they committed?
-
I disagree. Where is the sin? If a homosexual choses not to engage in sex what wrong or sin have they committed?
Fine. You can disagree with me. Chances are, the homosexual who says he hasn't engaged in homosexual activity is lying anyway.
-
I have often heard at General Conference Sessions I have attended (4 or 5) and also been a delegate, that the vote against the ordination of women is largest from areas where the Roman Catholic Church dominates. Does that not tell you anything that we as a protestant church are in such fear of reactions from the Roman Catholic Church that we dare not cast our votes in any other direction? Does that not indicate we are subdued to an extent by Rome? In stead of fighting this you attempt to justify it or try to discover any means by which you can cast a shadow on those in your church who are fighting Rome. Is it about time you do some reconsideration in this area, Bob?
I'd like to have a response to this.
-
I disagree. Where is the sin? If a homosexual choses not to engage in sex what wrong or sin have they committed?
Fine. You can disagree with me. Chances are, the homosexual who says he hasn't engaged in homosexual activity is lying anyway.
I see you chose not to answer my question. What sin has one commited if they have not engaged in sex?
-
Alex, remarks like that in your last post (which I deleted) are exactly why you are being moderated here!!
-
I disagree. Where is the sin? If a homosexual choses not to engage in sex what wrong or sin have they committed?
Fine. You can disagree with me. Chances are, the homosexual who says he hasn't engaged in homosexual activity is lying anyway.
I see you chose not to answer my question. What sin has one commited if they have not engaged in sex?
Yes. I often choose not to respond to your posts. It is a conscious decision on my part. In this case, I choose not to get into an argument with you as you attempt to justify your life choices!!
-
See folks, one cannot point out the sin in it. There isn't any.
Snoopy again I ask do you have an issue with a divorcee pastoring or an unmarried man who is no longer a virgin?
-
See folks, one cannot point out the sin in it. There isn't any.
Snoopy again I ask do you have an issue with a divorcee pastoring or an unmarried man who is no longer a virgin?
Right now I have an issue with organized religion in general. Please see my response to you above. I am NOT going to get into an argument with you as you attempt to justify your homosexual lifestyle.
-
It is unfortunate, but also important to remember, that the Southeastern California Conference constituents that are currently jumping up and down for joy that the conference has made this move are also the individuals who are advocating homosexuality in the church, theistic evolution, and greater respect for other religions, namely Catholics.
I think Bob Pickle is aware of this, but others, such as Gregory, may not have noticed this fact so much.
Quite an important point, Artiste. I know very little about the Southeastern California Conference so that would disqualify me from making a verdict against this body. But if there is something to what you state here, I see no reason to make a judgment against this body for doing what many church members all over the world would esteem right and proper, based on Scripture and our prophetic light, leaving all the other items out of the charge. How can we act so strange?
-
It is unfortunate, but also important to remember, that the Southeastern California Conference constituents that are currently jumping up and down for joy that the conference has made this move are also the individuals who are advocating homosexuality in the church, theistic evolution, and greater respect for other religions, namely Catholics.
I think Bob Pickle is aware of this, but others, such as Gregory, may not have noticed this fact so much.
Quite an important point, Artiste. I know very little about the Southeastern California Conference so that would disqualify me from making a verdict against this body. But if there is something to what you state here, I see no reason to make a judgment against this body for doing what many church members all over the world would esteem right and proper, based on Scripture and our prophetic light, leaving all the other items out of the charge. How can we act so strange?
Perhaps because we are under the control of those who want to be in control.
-
So what we need to ensure unity is a way to deal with Paul's statements that does not set aside the text because of today's culture. Unfortunately, this is a major weakness in the women's ordination camp, and that is a big reason why they have not been more persuasive.
I disagree with you here, Bob. Having attended a number of General Conference Sessions I have observed that it is the people who come from Roman Catholic countries with their old traditional bias who will not be convinced and vote against the ordination of women. If we as a protestant Christian Church could be free from that Roman Catholic influence you'd see a radical change much sooner. But we are subdued by that Roman Catholic influence - and how shall we find a release?
-
I didn't say to set the text aside, or any other. I simply do not agree with your interpretation of the text.
What alternative interpretation would you suggest?
-
I have often heard at General Conference Sessions I have attended (4 or 5) and also been a delegate, that the vote against the ordination of women is largest from areas where the Roman Catholic Church dominates. Does that not tell you anything that we as a protestant church are in such fear of reactions from the Roman Catholic Church that we dare not cast our votes in any other direction? Does that not indicate we are subdued to an extent by Rome? In stead of fighting this you attempt to justify it or try to discover any means by which you can cast a shadow on those in your church who are fighting Rome. Is it about time you do some reconsideration in this area, Bob?
I'd like to have a response to this.
Didn't I already respond?
-
It is unfortunate, but also important to remember, that the Southeastern California Conference constituents that are currently jumping up and down for joy that the conference has made this move are also the individuals who are advocating homosexuality in the church, theistic evolution, and greater respect for other religions, namely Catholics.
I think Bob Pickle is aware of this, but others, such as Gregory, may not have noticed this fact so much.
Quite an important point, Artiste. I know very little about the Southeastern California Conference so that would disqualify me from making a verdict against this body. But if there is something to what you state here, I see no reason to make a judgment against this body for doing what many church members all over the world would esteem right and proper, based on Scripture and our prophetic light, leaving all the other items out of the charge. How can we act so strange?
Johann, the fact of the matter is that multiple times Seventh-day Adventists all over the world through their representatives have overwhelmingly stated that they don't believe we should ordain women. According to Kevin Paulson, 8 divisions in the spring of 2010 didn't want to revisit the issue, and 3 divisions did. So we have the 1881 GC Session issue, the 1990 GC Session vote, the 1995 GC Session vote, the 2010 poll of the division administrations, and the 2011 GC Annual Council vote. How many more votes are needed before we all get the point that the majority do not want this?
-
Perhaps the majority is not always right...?? Why does it have to be universal? I think it is mainly a cultural difference. The working policies are unique to each division - why not this?
-
I didn't say to set the text aside, or any other. I simply do not agree with your interpretation of the text.
What alternative interpretation would you suggest?
OK - here is the text again:
1 Timothy 2:12-15 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
...and here are my issues with using it to support not ordaining women:
1. "I suffer not a woman to teach..." Uh-oh. Get rid of all the female educators in our schools and churches!!
2. "...nor to usurp authority over the man..." Usurp? Here is a dictionary definition:
u·surp ? ?[yoo-surp, -zurp]
verb (used with object)
* to seize and hold (a position, office, power, etc.) by force or without legal right: The pretender tried to usurp the throne.
* to use without authority or right; employ wrongfully: The magazine usurped copyrighted material.
How does that apply to ordination of women?
3. "...but to be in silence." How did that apply to EGW?
-
It is unfortunate, but also important to remember, that the Southeastern California Conference constituents that are currently jumping up and down for joy that the conference has made this move are also the individuals who are advocating homosexuality in the church, theistic evolution, and greater respect for other religions, namely Catholics.
I think Bob Pickle is aware of this, but others, such as Gregory, may not have noticed this fact so much.
Quite an important point, Artiste. I know very little about the Southeastern California Conference so that would disqualify me from making a verdict against this body. But if there is something to what you state here, I see no reason to make a judgment against this body for doing what many church members all over the world would esteem right and proper, based on Scripture and our prophetic light, leaving all the other items out of the charge. How can we act so strange?
Johann, the fact of the matter is that multiple times Seventh-day Adventists all over the world through their representatives have overwhelmingly stated that they don't believe we should ordain women. According to Kevin Paulson, 8 divisions in the spring of 2010 didn't want to revisit the issue, and 3 divisions did. So we have the 1881 GC Session issue, the 1990 GC Session vote, the 1995 GC Session vote, the 2010 poll of the division administrations, and the 2011 GC Annual Council vote. How many more votes are needed before we all get the point that the majority do not want this?
Is the majority always right? In the 16th century when the reformation was launched the reformers were a tiny minority. In Judea of the first century the Christians were a tiny minority. When Galileo found that the earth is round and orbits the sun, he was alone and the Church faced him down. They proved their rightness by their majority.
-
George Orwell once said "During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
-
Perhaps the majority is not always right...?? Why does it have to be universal? I think it is mainly a cultural difference. The working policies are unique to each division - why not this?
Excellent questions and points. The majority is not always right, and the majority can never trump Scripture. It doesn't have to be universal, but the votes of the GC Sessions ought to be respected.
Note that in this case it isn't a small group of people making the decision. It was the majority of a large group of people representing the entire world field. Ellen White drew a distinction between these two scenarios in 9T 261.
If we chalk it up to cultural differences, how do we keep the pro-homosexual group from eventually getting their way too, on the basis that Paul wrote what he wrote because that was the culture back then? You may not go down that road, but there are folk that already have.
Why not this? Because there is a theological issue underlying it all, and the church as a whole decides those kind of questions.
-
Excellent questions and points. The majority is not always right, and the majority can never trump Scripture. It doesn't have to be universal, but the votes of the GC Sessions ought to be respected.
I guess one has to respect the GC before one can respect the GC Sessions.
-
OK - here is the text again:
1 Timothy 2:12-15 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.
...and here are my issues with using it to support not ordaining women:
1. "I suffer not a woman to teach..." Uh-oh. Get rid of all the female educators in our schools and churches!!
2. "...nor to usurp authority over the man..." Usurp? Here is a dictionary definition:
u·surp ? ?[yoo-surp, -zurp]
verb (used with object)
* to seize and hold (a position, office, power, etc.) by force or without legal right: The pretender tried to usurp the throne.
* to use without authority or right; employ wrongfully: The magazine usurped copyrighted material.
How does that apply to ordination of women?
3. "...but to be in silence." How did that apply to EGW?
What I hear you doing is raising questions about how to apply the text consistently, which is very important, but I don't hear you offering a contrary interpretation.
Re: #1:
Titus 2:3-5 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.
So here we have Paul commanding women to teach. So 1 Tim. 2 is not an absolute ban on all kinds of teaching.
Re: #2: Those that believe that this passage is still good counsel today believe that Paul is endorsing the idea of male headship in the church, where men lead out. And a lot of women want men to be men and lead out in spiritual things in the home and in the church.
In Adventism, ordination invests the individual with authority to ordain elders and deacons, baptize, marry, organize churches, etc., anywhere. If a woman has been granted that much authority, in what way is the divine order in Scripture still preserved?
In the OT, all the priests were men. In the NT, all of Jesus' apostles were men. Women filled important and vital roles, but they didn't fill the priest/apostle roles. When Barack didn't want to go to battle unless Deborah when too, Deborah's response was basically, "Shame on you!"
Re: #3: The Bible endorses the idea of women serving as prophets. Some have pointed out that Paul also allowed for women to pray or prophesy in 1 Cor. 11:5, which thus allows for women to speak during public worship. So where does one draw the line? A logical place seems to be when a woman becomes the leader in the church.
-
My alternative interpretation is that the text does NOT support a prohibition of ordination of women. In an effort to comply, however, I will try to remain silent...
-
Excellent questions and points. The majority is not always right, and the majority can never trump Scripture. It doesn't have to be universal, but the votes of the GC Sessions ought to be respected.
I guess one has to respect the GC before one can respect the GC Sessions.
I'll defer to a woman on that one. Take a look at 9T 261, and you'll see that Ellen White had more respect for the GC Session votes than for the GC as it operated around the 1890's. She had said that she no longer considered the GC to be the voice of God. Too few men controlled too much. 9T 261 is her explanation of her earlier statement. She had not been referring to a GC Session vote.
But after the reorganization in 1901/1903, things were different. The consolidation of power that resulted from a small church with a small administration increasing its membership so much was broken up. Union conferences were part of that reorganization. No longer did a few men control so much. I think I read where the GC Committee, maybe in 1881, was three people. Can you imagine only three running the GC today? It isn't that way anymore.
-
My alternative interpretation is that the text does NOT support a prohibition of ordination of women. In an effort to comply, however, I will try to remain silent...
LOL. But you probably see the challenge that must be met in order to achieve worldwide unity on this issue. An alternative interpretation that does not rely on the culture of Paul's day would go a long ways toward achieving that goal.
-
It is unfortunate, but also important to remember, that the Southeastern California Conference constituents that are currently jumping up and down for joy that the conference has made this move are also the individuals who are advocating homosexuality in the church, theistic evolution, and greater respect for other religions, namely Catholics.
I think Bob Pickle is aware of this, but others, such as Gregory, may not have noticed this fact so much.
Quite an important point, Artiste. I know very little about the Southeastern California Conference so that would disqualify me from making a verdict against this body. But if there is something to what you state here, I see no reason to make a judgment against this body for doing what many church members all over the world would esteem right and proper, based on Scripture and our prophetic light, leaving all the other items out of the charge. How can we act so strange?
Johann, the fact of the matter is that multiple times Seventh-day Adventists all over the world through their representatives have overwhelmingly stated that they don't believe we should ordain women. According to Kevin Paulson, 8 divisions in the spring of 2010 didn't want to revisit the issue, and 3 divisions did. So we have the 1881 GC Session issue, the 1990 GC Session vote, the 1995 GC Session vote, the 2010 poll of the division administrations, and the 2011 GC Annual Council vote. How many more votes are needed before we all get the point that the majority do not want this?
Who is Kevin Paulson - that he can be used as an authority here? Where does he find this overwhelming majority? Was he counting the votes? I have also read an interview with Jan Paulsen as he was leaving the presidency where he indicated there would soon be a majority. But he added that the opposition would be so fierce it would cause intense problems in the Church. So some of those opposing now could be doing it for peace sake, and not because of their conviction.
How long was Kevin Paulson a member of the GC? Did he move around with the Division leaders to discover their feelings?
-
Have we forgotten?
Last year a number of priests, bishops and members of the Church of England joined the Roman Catholic Church.
The only requirement was that they would not be in agreement with women being ordained to the ministry. So is this becoming a mark of the Beast?
How many Adventists are now eligible to join the Roman Catholic Church if this is the main requirement?
-
Who is Kevin Paulson - that he can be used as an authority here? Where does he find this overwhelming majority? Was he counting the votes? I have also read an interview with Jan Paulsen as he was leaving the presidency where he indicated there would soon be a majority. But he added that the opposition would be so fierce it would cause intense problems in the Church. So some of those opposing now could be doing it for peace sake, and not because of their conviction.
How long was Kevin Paulson a member of the GC? Did he move around with the Division leaders to discover their feelings?
I was citing my source, and at the time did not know how to verify what he wrote.
http://www.adventistreview.org/article/3249/archives/issue-2010-1510/10cn-women-s-ordination-not-on-atlanta-gc-session-agenda
I can't tell you that the Review was Paulson's source, but that is exactly what the Review reported. And the Review's source was GC President Jan Paulsen himself.
-
"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety" (1 Tim. 2:11-15).
It appears to me that whatever Paul is saying, he is definitely connecting his thoughts to Gen. 3:16. Gen. 3:16 refers to a woman bearing children, and it refers to it in the context of Adam and Eve's fall.
I would think that both sides of the issue should be able to agree that this is what Paul is doing. Correct?
Note one positive thing that Paul is saying is that the penalties handed down in Gen. 3 were intended to help us. Thus we have a biblical basis for the idea, found in the SoP, that hard work is supposed to have a positive effect on our character, helping us reach heaven.
-
My question is do you have an issue with someone who believes they are homosexual pastoring a church or being ordained if they have never engaged in homosexual sex.
If God created some humans to be attracted to the same sex....that being it is not a choice....do you have an issue with a homosexual preaching if they have chosen not to engage in homosexual sex.
This post now answers my question from other post. This statement now puts this in a highly"controversial issue" if you knew this at "developed" very early age your desires then why the Criminal suit against TS if curiosity or developed actions was permitted willingly?? Did you fight back with TS or try to get away? I thought to be in all fairness for you to contemplate at your very early age all thoughts of right or wrong treatment at family and environment level. I still do not believe all are born that way but "developed into it."
I do not know what has drove you to believe you were born that way other then falsely doctrined scientific doctors or shrinks or false denominational opinion that are not correct .
I can agree that AA can do some good with people of no foundation that can be easily led by their doctrines. But I go against it because it instills in a person that they are flawed for life and must say, I am an alcoholic, I am an alcoholic for life.
So how can one know he has been forgiven of God and that person is "born again or renewed to new life" with that stigma in his head of always an alcoholic. Where is the freedom of knowing you are free because of the help of Holy Spirit. When do you bury and put away all sin knowing that you are forgiven and told Jesus burys it in the deepest parts and remembers your sin so more. and we are supposed to do the same! How do you see AA advising this? Now do you see where man's device is not God's? It is letting the mentality of the weak person to still be led and not bring them up to " self identity or complete "freedom in the light only the Word can give to be whole mentally."
I still want the best for you Alex as I can tell what has been done here. I see what you think of yourself and "idenity" has been stripped from you one way or the other. There is truth of the matter in this and in the Word of God that does challenge any pastor to check what he preaches and in what condition of Spiritual level he is at.
I see great confusion and too many episodes here to lead out the direction of other sheep. Would you lead them into your realm of belief or the Word of God? There are too many preaching in order to rise above in authority position or what ever gives to their self intentions when they are not called. Just remember God opens the doors and we don't.
and whatever any on these posts say in ordaining women I am not agreeable with and right now search where I read added scripture that I know I read stating about women being in power at the last and then distruction. Just have to find and see if I am remembering in right context and where its at
What a world of trials Alex, and in all our state by now it is dividing up with the worst confusion the devil can put one into.
-
The Southeastern California Conference has been in deliberate rebellion against duly constituted Church Authority for quite some time and here we see more bold and deliberate "in your face" rebellion.
The Southeastern California Conference has opposed and rejected the deception of 3abn. Therefore, they are doing what's right.
-
In the Bible "sodomy" is a synonym for homosexuality. God spoke plainly on the matter when He said, "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel" (Deuteronomy 23:17). The whore and the sodomite are in the same category. A sodomite was not an inhabitant of Sodom nor a descendant of an inhabitant of Sodom, but a man who had given himself to homosexuality, the perverted and unnatural vice for which Sodom was known.
(I Corinthians 6:9; 10).Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Now Paul does not single out the homosexual as a special offender. He includes fornicators, idolators, adulterers, thieves, covetous persons, drunkards, revilers and extortioners. And then he adds the comment that some of the Christians at Corinth had been delivered from these very practices: "And such were some of you: But ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the spirit of our God" (I Corinthians 6:11). All of the sins mentioned in this passage are condemned by God, but just as there was hope in Christ for the Corinthians, so is there hope for all of us.
The Christian can neither alter God's viewpoint nor depart from it.
-
The Southeastern California Conference has been in deliberate rebellion against duly constituted Church Authority for quite some time and here we see more bold and deliberate "in your face" rebellion.
The Southeastern California Conference has opposed and rejected the deception of 3abn. Therefore, they are doing what's right.
horsethief, are you saying that SECC is right in voting to do what the GC Session voted not to allow?
I agree with you on your position on 1 Cor. 6:9, 10. Does the SECC? Does the SECC believe that homosexual practices like what Tommy engaged in, if unrepented of, will bar one from heaven? (I realize that they may not have made an official pronouncement. But there are those there who it seems do not agree with 1 Cor. 6:9, 10 on that topic.)
-
I find these comments of Jan Paulsen quite significant:
However, he added, "in fairness to the global church, many of you say, 'There are changes also taking place in the church in our part of the globe. We are not where we were 10 years ago.' It's a process of education, a process of growth. Maybe a new generation is needed. I don't know."
What I understand him as saying is that there is nothing in the Bible nor in the writings of E G White which prevents the ordination of women. What is needed is education and a process of growth before it can take place globally.
It is amazing how deep these roots from Augustine through the Roman Catholic Church still are ingrained even in our Church. I feel it is our duty to take part in this growth and education rather than prevent it and prolong the inevitable process.
-
Bob, does Paul specifically forbid women from being ordained to ministry?
An excellent question
-
I find these comments of Jan Paulsen quite significant:
However, he added, "in fairness to the global church, many of you say, 'There are changes also taking place in the church in our part of the globe. We are not where we were 10 years ago.' It's a process of education, a process of growth. Maybe a new generation is needed. I don't know."
What I understand him as saying is that there is nothing in the Bible nor in the writings of E G White which prevents the ordination of women. What is needed is education and a process of growth before it can take place globally.
Sure, that may be what he is saying. But that doesn't make him correct.
How does Jan Paulsen explain Paul's statements? Can he do so without invoking culture?
-
Women have always been ministers though. Mary ministered to Christ by washing his feet.
-
I find these comments of Jan Paulsen quite significant:
However, he added, "in fairness to the global church, many of you say, 'There are changes also taking place in the church in our part of the globe. We are not where we were 10 years ago.' It's a process of education, a process of growth. Maybe a new generation is needed. I don't know."
What I understand him as saying is that there is nothing in the Bible nor in the writings of E G White which prevents the ordination of women. What is needed is education and a process of growth before it can take place globally.
Sure, that may be what he is saying. But that doesn't make him correct.
How does Jan Paulsen explain Paul's statements? Can he do so without invoking culture?
I have associated quite a bit with Jan in our youth. He is fully capable of explaining Paul's statements without a closed mind. His mind is not ingrained in a Roman mindset, even though he may have had some Roman Catholics around him when he was studying. I think that gave him a better idea of the difference between the two traditions. Something some people do not comprehend.
If you'd stop teaching Paul how he has come to his conclusions, if he had been you, you may start understanding what Paul is really saying. How do you know Paul had exactly the same thought that you have? Why don't you permit Paul to be Paul rather than mixing him up with cultural problems? Get to know him as he is, rather than you teaching him things from your own background.
You are a smart fellow, Bob, and you have accomplished great things for the Lord, also through your knowledge. Yet in this area you astonish me with the kind of answers you give. This is just not you.
You refusal to read David Newman tells me that you just don't dare in case it changes your Roman mindset. I have read everything I could get hold of at that time against the ordination of women. I wanted to be certain I was right. Have you read Viggo Norskov Olsen's treatise on Ordination? Have you really read all that Elle White says about the priesthood of all believers? How that is a basis of her view of ordination? Are you willing to read that again leaving your own preconceived ideas of what your tradition tells you she should be saying - behind?
-
Murceilago and Johann:
What do you suppose the Apostle Paul could have said to be even more clearer on his position of women clergy?
You seem to advocate that he was not clear enough, perhaps he could have been more clearer?
-
Have you really read all that Elle White says about the priesthood of all believers?
Johann, is it true that the priesthood of all believers is an OT concept, since God told Israel they were to be a kingdom of priests? Ex. 19:6.
If that be so, and if that concept then means that everyone can be anointed or ordained as a priest, why then weren't any women ordained as priests in the OT?
And if that concept means that everyone can be a priest, why was King Uzziah smitten with leprosy and King Saul severely reprimanded by Samuel when they did what only priests were supposed to do?
-
How could Paul be more clearer? To be a MAN of one wife.
-
Perhaps the apostle Paul was just a sexist.
The Bible tellls the wives to subject themselves to their husbands. What does this mean?
Perhaps, Eve should have been in control and not Adam.
I have just as much issue with a lady preacher as many do a practicing homosexual preaching.
Neither is of God. It is wrong.
-
Snoopy said:
My issue is with Alex trying to equate homosexual pastors to female pastors and saying that Paul is equally clear on both. I disagree. It is that simple!!
I did not understand that. Thanks for the clairfication.
-
You refusal to read David Newman tells me that you just don't dare in case it changes your Roman mindset.
I don't agree that Bob Pickle has a "Roman mindset".
-
With all due respect to the various members commenting on women's ordination, I don't understand the concept of Roman influence here.
I believe this is a more European-type mind issue than American. And European Adventists are widely known to be more liberal in their ideas and practices than the typical American Adventist. (This would not apply so much to the liberal Southern Californians.)
While David Newman was formerly the respected editor of Ministry Magazine, he seems to be going quite off base in his current position as editor of Adventist Today.
He has Erv Taylor, who initiated AT, on his staff. Taylor is well-known as a hard core evolutionist.
AT is supposed to be an alternative to the Adventist Review. However, it's articles and comments don't tend to be supportive of the world church structure.
-
You refusal to read David Newman tells me that you just don't dare in case it changes your Roman mindset.
I don't agree that Bob Pickle has a "Roman mindset".
One thing is that if that other site hasn't taken advantage of Johann's comments by using them to accuse me of being a Jesuit, it may just be dead. No comments posted there since Feb. 7.
-
It looks dead to me...
-
One thought that comes to mind is a statement made to me by a pastor some time ago. I asked him about biblical premise for a policy, and he told me that the church is like a social club. There are social clubs to fit every taste, status and cultural boundary. Each club has its own rules and if one doesn't agree with them, that person can go find a club that suits better their needs. He explained that clubs are by nature exclusive. They provide a comfort zone for like minded people and walls to keep others out.
Although one might be upset by his analysis, it is accurate, in my opinion. Human nature requires that individuals be tribal, and religion is one of the greatest tribal dividing lines there are. Over petty religious differences families are split, friends become enemies, people are hurt, and people die. In my opinion, this is largely because each religious box (and sub-box) proclaims itself the one true way. Outsiders who laud it are always welcome, but insiders who raise question become a threat to the IDENTITY of their fellows and, as such, are the most hated of all. In my opinion, identity is the key factor in opposition to change, progress, reformation, acceptance of truth, and acceptance of differing views.
Although people may verbally embrace diversity, most people abhor it and will battle to the end for uniformity. Most people largely want everyone to look, act, speak, sound, and be exactly what they are. They want others to enjoy only what they enjoy, believe only what they believe, listen only to the music they listen to, dress only as they dress... and ultimately declare anything other than that to be nothing less than sin, and just cause, or even divine mandate, for mistreatment of others.
-
Potomac Conference Moves Ahead with Intention to Ordain Women
27 March 2012 | Bonnie Dwyer
| 4 PrintPrint Email Tweet FB ShareThis
In its meeting Tuesday, March 27, the Potomac Conference became the fifth North American Division conference or union to vote an action on women’s ordination during the month of March.
According to Dan Jensen, assistant to the Potomac Conference president for communication, it was voted unanimously “to request the Potomac Conference Standing Articles & Bylaws committee to begin a review process of its bylaws that would enable us to ordain women.”
This latest action adds to the one that was taken in January 2011, when the committee "voted, that regardless of gender, each qualified candidate for pastoral ministry should receive ordination….We will make this request at each Columbia Union Executive Committee until permission is granted."
On March 20, the Columbia Union Executive Committee passed the following action:
Whereas the North American Division (NAD) Leadership has encouraged each union to be intentional in affirming women in ministry, we vote to establish an AdHoc Committee to study the issue of women in ministry and recommend to the Columbia Union Executive Committee how we can be intentional in affirming women in ministry. In addition, we vote to affirm our previous action requesting the NAD to grant us permission to ordain women in ministry.
The latest action by the Potomac Conference seems to indicate the conference is no longer waiting for permission from the Union or the Division to ordain women.
The Mid-America Union voted on March 8 to ordain women. Next came votes by the Pacific Union Conference, and the Columbia Union Conference. Each vote has recognized the local actions taken in the past to affirm women in ministry. Just last week, the Southeastern California Conference voted to convert its ordained/commissioned ministerial credentials to ordained.
http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2012/03/27/potomac-conference-moves-ahead-intention-ordain-women
-
I have just been attempting to help you face the inevitable.
-
I'm sure things will get worse before they start getting better.
By the way, all you folks here who are advocating women's ordination might find more like-minded company over at the Spectrum blog.
-
Oh, I see that's where you got your information, Johann.
There are probably no conservative Adventists on this forum who approve of Spectrum blog.
-
Oh, I see that's where you got your information, Johann.
There are probably no conservative Adventists on this forum who approve of Spectrum blog.
There may be years between when I read Spectrum. Someone just sent me this news item and placed it on my FaceBook. That is why I am sharing it with you. It seems remarkable that the conference right at the General Conference Headquarters it taking this step now
-
The Spectrum blog is populated by bitter ex-Adventists, and soon-to-be ex-Adventists, who gather to vehemently accuse the organized church of unkindness to homosexuals and evolutionists, among other issues.
They are delighted over the progress of women's ordination.
(They also hate Elder Ted Wilson and most of the rest of GC leadership.)
-
Thus far each vote has seemingly been a bit nebulous as to what is actually going to happen.
Now Potomac states they will be looking at ways to revise their bylaws. In what way? To say that they don't have to adhere to the policies of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists? If so, would that constitute a secession? If so, are we about to witness the formation of the biggest offshoot in Adventist history?
Our church has already taken an action in which we stated that we are staying with the General Conference.
-
wrong thread
-
Thus far each vote has seemingly been a bit nebulous as to what is actually going to happen.
Now Potomac states they will be looking at ways to revise their bylaws. In what way? To say that they don't have to adhere to the policies of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists? If so, would that constitute a secession? If so, are we about to witness the formation of the biggest offshoot in Adventist history?
Our church has already taken an action in which we stated that we are staying with the General Conference.
Various pictures emerge depending on from which angle you see it. I see your description as if there is a competitive run ahead where each contestant (church units) anchored in the start holes waiting for the shot from a pistol, but hoping that the gun will not start the run for another 2-3 years. Some feel that this long wait is not essential, since it is not a competitive game going on but rather a development in the right direction.
It seem like you try to pull each of those back to the start by the tail, threatening to punish them for not abiding by the rules of the competitive game.
It reminds me of the astronomer who was forced by the church to deny the truth of his discovery that earth goes around the sun. To save his skin he made that false declaration, and he is said to have mumbled in his beard, "The earth still goes around sun." Today everyone knows he was right.
-
Johann,
I have no authority to punish any church entity for rebelling against a GC Session vote since that entity didn't get its way at Annual Council last October.
If they knew they were right, they wouldn't be voting on statements devoid of any Scriptural support. The voted statement would quote the very passage that explicitly grants them such authority, and thus far I haven't seen any such citations. The most ardent and vocal proponents can't even supply the lack of the union and conference voted statements by providing Bible verses.
It wouldn't surprise me if some of these constituencies refuse to go along with the few people on these various executive committees. For all the talk of constituencies, thus far not one constituency has voted for women's ordination this month. We have yet to hear of any union or conference committee explicitly asking their constituency to vote in favor of women's ordination.
As far as the astronomer of whom you speak, that's apples and oranges. The Catholic Church is not a constituency-based organization, where churches each have delegates that select officers and committees, who select officers and committees at the next level, and so forth, until a grand general conference session elects a pope. It doesn't work that way in Catholicism.
And thus with Galileo, you had a few men, not the world church of leaders and members, who said, "Galileo, this is what you should do." I don't even recall Galileo asking Rome to grant him permission to teach that the earth goes around the sun. Did Galileo make an official request along those lines?
In stark contrast, the NAD asked the world church via all the delegates at a GC Session to allow it to allow the ordination of women. The NAD didn't get its way, and like a spoiled child some in the NAD seem bound and determined to do it anyway.
Johann, did you raise your children that way? Did they come to you or your wife and ask for something, and you said no, and they did it anyway or got it anyway without your permission, without a Bible verse to back them up, and you simply smiled and acted pleased? I hardly think so.
-
Your view is quite different from mine, Bob. Different ways to look at things.
I was asked here to give an Ellen White quote where she "authorized" a woman for ordination. I gave you the quote. No reaction.
You have several times been asked if there is anywhere where Scripture or EGW forbids the ordination of women.No reaction.
Why?
-
I was asked here to give an Ellen White quote where she "authorized" a woman for ordination. I gave you the quote. No reaction.
I do not recall you giving any such quote. Where might it be?
You have several times been asked if there is anywhere where Scripture or EGW forbids the ordination of women.No reaction.
I think I've already responded to that, have I not?
Now if you or I are answering the same questions, perhaps multiple times, and the other is not noticing, then we have some challenges.
-
Artiste said:
The Spectrum blog is populated by bitter ex-Adventists, and soon-to-be ex-Adventists, who gather to vehemently accuse the organized church of unkindness to homosexuals and evolutionists, among other issues.
They are delighted over the progress of women's ordination.
(They also hate Elder Ted Wilson and most of the rest of GC leadership.)
Let us take a look at the magazine SPECTRUM, Vol. 40, # 1, Winter 2012, the latest edition. Here are two articles and their authors in the current magazine:
1) Donn Leatherman, "A Nation Without a State: Inclusivity, Exclusivity, and the People of God." Dr. Leatherman professor of Old Testament and biblical languages at Southern Adventist University.
2) Stephen Bauer, "Identity, Exclusisvity, and Inclusivity" Dr. Bauer is professor of theology and ethics at Southern Adventist University.
In addition the current edition contains the following article:
"A Statement on Biblical Spirituality: From Andrews Uinversity Sevehth-day Adventist Theological Seminary."
Would you sugggest that theology professors at Sothern Adventist University and at The Seminary at Andrews are bitter ex-Adventists who hate Elder Ted Wilson.
Yes, I know you attributed such to people writing on the SPECTRUM Blog and I have cited the magazine.
O.K. here is a citation from the Blog: "Interestingly one of the systematic theology professors here at the [Andrews] Seminary, Fernando Canale, has recognized that Adventism calls for adifferent relationship etween God and time than the classical theologies." John Mark, posted on 2/17/2012 in the Spectrum Blog and cited on page 10 of the SPECTRUM cited above.
Do you suggest that either John Mark or Fernando Canale is a bitter SDA who hates Elder Wilson. There may be people who do and post there. But, the SPECTRUM Blog is clearly full of people who are not such.
-
When you speak of obedience in the church I am reminded of a case where an 80 year old lady demanded obedience of her 75 year old sister because their mother had once asked the older sister to help her with the younger sisters - in all seriousness! (no moral issues involved)
Then another case where a mother-in-law demanded her daughter-in-law keep a close watch on a 40+ year old daughter (who by then was a grandmother),
Do we live in a hierarchy where full obedience in ways of doing things have to be demanded on a world level?
Farmers in Iceland are against this country joining the European Common Market because they fear a demand of full obedience to the requirements of how they are to operate their farms come from Southern Europe where the condition for farmers is totally different. Some of us are also concerned the pope will then demand of us how we think or eventually whom we ordain.
Norway has still managed to stay out of the European Common Market for the same reasons.
-
Do we live in a hierarchy where full obedience in ways of doing things have to be demanded on a world level?
Johann, how is a GC Session vote a "hierarchy"? Would you also call abiding by the overwhelming results of a nationwide referendum "living in a hierarchy"?
Farmers in Iceland are against this country joining the European Common Market because they fear a demand of full obedience to the requirements of how they are to operate their farms come from Southern Europe where the condition for farmers is totally different.
Are the decisions made in the EU made by those who are elected to those positions? Is the EU careful to allow the citizens of each country to have a say in how they are governed? I seem to recall certain officials being blasted by an EU MP for taking away democracy. Was it Portugal or was it Ireland that those officials wanted to have their budget in line BEFORE that country be allowed to have their election?
You argument would be stronger if you would compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges. In the case of women's ordination, we're talking about the world church in business session overwhelmingly voting against it, not once but twice, with lots of delegates present. Let's not be spoiled children and complain because we didn't get our way.
-
I was asked here to give an Ellen White quote where she "authorized" a woman for ordination. I gave you the quote. No reaction.
I do not recall you giving any such quote. Where might it be?
You have several times been asked if there is anywhere where Scripture or EGW forbids the ordination of women.No reaction.
I think I've already responded to that, have I not?
Now if you or I are answering the same questions, perhaps multiple times, and the other is not noticing, then we have some challenges.
I have not yet seen you respond to the (first) question.
Here is where I posted that quote:
Re: Southeastern California Conference should be disciplined
« Reply #76 on: March 26, 2012, 11:46:52 AM »
Quote from: Gailon Arthur Joy on March 26, 2012, 03:34:33 AM
And now that the Southeastern California Conference has moved to a single Gender Neutral Ordination, should we move to disband that conference from the fellowship of churches?
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
In our part of the world there are quite a few female church pastors as well.It is amazing how people change their opinion after they have experience a female pastor in their local church. Even fierce opponents of female clergy suddenly realize they have never had such an excellent pastor serving their church before.
Ellen White wrote:
"Women who are willing to consecrate some of their time to the service of the Lord should be appointed to visit the sick, look after the young, and minister to the necessities of the poor. They should be set apart to this work by prayer and laying on of hands. In some cases they will need to counsel with the church officers or the minister; but if they are devoted women, maintaining a vital connection with God, they will be a power for good in the church. This is another means of strengthening and building up the church. We need to branch out more in our methods of labor" (RH July 9, 1895).
Was Ellen White not true to her calling when she made this statement?
Here EGW is referring to women who are to "minister".
-
Johann: May I pose a question to you or anyone else who is pro-woman clergy?
How could the Apostle Paul been any more clearer on the issue of women clergy?
Are we to assume the Apostle Paul was wrong and that God did not actually inspire Paul to set the standards and requirements of ordination?
Johann: Do you support divorcees to be ordained?
Again, most Southern Baptist an even FreeWill Baptist are opposed to divorced clergy. I also stand firm that a divorced man should not be ordained. I have a point in asking this question.
-
Artiste said:
The Spectrum blog is populated by bitter ex-Adventists, and soon-to-be ex-Adventists, who gather to vehemently accuse the organized church of unkindness to homosexuals and evolutionists, among other issues.
They are delighted over the progress of women's ordination.
(They also hate Elder Ted Wilson and most of the rest of GC leadership.)
Let us take a look at the magazine SPECTRUM, Vol. 40, # 1, Winter 2012, the latest edition.
I remember when the new organization SDA Forum started, mostly by people with a university degree. This was back in the days when a majority of our pastors did not even have a BA, and just a few of our college professors had a Ph. D. and some where still struggling with their M.A. It seems like most of the members were college teachers, medical doctors, and others with university degrees.
When their Spectrum came 40 years ago I subscribed for a year or two. It was not meant as a praise journal for the administration but a board where members could freely discuss new approaches of evangelism and church nurture, and not the least how our educational system could improve. As such I think it was greatly appreciated by many church administrators, even though a few articles might have seemed outlandish to some.
About 30 years ago I was suddenly drafted by my Conference President, who also served as the president of the SDA Forum in Denmark, to bring a report from Denmark to the convention of SDA Forums in Europe. It was held at Marienhohe, our boarding school in Germany, so they had to have someone who could speak German. I suppose I was given a membership for the occasion which I never renewed.
I still remember some of the lectures given there. One was given by a professor from Andrews, in German, on the meaning of being created in the image of God, another on something like humanity and redemption by a blind theologian. I'd say all the lectures given were on a much higher level than what would have been presented in a Sabbath Sermon, but absolutely nothing detrimental to the Church nor its administration. I could well imagine that some Bruder Jones or Schwester Braun would not comprehend anything of what was going on, and who knows what kind of stories that would make in the local church? There are just times when some of our intellectuals have to have a time on their own together with equals.
I have not read the Spectrum regularly for years, but when I take a peak on the net I see them dealing with various questions which apply to our Church, just like Gregory points out. If they deal with the question of ordaining women I trust they do it as I see it, by warning against the propaganda made by some of our saints inspired by the Roman Catholic view on this subject. I suppose some of our dear saints have a view that approaches what was going on during the first centuries and finally resulted in the formation of the Roman Catholic Church. They grabbed all the best they could from paganism, and since it was generally regarded as "good" and "right" they added it into their own doctrines - just to be on the conservative side. Thus we got the monks and nuns, infant baptism, the mass, priesthood and ordination, immortality of the soul, the idea that the human body is an evil substance from which the immortal soul needs to be redeemed. All of this in an effort to make the Christian religion both inclusive and better than what the poor fishermen of Galilee managed to grasp. How much of this rubbish are we still carrying with us from the Middle Ages of Darkness?
May the Lord of Heaven and Earth cleanse us and make us free! In the true spirit of the Advent Hope, which is the greatest Light for the World today!
-
I was asked here to give an Ellen White quote where she "authorized" a woman for ordination. I gave you the quote. No reaction.
I do not recall you giving any such quote. Where might it be?
You have several times been asked if there is anywhere where Scripture or EGW forbids the ordination of women.No reaction.
I think I've already responded to that, have I not?
Now if you or I are answering the same questions, perhaps multiple times, and the other is not noticing, then we have some challenges.
I have not yet seen you respond to the (first) question.
Here is where I posted that quote:
Re: Southeastern California Conference should be disciplined
« Reply #76 on: March 26, 2012, 11:46:52 AM »
Quote from: Gailon Arthur Joy on March 26, 2012, 03:34:33 AM
And now that the Southeastern California Conference has moved to a single Gender Neutral Ordination, should we move to disband that conference from the fellowship of churches?
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
In our part of the world there are quite a few female church pastors as well.It is amazing how people change their opinion after they have experience a female pastor in their local church. Even fierce opponents of female clergy suddenly realize they have never had such an excellent pastor serving their church before.
Ellen White wrote:
"Women who are willing to consecrate some of their time to the service of the Lord should be appointed to visit the sick, look after the young, and minister to the necessities of the poor. They should be set apart to this work by prayer and laying on of hands. In some cases they will need to counsel with the church officers or the minister; but if they are devoted women, maintaining a vital connection with God, they will be a power for good in the church. This is another means of strengthening and building up the church. We need to branch out more in our methods of labor" (RH July 9, 1895).
Was Ellen White not true to her calling when she made this statement?
Here EGW is referring to women who are to "minister".
Johann, I recall responding to that quote before, but I can't find anywhere where you posted that before. So I wonder if it got deleted. We certainly had a thread here entitled "Southeastern California Conference should be disciplined," but I can't find one by that title now. Where did it go?
The simple answer is that Ellen White was there talking about women doing the work of deaconesses. I know of no one who objects to that. As Damsteegt pointed out in his opposition at the 1995 GC Session, the issue is not ordination per se, but the role that one is being ordained to. You can't rightfully use a quote that refers to women being ordained to the work of deaconesses to justify ordaining women to serve as gospel ministers in the present sense of the term.
As far as where the Bible forbids ordaining women to the role of gospel minister, we already quoted 1 Tim. and elsewhere, and I don't recall anyone offering an alternative interpretation.
As far as EGW goes, consider that in 1901 and 1902 she wrote the IA Conference and told them that as a general rule the conference laborers were to go out from the churches into new fields. Therefore, the idea of ordaining women to serve as local pastors of local churches would be a bit foreign to Ellen White, since that isn't even how she thought our male ministers were supposed to be used.
And I think that is part of the problem today. If ministers were still largely on the front lines, they would need a support team, which would give committed women plenty to do, such as Bible work and health work. And women by and large wouldn't want to be on the very front of the front lines dealing with unruly mobs who are threatening to burn down your tent.
-
Johann, re: Spectrum, in the early days it seems to have been different. But I recall looking through issues at a library by 1996, and seeing articles in later issues that (a) used dinosaur eggs and nests to argue against Noah's flood, and (b) trumpeted Chuck Scriven's denial of a substitutionary atonement, which is heresy. So at some point Spectrum began to attack core Adventist beliefs that are explicitly stated in the Bible and SoP. "Why?" would be a good question.
At the 2000 GC Session a fellow who was at I think Spectrum's booth and I had a chat. As I recall it, he had been a student at Weimar, but had shifted in his thought to the point that he embraced evolution, or at least life being on earth for long ages. That's what I recall hearing from this fellow who was part of Spectrum.
-
Johann,
Cite a single passage from the Bible or the Spirit of Prophecy that supports ordaining women. It simply does not exist.
"Women who are willing to consecrate (some of their time outside their duties in the home would be my understanding here)to the (service) a service that is better then a man can do in a lot of circumstances relating women to women of the Lord should be appointed to visit the sick, look after the young this is mostly a womens job or service , and minister to the necessities of the poor. which a women was instructed to do by counsel EGW They should be set apart (to this work) where does it say preaching here?????? by prayer and laying on of hands just like a deconess no where does this suggest an ordained preacher. In some cases they will need to counsel with the church officers or the minister; so here is the main key to understanding because if the reasoning was women were to be ordained she would not have had to go to the pastor or church officers as she would already have had ordained credentials but if they are devoted women, maintaining a vital connection with God, they will be a power for good in the church. This is another means of strengthening and building up the church. We need to branch out more in our methods of labor" (RH July 9, 1895 italics supplied). That was the beginning of "Dorcas and Dorcas service. Not to be ordained pastors anywhere in this statement at all or all input of made up suggestions in this writing.
The premise that the Paulean Standard for Ordination should be abandoned is simply heresy!!! One who believes we should change this in light of the Biblical Standard and the Principled Model it so clearly establishes is setting up the church for further Apostacy as I do not believe the church has properly established Ordination Practices based upon the Biblical Standard but has simply used the Laying on of Hands to confer tenure to "qualified" and "loyal" pastors, regardless of the biblical qualifications of the pastor.
I can find no basis for believing that following the Paulean Standard in any way violates protestantism and leads to Romanism. In fact, the current Ordination is heirarchal but not because it excludes women, but rather because it is of man and not a God Given Gift conferred for holiness but rather human loyalty.
Gailon Arthur joy
AUReporter
Why does the Paulean standard apply to women as well as to men according to the Greek wording of 1 Tim 3:11? (not according to the Roman inspired wording - they would want to turn it to make the whole world worship the beast! If that is your burden I just don't follow you on that point, though we agree on many points.)
[/quote]
This quote does not refer to the ordination of women but an ongoing developing place for service of women that is better administered by women in certain fields where it would be harder for men to do.
The problem is for readers of her books is to take one paragraph out of context with the rest of her written explanations and try to change in one certain spot that EGW does not intend in any way to change back and forth her given counsels. That is why I believe her writings are true as she does not change her stance and a spot reader can not pick up right context.
This only went along with all the rest of context in her writings. Just as today, people want to change the foundations that are never to change to please the modern day liberals to look for all justifications of doing their own thing. Example, she gave her very thoughts and beliefs that were "inspired" at the moment of her baptism. So what did the church find and go against this?? Their continual reasoning on why over and over and over again why they should wear a wedding ring. The fact is the missionaries traveling to other countries sort of won out for that time, but low and behold look what it did and no EW did not concede it was right but did not make waves to their decisions. Of course she did not wear a wedding ring on her missionary trips as others found the excuse to do just that.
Now on this subject it is exactly the same so far so good if they ruled against women wannabes for paychecks, but the rings were now added in church manual against what she advised but later gave no waves on it and definitely gave her opinion and only a few to this day don't are free from that "controversery" and know what the consequences are to jewelry justifications as one will cause the downfall of others. It's all decked out on "hope channel and now 3 abn too for the world to see that Adventists are in confusion. If you justify in one thing it might as well be many. like a little wine will do ya or etc,etc,
Just tell me one good reason or thing what a woman can't do if she really has right motives in mind that she can't do without a piece of paper and then try to cause great waves within and find any writings and try to place words that just are not there into something that was never intended.
This is strictly the work and actions of the"enemy". On a really big scale cannot one open their eyes and see that the women's movement has went beyond their "gender"!
An interesting woman(as in Bible days) is how they accomplish greatly under "inspiration and motives." a good man behind the pulpit is there because of "Intelligent, behind the scenes working women of service and helpmate that I am sure man cannot do all that is required right down to telling him simply to straighten his tie or comb a few out of place hairs so that his appearance goes well with "his presentations". or just keeping him in health to give his "ministering" to the people.
I still cannot believe all of this "controversy" over the foundations of our beliefs, but know without doubt it was coming and it is here right now and on this spot! a sign of the times and EGW on going truth of events that she was shown of future just like John.
Makes no difference what other "professors" high credential holder's or their education write or state, I got the best of it all and "blessed" to have answers in simplicity and believe me I took the time to read it all as this day of "controversy is within the SDA church to deceive the very elect!
-
Then it follows up with where men cannot do certain portions of their ministry to women where other women to women can. That is where EGW means the "service of women" to labor and for the poor, meaning dorcas as it was established. But yes, in came the paper seekers. and the jewelry promoters, and the drums, jazz, blues and idolaters and justifiers of self appeasing entertainment to worship the Lord as Cain and not to the Glory of God that pleases Him. and I continually wonder why people do not know the difference?? Is it because they haven't given up self?
-
Johann: May I pose a question to you or anyone else who is pro-woman clergy?
How could the Apostle Paul been any more clearer on the issue of women clergy?
Are we to assume the Apostle Paul was wrong and that God did not actually inspire Paul to set the standards and requirements of ordination?
Johann: Do you support divorcees to be ordained?
Again, most Southern Baptist an even FreeWill Baptist are opposed to divorced clergy. I also stand firm that a divorced man should not be ordained. I have a point in asking this question.
Gladly, Alex. Your questions are a challenge - and a special challenge to a person who loves the Lord and His Word.
Tell me first what you think Paul is saying, and on what basis you believe that is what he is saying. Why do you think Paul is also saying that a female deacon is to be treated exactly the same as a male?
If you are using the King James Bible you will notice that three words in 1 Tim 3:11, namely must, their, and be are all written in italics. Some editions are honest enough to admit that words in italics were not in the original writings, such as Paul's, but were supplied by a translator. Is that really honesty?
For the word given here as "wives" Paul himself used the word "Gynaikas" - and would you believe it, Alex, but the verse itself starts with this word, as written by Paul. The word means Women, but you have to add all of those words that are not there to get the meaning that these women are wives. The next word Paul uses is "ousautous" and then "semnas".
"Women likewise grave. . . " So, Alex it seems obvious as daylight to me that Paul is making it clear that exactly the same principles apply to female deacons as to male deacons. And, as you know from Acts these deacons were also preaching and baptizing, or doing the same work as a pastor today. But if you make the application as done by the Catholic Church then the priest or father is of an entirely different caliber, something that has nothing to do with the deacon or bishop in the Christian Church. The Catholic priest is a miracle maker, a magician, who needs a special ordination for that. Is that what Paul is talking about? A Christian pastor is not a miracle maker. The exception could be Danny Shelton who is taking people on a cruise to the Caribbeans teaching them something he thinks is miracles.
Now you read the chapter again and see what it says about ordination. I don't find that word there. Do you? Why not?
Now to your next question, Alex, which could be problematic to some. Paul has something to say, although not too much, and then he adds that what he does say is just his own opinion because the good Lord hadn't given him any information on the subject. That doesn't help you too much, does it? Could it be that Paul wrote 1 Corinthians before he'd seen the Gospels? Because that is where you get information from Jesus Himself.
But, lets take a case. A boy and a girl from good homes and church decide they want to be together in the ministry of the Gospel. After high school they get married and get an apartment close to a Cristian college/university. So they start preparing, and he hardly notices what is happening to her, until he finds a note from her that she will not return. He finds out she has moved in with a law student and that she is pregnant. Later he gets a letter from her telling him she lost courage with the requirements for a pastor's wife, and that her present friend would soon get rich as a lawyer offering her a better life.
What would you do in his case? Examine yourself and go to the Scriptures for help? I'd go to
Matthew 5:32
But here is what I tell you. Anyone who divorces his wife causes her to commit adultery. And anyone who gets married to the divorced woman commits adultery. A man may divorce his wife only if she has not been faithful to him.
If everything went just like that the case is clear. He has the full right to divorce his wife, and it seems fairly clear to me that he is a free man who can continue preparing for the ministry. The Lord Himself says he has the right to divorce the unfaithful wife. Wouldn't this imply that he also has the right to marry another woman if she has not been defiled by her unfaithfulness in a previous marriage?
If some people do not see it that way on what authority do they base their decision?
Jesus makes it even clearer by repeating the same words in Matt. 9:9. He wants us to be sure we get it.
If the boy had just been making up the story about his wife to get rid of her, then he is a liar and unfit for anything. So would he also if he'd been beating up his wife in anger. That is not being faithful to your wife.
Now you have my definition. Do you have a better one? I'd say nobody should follow my definition but study the Word of God for himself and make his own definition in prayer before the throne.
-
Johann, re: Spectrum, in the early days it seems to have been different. But I recall looking through issues at a library by 1996, and seeing articles in later issues that (a) used dinosaur eggs and nests to argue against Noah's flood, and (b) trumpeted Chuck Scriven's denial of a substitutionary atonement, which is heresy. So at some point Spectrum began to attack core Adventist beliefs that are explicitly stated in the Bible and SoP. "Why?" would be a good question.
At the 2000 GC Session a fellow who was at I think Spectrum's booth and I had a chat. As I recall it, he had been a student at Weimar, but had shifted in his thought to the point that he embraced evolution, or at least life being on earth for long ages. That's what I recall hearing from this fellow who was part of Spectrum.
I know nothing about Spectrum today, except I saw that news item about the Potomac Conference in my FaceBook and the source given was Spectrum. I know some of the people who have been published there in the past, and I know that your fault finding does not apply to them.
-
I was asked here to give an Ellen White quote where she "authorized" a woman for ordination. I gave you the quote. No reaction.
I do not recall you giving any such quote. Where might it be?
You have several times been asked if there is anywhere where Scripture or EGW forbids the ordination of women.No reaction.
I think I've already responded to that, have I not?
Now if you or I are answering the same questions, perhaps multiple times, and the other is not noticing, then we have some challenges.
I have not yet seen you respond to the (first) question.
Here is where I posted that quote:
Re: Southeastern California Conference should be disciplined
« Reply #76 on: March 26, 2012, 11:46:52 AM »
Quote from: Gailon Arthur Joy on March 26, 2012, 03:34:33 AM
And now that the Southeastern California Conference has moved to a single Gender Neutral Ordination, should we move to disband that conference from the fellowship of churches?
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
In our part of the world there are quite a few female church pastors as well.It is amazing how people change their opinion after they have experience a female pastor in their local church. Even fierce opponents of female clergy suddenly realize they have never had such an excellent pastor serving their church before.
Ellen White wrote:
"Women who are willing to consecrate some of their time to the service of the Lord should be appointed to visit the sick, look after the young, and minister to the necessities of the poor. They should be set apart to this work by prayer and laying on of hands. In some cases they will need to counsel with the church officers or the minister; but if they are devoted women, maintaining a vital connection with God, they will be a power for good in the church. This is another means of strengthening and building up the church. We need to branch out more in our methods of labor" (RH July 9, 1895).
Was Ellen White not true to her calling when she made this statement?
Here EGW is referring to women who are to "minister".
Johann, I recall responding to that quote before, but I can't find anywhere where you posted that before. So I wonder if it got deleted. We certainly had a thread here entitled "Southeastern California Conference should be disciplined," but I can't find one by that title now. Where did it go?
The simple answer is that Ellen White was there talking about women doing the work of deaconesses. I know of no one who objects to that. As Damsteegt pointed out in his opposition at the 1995 GC Session, the issue is not ordination per se, but the role that one is being ordained to. You can't rightfully use a quote that refers to women being ordained to the work of deaconesses to justify ordaining women to serve as gospel ministers in the present sense of the term.
As far as where the Bible forbids ordaining women to the role of gospel minister, we already quoted 1 Tim. and elsewhere, and I don't recall anyone offering an alternative interpretation.
As far as EGW goes, consider that in 1901 and 1902 she wrote the IA Conference and told them that as a general rule the conference laborers were to go out from the churches into new fields. Therefore, the idea of ordaining women to serve as local pastors of local churches would be a bit foreign to Ellen White, since that isn't even how she thought our male ministers were supposed to be used.
And I think that is part of the problem today. If ministers were still largely on the front lines, they would need a support team, which would give committed women plenty to do, such as Bible work and health work. And women by and large wouldn't want to be on the very front of the front lines dealing with unruly mobs who are threatening to burn down your tent.
Bob, at one time we had 3 separate threads going all talking about ordination of women. So I merged them together into one thread. However, I did not delete any posts.
-
Johann, I recall responding to that quote before, but I can't find anywhere where you posted that before. So I wonder if it got deleted. We certainly had a thread here entitled "Southeastern California Conference should be disciplined," but I can't find one by that title now. Where did it go?
Seems like you are missing quite a bit, Bob, but it is right here.
The simple answer is that Ellen White was there talking about women doing the work of deaconesses. I know of no one who objects to that. As Damsteegt pointed out in his opposition at the 1995 GC Session, the issue is not ordination per se, but the role that one is being ordained to. You can't rightfully use a quote that refers to women being ordained to the work of deaconesses to justify ordaining women to serve as gospel ministers in the present sense of the term.
I do not agree, considering what you state yourself here below. In my estimation you are contradicting yourself.
As far as where the Bible forbids ordaining women to the role of gospel minister, we already quoted 1 Tim. and elsewhere, and I don't recall anyone offering an alternative interpretation.
Where in 1 Timothy does Paul mention ordination? Where does he forbid something he does not even mention? You are reaching far for that explanation, especially since you concede that deaconesses can be ordained.
As far as EGW goes, consider that in 1901 and 1902 she wrote the IA Conference and told them that as a general rule the conference laborers were to go out from the churches into new fields. Therefore, the idea of ordaining women to serve as local pastors of local churches would be a bit foreign to Ellen White, since that isn't even how she thought our male ministers were supposed to be used.
Apples, oranges, apples, oranges. . . is what you keep repeating. Yes, if you agree that an apple story might well illustrate an orange truth.
How can you evaluate what is foreign to Ellen White? Why should then male pastors be ordained for what you - rightfully - claim was not the intention, but it is all right to ordain women for that work? Tell me which is apples and where are the oranges in this fable of yours? Sorry I used that word, but that is the only word which covers what I, at the present time, see in your explanation. Will you try to be more specific.
You are explaining that Ellen White thought it was all right for women to be ordained if they would only work for the local church. But if their work should stretch out and include work for others, they should not be ordained.
Why are you so rigidly opposed to the Biblical Model where deacons both preach and baptize? Has the Bible pattern become obsolete?
And I think that is part of the problem today. If ministers were still largely on the front lines, they would need a support team, which would give committed women plenty to do, such as Bible work and health work. And women by and large wouldn't want to be on the very front of the front lines dealing with unruly mobs who are threatening to burn down your tent.
Whose tent? May the Lord have mercy! I see one of your points: Better not ordain a woman in case she gets a threat someone will burn her tent!
Who taught you than one? Weimar?
-
Then it follows up with where men cannot do certain portions of their ministry to women where other women to women can. That is where EGW means the "service of women" to labor and for the poor, meaning dorcas as it was established. But yes, in came the paper seekers. and the jewelry promoters, and the drums, jazz, blues and idolaters and justifiers of self appeasing entertainment to worship the Lord as Cain and not to the Glory of God that pleases Him. and I continually wonder why people do not know the difference?? Is it because they haven't given up self?
So you think if you abstain from these it is all right to follow the pope the way he uses Scripure?
-
This quote does not refer to the ordination of women but an ongoing developing place for service of women that is better administered by women in certain fields where it would be harder for men to do.
You seem such an honest person, tinka, that it is dangerous to rouse your tranquility. For now you can follow Bob in his claim that Ellen White states a woman can be ordained for internal services in the church, as long as she keeps silent with her beliefs when meeting strangers. Then her ordination does now apply any more. I have a different definition for what Ellen White really is saying both here and elsewhere, but if you feel safer following Bob I leave that to your and his responsibility.
The problem is for readers of her books is to take one paragraph out of context with the rest of her written explanations and try to change in one certain spot that EGW does not intend in any way to change back and forth her given counsels. That is why I believe her writings are true as she does not change her stance and a spot reader can not pick up right context.
How true, tinka, I agree with you 100% on this point.
This only went along with all the rest of context in her writings. Just as today, people want to change the foundations that are never to change to please the modern day liberals to look for all justifications of doing their own thing. Example, she gave her very thoughts and beliefs that were "inspired" at the moment of her baptism. So what did the church find and go against this?? Their continual reasoning on why over and over and over again why they should wear a wedding ring. The fact is the missionaries traveling to other countries sort of won out for that time, but low and behold look what it did and no EW did not concede it was right but did not make waves to their decisions. Of course she did not wear a wedding ring on her missionary trips as others found the excuse to do just that.
I get your point here, tinka, I just wonder why her son and daughter-in-law tell us that Mother told them to wear wedding rings as long as they worked for the Lord in Australia. Do you think they were liars? Can you help me with that question? Even Ellen White herself says that the rule against wedding rings applied to the United States. Could that be taken out of context? Should all the American women who wear wedding rings be ashamed of themselves? Should they be dis-fellowshipped?
Now on this subject it is exactly the same so far so good if they ruled against women wannabes for paychecks, but the rings were now added in church manual against what she advised but later gave no waves on it and definitely gave her opinion and only a few to this day don't are free from that "controversery" and know what the consequences are to jewelry justifications as one will cause the downfall of others. It's all decked out on "hope channel and now 3 abn too for the world to see that Adventists are in confusion. If you justify in one thing it might as well be many. like a little wine will do ya or etc,etc,
Just tell me one good reason or thing what a woman can't do if she really has right motives in mind that she can't do without a piece of paper and then try to cause great waves within and find any writings and try to place words that just are not there into something that was never intended.
I have a good suggestion for you, tinka. Next time you get to Elmshaven take a good look. Right there on top of one of the cabinets you find the paper which shows that Ellen G White was employed by the General Conference on an equal basis with the ordained ministers. The document has all the right signatures of the prominent Brethren she was working with. If you think that paper will keep Ellen White out of Heaven, perhaps you'd better take it down and burn it before Jesus sees it at His Second Coming? That is a question you have to decide yourself, tinka. I can assure you the paper was right there last time I went to Elmshaven, unless someone else has taken it down to prevent Jesus from seeing it.
This is strictly the work and actions of the"enemy". On a really big scale cannot one open their eyes and see that the women's movement has went beyond their "gender"!
Far beyond! An interesting woman(as in Bible days) is how they accomplish greatly under "inspiration and motives." a good man behind the pulpit is there because of "Intelligent, behind the scenes working women of service and helpmate that I am sure man cannot do all that is required right down to telling him simply to straighten his tie or comb a few out of place hairs so that his appearance goes well with "his presentations". or just keeping him in health to give his "ministering" to the people.
I still cannot believe all of this "controversy" over the foundations of our beliefs, but know without doubt it was coming and it is here right now and on this spot! a sign of the times and EGW on going truth of events that she was shown of future just like John.
Makes no difference what other "professors" high credential holder's or their education write or state, I got the best of it all and "blessed" to have answers in simplicity and believe me I took the time to read it all as this day of "controversy is within the SDA church to deceive the very elect!
It was a great blessing to me to have my mother take me on her lap reading to me from her writing. Later in school we used her writings as our textbooks, even as English readers. Had to digest it all, and I believe every word of it. This is why it hurts me so deeply when I see some of my Beloved Brethren put on their papal goggles to circumvent the truth in her writing. Seems like they are honest and meaning it well. Something is happening just before Jesus comes. But who would Satan deceive if not God's elect children?
-
Bob, at one time we had 3 separate threads going all talking about ordination of women. So I merged them together into one thread. However, I did not delete any posts.
Well done, Snoopy. Thank you!
-
As far as where the Bible forbids ordaining women to the role of gospel minister, we already quoted 1 Tim. and elsewhere, and I don't recall anyone offering an alternative interpretation.
Where in 1 Timothy does Paul mention ordination? Where does he forbid something he does not even mention? You are reaching far for that explanation, especially since you concede that deaconesses can be ordained.
The issue as far as I know has never been ordination. It has been the role the ordination service was setting apart one for, as Damsteegt stated at the 1995 GC Session. And thus, since 1 Tim. forbids certain roles, it forbids ordination to those certain roles.
As far as EGW goes, consider that in 1901 and 1902 she wrote the IA Conference and told them that as a general rule the conference laborers were to go out from the churches into new fields. Therefore, the idea of ordaining women to serve as local pastors of local churches would be a bit foreign to Ellen White, since that isn't even how she thought our male ministers were supposed to be used.
Apples, oranges, apples, oranges. . . is what you keep repeating. Yes, if you agree that an apple story might well illustrate an orange truth.
How can you evaluate what is foreign to Ellen White? Why should then male pastors be ordained for what you - rightfully - claim was not the intention, but it is all right to ordain women for that work?
I never said it was all right for men to be doing something other than what God said they should be doing. Did I?
You are explaining that Ellen White thought it was all right for women to be ordained if they would only work for the local church.
I never said that. What I acknowledged was that women can be ordained to do the work we commonly associate with deaconesses. I never addressed the matter of local church elders.
Why are you so rigidly opposed to the Biblical Model where deacons both preach and baptize? Has the Bible pattern become obsolete?
I never addressed that question. Do you have any references to women serving as deaconesses who also baptized?
Whose tent? May the Lord have mercy! I see one of your points: Better not ordain a woman in case she gets a threat someone will burn her tent!
Who taught you than one? Weimar?
No. Women taught me that. Women generally would rather not engage in combat. They are more suited to nurturing roles by nature.
-
Bob, at one time we had 3 separate threads going all talking about ordination of women. So I merged them together into one thread. However, I did not delete any posts.
Well done, Snoopy. Thank you!
Yes, thanks, Snoopy. My confusion on the matter was due to Johann earlier wondering if posts had disappeared, and my inability to pull up posts with California in the subject field via a search. I don't know what was wrong with the search, but I assume that all the posts are there. I did find some.
-
As far as where the Bible forbids ordaining women to the role of gospel minister, we already quoted 1 Tim. and elsewhere, and I don't recall anyone offering an alternative interpretation.
Where in 1 Timothy does Paul mention ordination? Where does he forbid something he does not even mention? You are reaching far for that explanation, especially since you concede that deaconesses can be ordained.
The issue as far as I know has never been ordination. It has been the role the ordination service was setting apart one for, as Damsteegt stated at the 1995 GC Session. And thus, since 1 Tim. forbids certain roles, it forbids ordination to those certain roles.
It is quite interesting you stating that it is not the question of ordination. What is it then? This discussion started out by condemning the entities who feel this question is clear and therefore just want to go ahead and ordain women for the ministry.
Your new statements seems to change the emphasis and turn it in a different direction. The way I understand it is that you are now referring to the theology formulated on the basis of the words you find Paul using in 1 Tim. Even if you have not formulated this very clearly I have sensed this is what you actually had in mind.
Before I go any further I want you to tell me if I am right in concluding that you are basing your understanding of Paul on what some call something like a headship theology? Or do you want to define it with a different term? Then it is easier for me to define where we are at.
-
This discussion started out by condemning the entities who feel this question is clear and therefore just want to go ahead and ordain women for the ministry.
This discussion began with condemning the apparently blatant violation of 9T 261.
Your new statements seems to change the emphasis and turn it in a different direction.
Not at all. This is has been what it's always been, to my knowledge. See Damsteegt's comments in the 1995 GC Bulletin.
Before I go any further I want you to tell me if I am right in concluding that you are basing your understanding of Paul on what some call something like a headship theology?
If I use the term "headship," I am not basing my understanding of Gen. 3:16 and Paul's writings on that theology. Rather, I am basing my theology on what Gen. 3:16 and Paul's writings explicitly say. We can never base our understanding of Scripture upon some sort of theology. That would be a violation of sola scriptura.
-
Women generally would rather not engage in combat. They are more suited to nurturing roles by nature.
I served in the military, in combat, at a time when females were first being integrated into many of the military jobs.
My personal observation: Most of the women with whom I served were of a higher quality than many of our males. They had to be in order to survive and advance.
Yes, some women are not fit to serve in a combat role in the military. But, so also some males are not fit to serve in that role. People should not be judged by their classification in a class. Rather they should be judged by their ability to perform as individuals
I have spent most of my life at 6 feet tall. Recently, due to age, I have shrunk and I am no longer 6 feet tall. I am taller than most women. As a class, women are generally shorter than males. However, in the hospital where I work, I work with women who are 6 feet tall.
People are more than a generalized class, they are individuals.
I am in a unique position in my job. I am supervised by a male who is probably 5' 8" and a woman who is 5' 11" or mayber 6'.
I will take her supervision any day over that of my male supervisor. She is of greater quality as a supervisor.
-
If I use the term "headship," I am not basing my understanding of Gen. 3:16 and Paul's writings on that theology. Rather, I am basing my theology on what Gen. 3:16 and Paul's writings explicitly say. We can never base our understanding of Scripture upon some sort of theology. That would be a violation of sola scriptura.
False. You are using a "system" of understanding avoiding individual perception to comply with how to justify a traditional Roman Catholic tradition. This will never bring you into a saving relationship with Jesus Christ, which is the purpose of Scripture. In many cases this will bring a person into an egocentric understanding of the divine.
-
Women generally would rather not engage in combat. They are more suited to nurturing roles by nature.
I served in the military, in combat, at a time when females were first being integrated into many of the military jobs.
My personal observation: Most of the women with whom I served were of a higher quality than many of our males. They had to be in order to survive and advance.
Yes, some women are not fit to serve in a combat role in the military. But, so also some males are not fit to serve in that role. People should not be judged by their classification in a class. Rather they should be judged by their ability to perform as individuals
I have spent most of my life at 6 feet tall. Recently, due to age, I have shrunk and I am no longer 6 feet tall. I am taller than most women. As a class, women are generally shorter than males. However, in the hospital where I work, I work with women who are 6 feet tall.
People are more than a generalized class, they are individuals.
I am in a unique position in my job. I am supervised by a male who is probably 5' 8" and a woman who is 5' 11" or mayber 6'.
I will take her supervision any day over that of my male supervisor. She is of greater quality as a supervisor.
You said it! A good answer to a statement so ignorant of true fulfillment in a God-centered life. I have heard similar statements from a certain group of homosexuals who disregard female dignity.
-
People are more than a generalized class, they are individuals.
True. And in the situation I had to deal with, the men were willing to deal with it and felt it must be dealt with, their wives tremblingly supported them, and the rest of the women opposed anything being done. I highly doubt that that sort of general reaction is atypical.
Another thing, maybe I've already shared this. There was a seminar at one of our colleges that showed a movie about two lady instructors who were teaching women to survive in the wild. They then left them to fend for themselves with a designated leader, with the expectation that they would end up at a certain destination at a certain time. It started out well, and then ended up in bedlam and revolt.
The final scene was the two instructors with all the ladies gathered in a room, all of them griping about each other. Our teacher, a lady, asked us what went wrong. I didn't have a clue, but some of the ladies in the class knew the answer: There was no man in charge. I had no idea about that sort of dynamic, no idea that women don't work well together if there is a woman in charge. But at least some of the women in the class already knew.
-
False. You are using a "system" of understanding avoiding individual perception to comply with how to justify a traditional Roman Catholic tradition.
Aren't you being pretty judgmental, Johann? How do you know what I'm thinking inside my head? If I say that I'm basing my theology on the text, not the other way around, how can you say that's false if you can't read my heart?
You said it! A good answer to a statement so ignorant of true fulfillment in a God-centered life. I have heard similar statements from a certain group of homosexuals who disregard female dignity.
My understanding is not based alone on the troubling experience I just referred to, in which the men felt the situation had to be dealt with, and the women either tremblingly supported their husbands or opposed anything being done. My understanding is also based on the SoP.
"All members of the family center in the father. He is the lawmaker, illustrating in his own manly bearing the sterner virtues: energy, integrity, honesty, patience, courage, diligence, and practical usefulness" (1T 547).
You can find similar statements that emphasize the stronger qualities of women too. It's a simple fact that men tend to be stronger in some qualities, and women in others. It's not a put down to anyone to recognize that fact.
Anything in that list that you feel the average woman excels in equal to or more than the average man?
-
Another thing, maybe I've already shared this. There was a seminar at one of our colleges that showed a movie about two lady instructors who were teaching women to survive in the wild. They then left them to fend for themselves with a designated leader, with the expectation that they would end up at a certain destination at a certain time. It started out well, and then ended up in bedlam and revolt.
The final scene was the two instructors with all the ladies gathered in a room, all of them griping about each other. Our teacher, a lady, asked us what went wrong. I didn't have a clue, but some of the ladies in the class knew the answer: There was no man in charge. I had no idea about that sort of dynamic, no idea that women don't work well together if there is a woman in charge. But at least some of the women in the class already knew.
I am speechless. I recently worked for a man who had no leadership skills whatsoever. As a matter of fact, his lack of management abilities caused some substantial problems in the organization.
-
I don't think the women in our class were trying to say that men have superior leadership skills. That's not how I remember it.
Wish I knew the name of the film. Anyone else ever seen it?
-
I had no idea about that sort of dynamic, no idea that women don't work well together if there is a woman in charge.
What planet have you visited where you saw such women?
In the hospital where I work, the top 4 executives are female. On lower levels, the genders are mixed with substantial numbers of females among the males.
I am in a unique position where I observe the top 4 very closely. None supervise me. However, I report to one each week and at other times as I chose. I periodicly meet with the other 3 at times mutually agreeable to us. Right now I have 30 minutes scheduled with one of them for April 4. I do not always agree wth them and they do not always take my advice. But, I can assure you that all four of these executives are competent and do not need a male to tell them what to do.
In addition to managing the teaching hospital where I work, the female director is guiding the construction of a one billion dollar hospital which will replace our present one in 2015. The is the second such construction project that she has been invnolved in.
I also have opportunity to observe managers on a lower level, some of whom are male and some are female. The majority are good. A few are exceptional and a few are quite poor. And by the way, among both genders, some are homosexual--we do not discriminate. With the large number of employees, and in our society today, one could expect that some would be homosexual.
Where I work, the females do not need a male to supervise them. I cannot think of any who do need a male to supervise them.
-
Arguably, the greatest period of peace, prosperity, progress, and expansion in the British Empire was under the leadership of Queen Victoria, who was the last British monarch to rule the government. After Winston Churchill, one of the most respected Prime Ministers was Margaret Thatcher. Queen Elizabeth the first was a powerful leader who seized the throne and brought an end to the Catholic suppression of the realm. When the Emperor Justinian was fleeing Byzantium to escape the revolt, it was Theodora who took control and laid the plans that saved the empire from anarchy. I could go on for a very long time giving examples of women who were powerful and very capable leaders. The theory that women can't lead is not backed up by history any more than the theory (see the book "When God was a Woman") that men can't lead.
-
Within the SDA circles, we can look at Loma Linda. Lyn Behrens took over the institution in 1991 and financially turned it around before she retired in 2008. Her leadership was strong and very effective in stabilizing and advancing Loma Linda into the regional and global medical authority that it is. Ruthita Fike is the CEO of Loma Linda University Medical Center, and has led out in unprecedented expansion, spiritual emphasis, and financial stability. These are both women who have shown extraordinary leadership skill, and managed up to 17,000 employees, numerous hospitals and clinics, schools, and ancillary organizations.
-
Where I work, the females do not need a male to supervise them. I cannot think of any who do need a male to supervise them.
LOL! In "The Sound of Music" Liesl needed Rolf (the Nazi) telling her what to do.
-
Obviously, there are capable women just as there were in Jesus time. It is an interesting note that all the disciples were men. This thread reminds me of the temptation of Adam and Eve. God told Adam and Eve not to eat of the forbidden tree, why, because he said so. But Eve after she looked at the fruit and saw it was beautiful and could make one wise she did eat of it and gave it to her husband and he ate also. Sometimes God tells you to do something and expects you to do it simply because he said to do it. The woman's roll is clearly defind in the bible by God. The woman is to keep quiet and not try to be over her husband but someone has looked on her and said she looks good enough to do what she wants even though God has said no. Every time we do things our way instead of Gods way we end up in trouble. I can clearly see the woman once again taking the fruit and telling the man you see how beautiful I have become? But in the end it is the men that suffer and loses their rightful position and the woman is left once again in pain and in subjection to the man (her desire is to her husband) as God originally intended. I am not so sure that Eve will even be in heaven because of the original sin that she first committed after Satan started the ball rolling.
-
False. You are using a "system" of understanding avoiding individual perception to comply with how to justify a traditional Roman Catholic tradition.
Aren't you being pretty judgmental, Johann? How do you know what I'm thinking inside my head? If I say that I'm basing my theology on the text, not the other way around, how can you say that's false if you can't read my heart?
Sorry, Bob, but that's just how the sum of your statements come across to me.
-
Obviously, there are capable women just as there were in Jesus time. It is an interesting note that all the disciples were men. This thread reminds me of the temptation of Adam and Eve. God told Adam and Eve not to eat of the forbidden tree, why, because he said so. But Eve after she looked at the fruit and saw it was beautiful and could make one wise she did eat of it and gave it to her husband and he ate also. Sometimes God tells you to do something and expects you to do it simply because he said to do it. The woman's roll is clearly defind in the bible by God. The woman is to keep quiet and not try to be over her husband but someone has looked on her and said she looks good enough to do what she wants even though God has said no. Every time we do things our way instead of Gods way we end up in trouble. I can clearly see the woman once again taking the fruit and telling the man you see how beautiful I have become? But in the end it is the men that suffer and loses their rightful position and the woman is left once again in pain and in subjection to the man (her desire is to her husband) as God originally intended. I am not so sure that Eve will even be in heaven because of the original sin that she first committed after Satan started the ball rolling.
In the matter of racism, people are considered inferior because of the colour of their skin. In the matter of sexism, people are considered inferior because of their sex. If one justifies sexism as proper and divinely ordained, would it not follow that racism is equally justified? For centuries the followers of John Knox maintained from Biblical principle that black people were good, but they must keep their place with white people just as children must keep their place with parents. The Dutch Reform Church of South Africa held strongly to these "biblical principles" until the country was freed from the slavery of Apartheid. Are women any less human than black people? We vilify the radical Muslims for their repression of women, when Adventism, or a segment of it, institutionalizes repression of women, yes, on a different level, yet repression based on the assumed inferiority of women. And it is interesting that the cultures that exhibit the most aggressive sexism against women are primarily from Africa, Central Asia, and Latin America, all areas that have experienced the racism of slavery and the Knox theology of race, and/or the radical sexism of Roman Catholicism.
-
Arguably, the greatest period of peace, prosperity, progress, and expansion in the British Empire was under the leadership of Queen Victoria, who was the last British monarch to rule the government. After Winston Churchill, one of the most respected Prime Ministers was Margaret Thatcher. Queen Elizabeth the first was a powerful leader who seized the throne and brought an end to the Catholic suppression of the realm. When the Emperor Justinian was fleeing Byzantium to escape the revolt, it was Theodora who took control and laid the plans that saved the empire from anarchy. I could go on for a very long time giving examples of women who were powerful and very capable leaders. The theory that women can't lead is not backed up by history any more than the theory (see the book "When God was a Woman") that men can't lead.
But they were not "ordained" preachers, They were women placed as in Bible days in places where their strength, intellect, and abilities were used in the linage of command (that again, people chose and not the will of the Lord) that the land of "America has not adopted that chain of command but designed now of new "Inspiration" coming direct from God's plan for freedom for the time being.) Here is the example one must not through out. Did God want the people to have a King??? No they insisted, So what did God do ?? He let the people have a King. Now that is the same thing again that Happened with the church when EGW gave consul presented by Holy Spirit. Did the people all 100% do this. Absolutely not! That is the reason for the testimonies.
.
-
Soon as EGW started writing early and as more and more consuls were presented and she presented along with her own thoughts of her personal beliefs, she soon discovered people that wrote her hundreds of letters on their own questions, mostly to justify or ask further their lack of simple judgements to define her to state more in their own directions - she soon realized she had to write Testimonies TO THE CHURCH!! where she inserted most letters and statements of corrections of peoples self views even to one place she stated to one man he was like a "broken stick". She had to write many, many letters back to correct wrong understanding, fanaticism. extremes of her views and on and on the peoples, concerns, and what did they do, they took one letter to one and used it against the other.
One example. - To one family she addressed because the whole family was obese she stated "You should never eat another egg." Now, as the people read that and did not take into consideration the rest of letter and reasoning what do you think came out of that because they did not read where she was just addressing that family. fanaticism developed they should never eat butter, milk or eggs, - now did she have to go and write again to counter act that absolutely yes! Did that solve the problem..no it did not but it is definitely clear for record for those who's mind and time seek all. But still used to this day to extremes. Then clearly she writes "do not make yourself weak until times demands it. But still those words are made to mean again something else. Are we now at that time, yep pretty close.
If you go down through the Testimonies and view all subjects she has to address, because of the people and their unwillingness to follow simply - just know she understood just what was happening with the same on these posts today here and now.
Are there credentials laying on top of a bureau at her Home, probably so, is that where she laid them, who knows or someone else, no one nor my self denied what the church did and went beyond her realm of comments on what she gave and related by pen then what they perceived to do was their own desires and reasoning- no matter what she said or felt. Several times she mentions she did "not want to make waves".
Now and continually the same situation on all subjects that were addressed in Testimonies you see the same thing happening on larger scale of people finding loop holes to present their own wants and theories instead of just taking it simple and knowing that it sometimes take more then one of her books to know her points do not change. The same in Bible, you have to maybe read several books till the answer is clear.
Reading the Bible first then, her writings I knew the "Inspiration was given exactly the same way and from the same source.
But the reason for testimonies for the church is the very same thing that is happening right now that happened back then.
She states clearly that she was "ordained of God and not man". At that time she presents that ordaining simply meant that she gave the exact message as was given to her and the men that carried that message was honest in presenting it as was give to EGW. That is all it meant but the church followed its own will not hers.
Here it best clue you can go by....show me where she asked to be ordained HERSELF as the other women did. They had laying on hands to be deaconesses and the women's movement was on the march for many things at that time.
EGW did state their should be women doctors that can care for women patients. So yes, women have a field to labor in for women, the poor, womanly duties. As in Biblical days certain women were called to work the will of God as it was God's (remember) 3rd choice before EGW agreed to the task that previous men did not do. So when women think they are specially called to take on an EGW they better think whether its just a cow bellowing off the hillside somewhere doing the calling. There are many good women in
Adventist church that accomplish and work well but do it without self involved or making waves with credentials. No credentials were not need for EGW to advance the "servant of God". In fact the church came after the "messenger" of God" proceeded with task.
I's very less confusion to read all the scenarios for cause and change then just simply read every word of God's last message to a last day people of "whom with tears penned said" that in the end would be very few saved from SDA and other sheep from other folds would come to the front lines in the end. so there you go simple but sure... It is just as important not to add or take away from what God has inspired to write for this age or era. Your either believe or you don't. or change about the worship, music, who should be ordained as scripture states who, jewelry, evolution, and in every subject of man's own desires or just a little wine will do ya!! There will always be wave makers, EGW was not a wave maker! She continued till the end with the waves roaring higher and higher.
-
Obviously, there are capable women just as there were in Jesus time. It is an interesting note that all the disciples were men. This thread reminds me of the temptation of Adam and Eve. God told Adam and Eve not to eat of the forbidden tree, why, because he said so. But Eve after she looked at the fruit and saw it was beautiful and could make one wise she did eat of it and gave it to her husband and he ate also. Sometimes God tells you to do something and expects you to do it simply because he said to do it. The woman's roll is clearly defind in the bible by God. The woman is to keep quiet and not try to be over her husband but someone has looked on her and said she looks good enough to do what she wants even though God has said no. Every time we do things our way instead of Gods way we end up in trouble. I can clearly see the woman once again taking the fruit and telling the man you see how beautiful I have become? But in the end it is the men that suffer and loses their rightful position and the woman is left once again in pain and in subjection to the man (her desire is to her husband) as God originally intended. I am not so sure that Eve will even be in heaven because of the original sin that she first committed after Satan started the ball rolling.
Read Desire of ages on Eve and find out...Hmmmm
-
I had no idea about that sort of dynamic, no idea that women don't work well together if there is a woman in charge.
What planet have you visited where you saw such women?
As I stated before, this was not my own observation. This was an observation made by women who were part of a college class, and they expressed this previously made observation after watching a film where women leading women descended into anarchy.
So you should probably be asking the women who made the observation what planet they visited.
-
Obviously, there are capable women just as there were in Jesus time. It is an interesting note that all the disciples were men. This thread reminds me of the temptation of Adam and Eve. God told Adam and Eve not to eat of the forbidden tree, why, because he said so. But Eve after she looked at the fruit and saw it was beautiful and could make one wise she did eat of it and gave it to her husband and he ate also. Sometimes God tells you to do something and expects you to do it simply because he said to do it. The woman's roll is clearly defind in the bible by God. The woman is to keep quiet and not try to be over her husband but someone has looked on her and said she looks good enough to do what she wants even though God has said no. Every time we do things our way instead of Gods way we end up in trouble. I can clearly see the woman once again taking the fruit and telling the man you see how beautiful I have become? But in the end it is the men that suffer and loses their rightful position and the woman is left once again in pain and in subjection to the man (her desire is to her husband) as God originally intended. I am not so sure that Eve will even be in heaven because of the original sin that she first committed after Satan started the ball rolling.
I haven't read anything in the SoP that says that Eve will be in heaven, but I do remember reading that Eve was the one who helped Adam accept by faith the promise of the Redeemer. I don't recall where.
A woman told me that she had noticed that women who are more of a spiritual leader than their husband sometimes run into fanaticism or strange theology. That observation, made by a woman, goes along with the biblical account of the Fall.
As far as preaching goes, there are a lot of men who preach some strange things, I know that. Yet one notable sermon by a lady senior pastor stands out in my mind. She told the large congregation that we are justified when we partly obey God, since Abraham was justified when he partly obeyed God: Abraham disobeyed when he left Haran because he took Lot with him; he was supposed to leave all his family behind. She also said that circumcision was an act of faith, because what if the knife slipped. I did not believe those statements to be accurate, correct, or appropriate.
Is that an unusual case? Is it unusual for a lady senior pastor of large reputation in a large church to be that off base in a sermon?
-
In the matter of racism, people are considered inferior because of the colour of their skin. In the matter of sexism, people are considered inferior because of their sex.
"He is bound to his family by sacred, holy ties. Every member of the family centers in the father. His name, 'house-band,' is the true definition of husband. He is the lawmaker, illustrating in his own manly bearing the sterner virtues, energy, integrity, honesty, and practical usefulness" (1T 547).
"The father should enforce in his family the sterner virtues--energy, integrity, honesty, patience, courage, diligence, and practical usefulness. And what he requires of his children he himself should practice, illustrating these virtues in his own manly bearing" (MH 391).
So Ellen White held this view throughout her ministry, as the dates of these two publications are near the beginning and the end of it.
"The refining, softening influence of Christian women is needed in the great work of preaching the truth" (RH 1-2-1879).
"I do not recommend that woman should seek to become a voter or an officer-holder; but as a missionary, teaching the truth by epistolary correspondence, distributing tracts and soliciting subscribers for periodicals containing the solemn truth for this time, she may do very much. In conversing with families, in praying with the mother and children, she will be a blessing" (RH 12-19-78).
It would seem mighty strange to accuse Ellen White of being a sexist, of being discriminatory against women.
I'm not finding quotes that list the stronger attributes of Christian women, similar to the statements about fathers above. Anyone remember reading anything along those lines? I remember there being some, but can't remember the words that are used.
-
I had no idea about that sort of dynamic, no idea that women don't work well together if there is a woman in charge.
What planet have you visited where you saw such women?
As I stated before, this was not my own observation. This was an observation made by women who were part of a college class, and they expressed this previously made observation after watching a film where women leading women descended into anarchy.
So you should probably be asking the women who made the observation what planet they visited.
I have worked for both men and women who were inept at managing or being "in charge". Such is not the basis for making a rash generalization about either.
-
I don't think the women in our class were trying to say that men have superior leadership skills. That's not how I remember it.
What's the difference between wanting to have a man in charge and saying that men have superior leadership skills? Semantics? And lets remember that your comments are derived from the responses of the women in your class, which is NOT representative of women in general!!
Working for any individual who has no leadership skills, MALE or FEMALE, is a miserable experience.
-
You know, historically, there qere 3-+ women who were ordained. ia m also sure that in an earlier discussion here that more detailed information was given, that also included Pastor Johann submetting that women were often ordained in parts of Europe during wars, etc. I am not sure if this info included the womeon's names,though. I guess I will have to make it a matter ofresearch to find that info.
That being said, you know that is secondary to the biblical accounts. Yes, women can be chosen as prophets. WHO choses the prophets? AND were prophets not in spiritual authority to everyone in the Bible, priests, kings, etc.? So God puts women in spiritual authority, but somehow some belief that Paul then changed that in the NT even though the instances of female authority, both political and spiritual, do not result in the disasterous issues as so many of their male counterparts. Now, we believe God changed His mind because......?
So, my question is this. Since we see that God's own example is to put women in political and spiritual authority, at what point do we feel the need to over turn the decisions of an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God of which we claim to be followers. Are you saying that He made a bad decision in this area and the man He created knows better? Once again, since God's own example is there and clear in the Bible, I am going with that. This thing some of you have going seems like a bit of rebellion to me.
Di, no one questions whether a woman can be called to be a prophet.
Do you know the names of any women ordained prior to Ellen White's death?
The 1881 GC Session did not approve a resolution to ordain women, and that was the only resolution of 40 that they did not approve. On what basis do you think that this only became an issue after Ellen White died in 1915, when that resolution was not adopted 34 years earlier?
-
You know, historically, there qere 3-+ women who were ordained. ia m also sure that in an earlier discussion here that more detailed information was given, that also included Pastor Johann submetting that women were often ordained in parts of Europe during wars, etc. I am not sure if this info included the womeon's names,though. I guess I will have to make it a matter ofresearch to find that info.
That being said, you know that is secondary to the biblical accounts. Yes, women can be chosen as prophets. WHO choses the prophets? AND were prophets not in spiritual authority to everyone in the Bible, priests, kings, etc.? So God puts women in spiritual authority, but somehow some belief that Paul then changed that in the NT even though the instances of female authority, both political and spiritual, do not result in the disasterous issues as so many of their male counterparts. Now, we believe God changed His mind because......?
So, my question is this. Since we see that God's own example is to put women in political and spiritual authority, at what point do we feel the need to over turn the decisions of an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God of which we claim to be followers. Are you saying that He made a bad decision in this area and the man He created knows better? Once again, since God's own example is there and clear in the Bible, I am going with that. This thing some of you have going seems like a bit of rebellion to me.
Di, no one questions whether a woman can be called to be a prophet.
Do you know the names of any women ordained prior to Ellen White's death?
The 1881 GC Session did not approve a resolution to ordain women, and that was the only resolution of 40 that they did not approve. On what basis do you think that this only became an issue after Ellen White died in 1915, when that resolution was not adopted 34 years earlier?
Excellent post, princessdi! You so well articulated what I could not.
-
This is an issue that is just ignored. This, in my opinion, makes it easier for the Roman Catholic church to make inroads among Adventists, since so many already adhere to this important Roman Catholic doctrine!
Have we forgotten?
Last year a number of priests, bishops and members of the Church of England joined the Roman Catholic Church.
The only requirement was that they would not be in agreement with women being ordained to the ministry. So is this becoming a mark of the Beast?
How many Adventists are now eligible to join the Roman Catholic Church if this is the main requirement?
-
No, I really was told that in 1881 a resolution to ordain women was voted by a GC Session. So I checked it out in the GC Session minutes and found out that that was the only one of around 40 resolutions that isn't marked adopted, carried, or approved.
It, like at least two other resolutions, was referred to a committee, that one to the GC Comm., and the other two to the Committee on Resolutions. The other two were brought back in separate meetings, one being modified, and were then adopted. But the one on ordaining women, I couldn't find anywhere where it was brought back to the session for a vote.
- - -
This items shows how different attitudes make their evaluation. Yes, I agree with you fully that the resolution on the ordination of women was referred to a committee and was never brought back for consideration in 1881, and I also realize that someone made a misjudgment of the results. But I think you do ignore completely one or two factors in connection with this.
1. When something that was unbiblical or just not right was suggested at a General Conference Sessions, Ellen G. White would often make an important statement in connection with such resolutions. To the best of my knowledge she never made any suggestion that this had been a wrong solution.
2. Quite to the contrary, Ellen White later made a statements, which you reluctantly admit, that women should be ordained to do certain tasks, ministering in the church, etc. You insist on limiting those ministerial tasks to the work of a female deacon. You refuse to consider the Biblical pattern that deacons both preached and baptized (Acts), stating there is no record of female deacons preaching or baptizing in the Bible, only male deacons, in spite of the fact that Paul in 1 Tim 3:11 states that the same applies to male and female deacons.
I can well understand that if you really followed the Biblical pattern and what Ellen White in reality is saying, the Roman Catholic Church would not as easily accept you into their fellowship, something we all know is their goal. You might well have in mind saving your skin when that enforcement is introduced, and you might succeed, even if you keep your Sabbath. Even they permit people to attend mass on Saturdays now, so why not then too? There could be a possibility with that compromise, who knows?
So I wish you good luck, my dear friend, but I cannot guarantee the final results when the judge of all things appears in the sky. Perhaps He will have mercy on you too? I am not the judge.
-
Yes, women can be chosen as prophets. WHO choses the prophets? AND were prophets not in spiritual authority to everyone in the Bible, priests, kings, etc.? So God puts women in spiritual authority, but somehow some belief that Paul then changed that in the NT even though the instances of female authority, both political and spiritual, do not result in the disasterous issues as so many of their male counterparts.
Di, I know of no Adventist woman today that claims that she ought to be ordained by men because God has called her through visions and dreams to be a prophet.
As far as Paul goes, note that in 1 Cor. 11:5 Paul allows for women to pray and prophesy. So Paul by no means is saying that women can't serve as prophets.
-
2. Quite to the contrary, Ellen White later made a statements, which you reluctantly admit, that women should be ordained to do certain tasks, ministering in the church, etc. You insist on limiting those ministerial tasks to the work of a female deacon. You refuse to consider the Biblical pattern that deacons both preached and baptized (Acts), stating there is no record of female deacons preaching or baptizing in the Bible, only male deacons, in spite of the fact that Paul in 1 Tim 3:11 states that the same applies to male and female deacons.
1 Tim. 3:11 does not say that any deacons can baptize. Was Philip's conducting of a baptism the norm? I don't know.
The issue today is to a large extent whether women may be ordained to serve as local pastors of local churches. I personally think it contrary to the SoP to ordain men as gospel ministers to routinely serve in such a role. That is more the function of local elders, not gospel ministers, according to the SoP. And I don't see biblical support for women to serve as local elders.
-
I don't think the women in our class were trying to say that men have superior leadership skills. That's not how I remember it.
What's the difference between wanting to have a man in charge and saying that men have superior leadership skills? Semantics? And lets remember that your comments are derived from the responses of the women in your class, which is NOT representative of women in general!!
I don't think it is semantics, but I never quizzed them to find out why they felt the way they did.
Just to be clear, these were women that were not just out of high school. They'd been around for awhile.
-
2. Quite to the contrary, Ellen White later made a statements, which you reluctantly admit, that women should be ordained to do certain tasks, ministering in the church, etc. You insist on limiting those ministerial tasks to the work of a female deacon. You refuse to consider the Biblical pattern that deacons both preached and baptized (Acts), stating there is no record of female deacons preaching or baptizing in the Bible, only male deacons, in spite of the fact that Paul in 1 Tim 3:11 states that the same applies to male and female deacons.
1 Tim. 3:11 does not say that any deacons can baptize. Was Philip's conducting of a baptism the norm? I don't know.
Where was the Holy Spirit when that section of the Bible was written? You just do not know? And your uncertainty makes you lean to the conclusion that this section just confuses us? Rather take the Roman Catholic road to be on their side when the final time of trouble approaches? What security is there in that?
The issue today is to a large extent whether women may be ordained to serve as local pastors of local churches. I personally think it contrary to the SoP to ordain men as gospel ministers to routinely serve in such a role. That is more the function of local elders, not gospel ministers, according to the SoP.
Yes, I am with you on this part. But if this is really your concern, Bob, then that is what you should be going for in this discussion. Is it political concern, that some of your Brethren will not regard you being on the right track if you fight for what you consider being right?
And I don't see biblical support for women to serve as local elders.
I presume by "elders" you mean those called "presbyteros" in the Greek Bible? Most of those were kind of wicked people, weren't they? But you also have some in every Christian church. But what did they do in companies where there were only women?
Where was the Holy Spirit when Paul used the same term, "presbyteros" of a woman in 1 Tim 5:2? Did the good Lord use another source of inspiration for that one? Would it help us to know? We are still in the same area of the Bible where we have the information we use in connection with ordination. Only four verses before Paul is still dealing with ordination. And in v. 1 he is dealing with a male "presbyteros" and then speaking of a female one in the following verse. Remember Paul never set a divider between chapters and verses.
Even if you consider these being different kind of elders, I find it really interesting that he is still using exactly the same word as he continues his letter to Timothy. The Holy Spirit could easily have made him use a different term, if that was important, as he continued writing.
-
Yes, women can be chosen as prophets. WHO choses the prophets? AND were prophets not in spiritual authority to everyone in the Bible, priests, kings, etc.? So God puts women in spiritual authority, but somehow some belief that Paul then changed that in the NT even though the instances of female authority, both political and spiritual, do not result in the disasterous issues as so many of their male counterparts.
Di, I know of no Adventist woman today that claims that she ought to be ordained by men because God has called her through visions and dreams to be a prophet.
What are you replying to by making this uncalled for statement? A different question is that any one preaching the Gospel Message is functioning, according to the Biblical term, as a prophet. Any pastor is mainly proclaiming a prophetic message, and this makes the function of a pastor today so different, including his/her ordination.
As far as Paul goes, note that in 1 Cor. 11:5 Paul allows for women to pray and prophesy. So Paul by no means is saying that women can't serve as prophets.
-
We should remember that soon no one will be able to buy or sell except those who have the mark of the beast. And you might even be sentenced to die. Rev. 13.
So we know that the whole world will follow, since it is the aim of that church that all are to worship with them or their image.
Last year it was made plain in the news that for members of the Church of England the only requirement to join was that they reject the ordination of women.
Therefore this warning is in place: If you initially want to avoid any persecution for your living faith, you must also reject the ordination of women - as long as possible. The delaying tactic might save your skin for a while, but for how long?
If you really want a living faith which defies the danger of persecution, then follow your conviction, based on Scripture, and sustained by the prophetic guidance. The day is at Hand! Have faith, dear friend, in God!
-
As I have prayerfully been conversing through Scripture, asking the Spirit to guide my feet and hands throughout the approaching Sabbath, I see before me the change of Day. A new day is dawning, and the power of the Holy Spirit is breaking the fetters of darkness.
My world today is so different from the world I grew up in 70 years ago.
What will happen when the Holy Spirit ignites the Church and unleashes the hands and tongues of our women, who until now have had a different task to do? As the end is approaching you see these women setting the world on fire through the Holy Spirit.
It takes faith and courage. If you lack faith and you are worried and fearful, better stay with your predefined ideas and traditions. Just play it safe and never risk you neck.
But faith makes all things possible, even for a weak person of fear.
Trust in God and in His message of Hope and Glory! Jesus is coming soon!
-
- - -
So, my question is this. Since we see that God's own example is to put women in political and spiritual authority, at what point do we feel the need to over turn the decisions of an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God of which we claim to be followers. Are you saying that He made a bad decision in this area and the man He created knows better? Once again, since God's own example is there and clear in the Bible, I am going with that. This thing some of you have going seems like a bit of rebellion to me.
Quite a question, PrincessDi! If God is for us, who is then against us? We must have faith to put aside man-made ideologies and replace them with trust in God. Have faith, dear frind, and let His Spirit awaken the sleeping giants among us. Jesus is coming soon!
-
The following is taken from an Adventist Today news item:
In 1995 when a number of local churches ordained women serving as pastors, the North American Division officers sidestepped a confrontation by taking the position that a local church only has authority to ordain local elders, so this must be what these churches had done. Under the General Conference Working Policy the authority to authorize ordination belongs to union conferences, although local conferences issue the actual credentials.
For the above reason, which I agree with, I say that local congregations and conferences are not in rebellion against the General Conference.
-
Is it political concern, that some of your Brethren will not regard you being on the right track if you fight for what you consider being right?
If I was concerned about politics, I would have kept my mouth shut a long time ago, and would never have been sued by Danny Shelton and 3ABN. I oppose the ordaining of women to the gospel ministry because I think it is contrary to Scripture. I agree with C. Raymond Holmes' observations.
Where was the Holy Spirit when Paul used the same term, "presbyteros" of a woman in 1 Tim 5:2?
If you take the use of presbuteros in 1 Tim. 5:1, 2 to refer to the office of elder, what do you do with the word neos in the same verses, translated "younger"? Must those who hold the position of elder therefore never be young? Or is presbuteros here referring to age rather than the office of elder?
Certainly in the LXX, presbuteros can mean "old" and "oldest." Isn't the use of the word to refer to the office of "elder" derived from the root meaning of "elderly"? Therefore, I think Paul in 1 Tim. 5:1-2 can simply be referring to the age of church members, not their office, and that would agree with a simple reading of the passage.
-
Yes, women can be chosen as prophets. WHO choses the prophets? AND were prophets not in spiritual authority to everyone in the Bible, priests, kings, etc.? So God puts women in spiritual authority, but somehow some belief that Paul then changed that in the NT even though the instances of female authority, both political and spiritual, do not result in the disasterous issues as so many of their male counterparts.
Di, I know of no Adventist woman today that claims that she ought to be ordained by men because God has called her through visions and dreams to be a prophet.
What are you replying to by making this uncalled for statement? A different question is that any one preaching the Gospel Message is functioning, according to the Biblical term, as a prophet.
Not according to Num 12:6. Prophets are those whom God is speaking to through visions and dreams.
Di and others have compared God calling women as prophets with calling women to be local pastors of local churches. I think that is a false comparison.
One on another website has gone so far as to repeatedly quote where Ellen White said that God ordained her in Portland, ME, which would be about Dec. 1844 when Ellen White was called via a vision to be a prophet. The one quoting that uses it to justify men, not God, ordaining a woman to serve as a local pastor, not a prophet. It's a false comparison.
-
So we know that the whole world will follow, since it is the aim of that church that all are to worship with them or their image.
Last year it was made plain in the news that for members of the Church of England the only requirement to join was that they reject the ordination of women.
On the other hand, the Protestant churches that will be enforcing the mark are often accepting of the idea of ordaining women to the gospel ministry, and sometimes ordaining even active homosexuals. But the churches that do that are the ones that have left the Bible behind in many areas. Without a Scriptural foundation, they won't have any reason to reject the mark.
What will happen when the Holy Spirit ignites the Church and unleashes the hands and tongues of our women, who until now have had a different task to do? As the end is approaching you see these women setting the world on fire through the Holy Spirit.
But that isn't what the women's ordination movement is trying to achieve. A local pastor hovering over a local church isn't likely going to set his city on fire, much less the world.
More importantly, women can go out right now in the power of the Holy Spirit as Bible workers, Christian welfare workers, or whatever, and set their communities afire. They don't need to be ordained as gospel ministers first.
Isn't ordination reserved for those who have already demonstrated that they are already being used by the Holy Spirit in ministry? Or have times changed on this point too, and ordination precedes giving proof of one's calling?
-
The following is taken from an Adventist Today news item:
In 1995 when a number of local churches ordained women serving as pastors, the North American Division officers sidestepped a confrontation by taking the position that a local church only has authority to ordain local elders, so this must be what these churches had done. Under the General Conference Working Policy the authority to authorize ordination belongs to union conferences, although local conferences issue the actual credentials.
For the above reason, which I agree with, I say that local congregations and conferences are not in rebellion against the General Conference.
Which part do you agree with? That any woman who is ordained today cannot possibly be ordained as a gospel minister, and must therefore only be ordained as a local elder? Or that the authority to authorize ordination belongs to union conferences?
If the 1990 and 1995 GC Sessions voted down the ordination of women as gospel ministers, and if Ellen White in 9T 261 explicitly states that GC Session votes have authority, and if those votes do not contradict a plain Thus saith the Lord, and if congregations and conferences, though knowing all this, decide they're going to do it anyway, how is that not rebellion against (a) the GC Session votes, and (b) the testimony of Jesus in 9T 261?
-
If you initially want to avoid any persecution for your living faith, you must also reject the ordination of women - as long as possible. The delaying tactic might save your skin for a while, but for how long?
I'm sure neither Johann nor any of the other posters here wish to imply that disagreeing with the concept of the ordination of women is tantamount to saving one's skin from persecution.
Especially since that is the current position of the world Seventh-day Adventist church -- that is, the world church has voted to disagree with women's ordination for the time being.
-
I'm wondering if the controversy in the church nowadays concerning whether or not women can be in top positions of authority in the church structure stem from a phenomenon that is mentioned from time to time in the popular press.
It is proposed by some experts that men in our Western culture have become feminized to a degree, possibly due to women becoming more aggressive in their behavior.
Or perhaps the men have simply become lazy and are willing to let women do more of the "heavy lifting" so to speak.
That might explain in part the glowing recommendations given to woman bosses and leaders, as we have seen expressed on this very site.
-
I'm wondering if the controversy in the church nowadays concerning whether or not women can be in top positions of authority in the church structure stem from a phenomenon that is mentioned from time to time in the popular press.
It is proposed by some experts that men in our Western culture have become feminized to a degree, possibly due to women becoming more aggressive in their behavior.
Or perhaps the men have simply become lazy and are willing to let women do more of the "heavy lifting" so to speak.
That might explain in part the glowing recommendations given to woman bosses and leaders, as we have seen expressed on this very site.
I have heard the same put-down of white people who like a black boss they may have, and of black people who may like a white boss they happen to have. It has been put forth by some in our culture that the black sports mystique has been a come hither to white young people who are losing their whiteness to this inferior culture. I have also heard black people angrily call their brother who enjoy living outside the ghettos Oreos. Black on the outside but white inside.
-
Either way, people just want to earn acceptance from the group they crave it from, whether the haters of themselves whose approval they crave, of the lovers of themselves, whose approval they crave. So they prostitute what they are on the market that will buy it or create martyrdom. Either way they think they win something.
-
Bob asked:
Which part do you agree with? That any woman who is ordained today cannot possibly be ordained as a gospel minister, and must therefore only be ordained as a local elder? Or that the authority to authorize ordination belongs to union conferences?
1) I agree that females who are ordained today (with one exception which I will mention) cannot be ordained as SDA clergy and therefore are only ordained as local Elders. The local congregation has the authority to ordain local Elders. It does not have to ask permission from anyone.
2) The local Conference sends a list of the candidates that it wishes to ordain to the Union. The union then grants permission for the Conference to ordain, or, denies permission to ordain.
3) The Conference, in most cases, retains the authority to grant credentials and/or to rescind the credentials. NOTE: In some cases, the authority to grant and rescind credentials is held by the Union, the Division and the General Conference. E.G. In my denominational work history, I have held credentials granted me by the General Conference, the Division and the local Conference. Currently my credentials come from both the Division and the local Conference. But, the majority of SDA Clergy hold credentials granted by the local Conference.
4) In any case, once credentials are granted, the denomination further recognizes those credentials by entering the names of the people who hold those credentials into certain denominational records and so list them in the YEARBOOK. My name is listed in those records and in the YEARBOOK.
5) An exception to the above relates to females in China. The General Conference recognizes women who have been ordained as clergy in China.
a) Over a period of several years, the REVIEW has published articles which have announced to the world at large that women in China are recognized as ordained clergy.
b) The names of women so recognized have been entered into official denominational records.
c) The above is true in general. It is also true that in a few cases, the actual status of an individual is in doubt.
6) In summation, I believe with others:
a) That the action of local congregations in North America to ordain females does not actually violate GC policy because it is only an ordination to the position of local Elder.
b) China is not in violation of the policy because it has been granted an exception.
However, the issue does not end here. There are those who believe that the General Conference does not have the authority to deny Divisions/Unions permission to ordain females.
1) Divisions have always had the authority to amend GC policy as it is applied in their Division. The question now is: Does the Division authority to amend GC policy extend to allow the ordination, as clergy, of women? In my mind, this question has not been definitively answered. NOTE: The Division is NOT a separate organization level. It is a part of the General Conference. Therefore, if the Division amends a GC policy that is a General Conference action.
2) The Unions clearly hold the authority to approve clergy ordinations. Under what conditions does the General Conference have the authority to approve/deny clergy ordinations and take that authority away from the Unions?
3) The purpose of the General Conference has always been to develop general uniform rules of action that apply throughout the world. But, it has not been to develop specific applications of those rules of action. That has been left to the Divisions and the Unions.
4) For the General Conference to tell the Unions that they can continue to decide for males, but that they no longer have the authority to decide for females, is discriminatory and may be beyond the authority of the General Conference.
5) In my opinion, the issues here are greater that whether or not females may become ordained clergy. They involve the authority and role of the General Conference in the world church.
NOTE: My attempt here has been to discuss denominational policy. Some may say that such is not Biblical. I have not attempted to discuss it from that point of view.
-
In posting in this forum, I have clearly been selective in the responses that I make. I pick and chose.
While I have clearly stated that I believe that it is Biblical for women to be ordained to clergy roles, I have generally not stated a Biblical position for my position.
In general I have not done so because I do not believe that I have anything important to add on the Biblical support for such a positon. So much has already been published on both sides of this quesiton, that there is nothing more that I can add. It is all available for people to read who wish to do so. To be frank, I do not believe that the answer to this question is a "slam-dunk." Rather, I beleive that ther are valid points that are made by each side.
However, I will state here that my personal position is guided by two issues which I believe are Biblical:
1) Ordination is not the fundamental Biblical issue. In regard to ordination, questions could be asked related to SDA practice as it applies to males and the extent to which those practices are Biblical. The fundamential issue to me, is that of role. IOW, what is the role that women should have in ministry?
2) As I look at the Biblical record, I see females in positions of spiritual authority throughout time--from OT times into NT times.
For the above two reasons, I support women as ordained clergy.
As to my understanding of specific Biblical texts, I do not expect toget into that discussion as others have done better than I bleive I could do.
-
Artiste said:
That might explain in part the glowing recommendations given to woman bosses and leaders, as we have seen expressed on this very site.
How do you want to be judged? Do you want to be judged on the basis of your individual accomplishments and/or failures, or do you want to be judged on the basis of the general class that includes you?
By any standard that you can develop, there will be both men and women who will meet that standard and men and women who will fail to meet that standard.
NOTE: Do not come up with a trite response that tells me that women succeed at giving birth and men fail at that task.
-
I oppose the ordaining of women to the gospel ministry because I think it is contrary to Scripture.
You have the full right to your opposition, at least on a personal level, and to be in agreement with Holmes. There you have a publication and are free to use his hermeneutics at getting to the understanding you have of the Bible. His hermeneutics are not generally accepted by the General Conference and have never been voted with a majority following at any General Assembly.
You have also admitted following the headship idea to support your Bible reading.
This headship idea is often associated with Sam Bacchiocchi, a man who obtained a gold medal from the pope himself for his scholarship. Another man associated with Bacchiocchi's ideas was Pippim who had to leave the ministry because of adultery.
Not only was Sam well known because of the distribution of his news letter but also due to his salesmanship, often selling his books from the pulpit during his Sabbath sermons, something I witnessed myself. Pippim was well known due to his activities among conservative theologians and his writings.
As far as I know their headship ideology was never accepted by a majority vote at any General Conference session. Here we are actually dealing with a doctrine that has not been approved. I find it strange that some are using this doctrine that has not been approved, - they use this to interpret Scripture so they can find fault with a procedure used by some which they feel has not been approved by the same authority.
At least the General Conference has issued a publication denying the validity of the headship ideology. They would hardly have done that if it had been accepted by a majority vote at any time.
Perhaps Holmes managed to improve on Sam and Pippim to make it more palatable?
-
Johann said:
Pippim who had to leave the ministry because of adultery.
Are you positive. I thought that that he resigned because he realized that he had entered into an "inappropriate relationship" which did not involve adultry.
I have not been a fan of Pippim. However, if my memory above is accurate I will suggest that we should:
1) Acknowledge that he personally came to the conviction that he had committed a wrong that led him to believe that he should resign fromt the ministry.
2) Commend him for his personal confession to leadership and the Adventist public at large.
3) Refrain from expanding his sin beyond what we know it actualy to be.
4) Wish that all spiritual leaders who do wrong would be as willing to confess their wrong as he was.
Again, I am gong by memory as to what he and his President actually said.L LIt could be thatyou are correct. If so there is much of what I have stated above that still applies.
Here is the public statement that Pippim has made:
http://campushope.com/resignation/
The actual facts I do not know and I do not need to know. Johann, perhaps you are correct and perhaps you are not. I just think that we should be careful as to what we say as opposed to what is public.
-
Gregory, What I remember is there came quite a bit of material, some of it from him self, and this was the conclusion I gathered at the time. I understood he was making such a confession, but I could be wrong!
http://www.terrisfp1.com/holidays/chick.html
-
NOTE: Do not come up with a trite response that tells me that women succeed at giving birth and men fail at that task.
I wonder if only someone of the male gender would use the term "trite" in conjunction with childbirth...
-
Maybe Miss Piggy has the answer...
-
Good shot, Snoopy!
-
Artiste:
I used the word"trite" in connection with a response that I asked not be made to my post. It was not directly associated with child-birth.
-
There is a worldly movie called Priest and it starts its opening with a futuristic look at the church and the churches motto is "to go against the church is to go against God."
-
3-4 months ago our daughter noticed police and ambulance arriving at the house next to hers. A young athletic lady who had accepted Christ recently was dead. The evening before she had attended a gathering where someone had given her too much dope, something she had not been using, and to her it was fatal. Had she accepted Jesus in vain?
Today her brother, who was a dope addict until he met Christ 5 years ago, has been greatly disturbed because of his sister's death just because she happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Then someone comforts him with the encouraging thought that he was able to bring his sister to Christ before she died. Is that a false comfort?
I have now re-read the information given by Samuel Koranteng-Pipim and others. There is no doubt he was the great leading "light" in the opposition against the ordination of women until that day when he happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong moment, and that killed his usefulness - at least for the time being - as an ordained pastor in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. I agree that his admittance of guilt and request for forgiveness is a great example for other leaders/pastors to follow in a similar situation.
That does not change the fact, in my opinion, that the moral fall of the leader of this movement against females in ministry, leaves less support to his opinions, especially since so many other theologians and leaders in the Seventh-day Adventist Church disagree with him. Perhaps his "slip" was just a "minor" one, but his leading position against female ministers increases its importance. Fortunately he realizes this himself so he takes the consequence and leaves the ministry himself.
-
4) For the General Conference to tell the Unions that they can continue to decide for males, but that they no longer have the authority to decide for females, is discriminatory and may be beyond the authority of the General Conference.
5) In my opinion, the issues here are greater that whether or not females may become ordained clergy. They involve the authority and role of the General Conference in the world church.
To narrow the discussion to what I think is a key point and question: Do the unions have God-given authority to ignore or violate or rebel against (or however-you-want-to-describe-it) the testimony of Jesus in 9T 261, by violating the 1990 and 1995 votes of the GC Session on the ordination of women?
We could discuss all this in simply human or political turns, but I don't think we can ignore the spiritual component. We have clear cut counsel in 9T 261. Can we violate that?
NOTE: My attempt here has been to discuss denominational policy. Some may say that such is not Biblical. I have not attempted to discuss it from that point of view.
The problem with that approach is that it somewhat begs the question. Since the issue of ordination of women is a theological issue, not a policy issue, and since doctrinal matters, particularly major ones, are determined at GC Sessions, not by a small union conference executive committee, then to exclude entirely biblical considerations is putting the issue in a false light. It is treating the issue as if there is no theological issue involved, allowing it to be decided by small union conference executive committees after all.
1) Ordination is not the fundamental Biblical issue. In regard to ordination, questions could be asked related to SDA practice as it applies to males and the extent to which those practices are Biblical. The fundamential issue to me, is that of role. IOW, what is the role that women should have in ministry?
Then we are in agreement on that one.
-
As far as I know their headship ideology was never accepted by a majority vote at any General Conference session. Here we are actually dealing with a doctrine that has not been approved. I find it strange that some are using this doctrine that has not been approved, - they use this to interpret Scripture so they can find fault with a procedure used by some which they feel has not been approved by the same authority.
1) Am I incorrect to say that opposition speeches at the 1995 GC Session cited what some might label "headship theology," and that thus the overwhelming vote against women's ordination in that session showed indirect approval, at least somewhat by some who voted no, to the concepts expressed in those speeches?
2) You have worded it wrong. The issue is not regarding "a procedure" that "has not been approved" by a GC Session. It was about a practice that was rejected by two different GC Sessions.
If the pro-ordination side must spin votes of rejection into simply that no GC Session has ever approved the procedure, then that should raise red flags in all of our minds, because it's less than honest.
At least the General Conference has issued a publication denying the validity of the headship ideology. They would hardly have done that if it had been accepted by a majority vote at any time.
Could you provide a link?
-
That does not change the fact, in my opinion, that the moral fall of the leader of this movement against females in ministry, leaves less support to his opinions, especially since so many other theologians and leaders in the Seventh-day Adventist Church disagree with him.
I think it unfair to call him the leader. Was he a delegate at the 1990 GC Session too? What percentage of theologians and leaders in the world church disagree with him? I have no idea, but your wording suggests that the majority of all Adventist theologians and leaders around the world disagree with him, and I would like to confirm that that is so if it is indeed so.
By the way, to see books written by women which speak to the issue of women not working well with women, please see http://www.amazon.com/s/?field-keywords=tripping+the+prom+queen (http://www.amazon.com/s/?field-keywords=tripping+the+prom+queen). It seems common that women think that women in particular have problems with rivalry, backstabbing, and the like. I read that opinion by women on one website, and then was told the very same thing by a woman who had not read that website.
Of course, you can likely find a woman somewhere that disagrees with these observations made by women. But this does seem to be a fairly common perception.
-
As far as I know their headship ideology was never accepted by a majority vote at any General Conference session. Here we are actually dealing with a doctrine that has not been approved. I find it strange that some are using this doctrine that has not been approved, - they use this to interpret Scripture so they can find fault with a procedure used by some which they feel has not been approved by the same authority.
1) Am I incorrect to say that opposition speeches at the 1995 GC Session cited what some might label "headship theology," and that thus the overwhelming vote against women's ordination in that session showed indirect approval, at least somewhat by some who voted no, to the concepts expressed in those speeches?
I was present at the 1995 GC Session and I saw and heard myself how - in my opinion - things were manipulated by who and in what order speakers were admitted to the mikes. Of course that had influence on the votes. The most dynamic speakers against the ordination of women got the floor or the platform at the most impressive times. When a powerful speaker gets the opportunity, it is not just the words which you can still read, but his manner and cadence and oratorical power which influences the voting. I also heard some protesting how some speakers were not admitted before the vote, but the chair did not listen. I was not a delegate there, but I stood behind and watched the procedure. I was greatly disappointed how things were handled.
2) You have worded it wrong. The issue is not regarding "a procedure" that "has not been approved" by a GC Session. It was about a practice that was rejected by two different GC Sessions.
If the pro-ordination side must spin votes of rejection into simply that no GC Session has ever approved the procedure, then that should raise red flags in all of our minds, because it's less than honest.
I am in full agreement with you that it should raise red flags in our minds, especially how the opposition against the ordination of women are handling things - in my opinion. But you have the full right to have a different opinion.
At least the General Conference has issued a publication denying the validity of the headship ideology. They would hardly have done that if it had been accepted by a majority vote at any time.
Could you provide a link?
http://books.google.is/books?id=tJqDo447Sl8C&pg=PA36&lpg=PA36&dq=headship+adventist&source=bl&ots=g1d1QF0W0w&sig=MEL0Ra6gvUIGWh12cIC5zwQA6jY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=SOR2T7Zagr3RBZXo2McN&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=headship%20adventist&f=false
-
Who is going to answer for those dear souls who are lost because an ordained male pastor failed to reach them when an ordained woman could have?
-
That does not change the fact, in my opinion, that the moral fall of the leader of this movement against females in ministry, leaves less support to his opinions, especially since so many other theologians and leaders in the Seventh-day Adventist Church disagree with him.
I think it unfair to call him the leader. Was he a delegate at the 1990 GC Session too? What percentage of theologians and leaders in the world church disagree with him? I have no idea, but your wording suggests that the majority of all Adventist theologians and leaders around the world disagree with him, and I would like to confirm that that is so if it is indeed so.
1) Judging from the publications, books and articles, and speakers available for any pulpit or mike, that I saw available for quite a while, it appeared to me that Sam Bacchiocchi was gradually succeeded by Samuel Koranteng-Pipim as the main proponent against the ordination of women, weather that had anything to do with speakers at a GC session or not. I actually have seen that elsewhere that SKP was regarded as the man.
If they managed to train other leaders, or how things have happened since then, or if you regard other men or woman as greater spokespersons, I will have no disagreement with you on that, because that is a matter of personal evaluation.
2) Neither will I indulge in any head count. If my words indicated to you I was talking about any majority, I suppose that is my fault. I was referring to an existence, which, in my opinion, seems important.
By the way, to see books written by women which speak to the issue of women not working well with women, please see http://www.amazon.com/s/?field-keywords=tripping+the+prom+queen (http://www.amazon.com/s/?field-keywords=tripping+the+prom+queen). It seems common that women think that women in particular have problems with rivalry, backstabbing, and the like. I read that opinion by women on one website, and then was told the very same thing by a woman who had not read that website.
Since you thrive on such references I can add to that that an advocate against female pastors once made the statement that all women are chicken-heads, whatever he meant with that expression. Then to me what you refer to is that some chicken-heads are merely documenting that they are all chicken-heads.
I do not subscribe to that theory. I know the man I quoted above had one of the most wonderful wives imaginable, and yet he gave her a terrible life directed by his headship theology.
Of course, you can likely find a woman somewhere that disagrees with these observations made by women. But this does seem to be a fairly common perception.
Have you made a count?
-
Who is going to answer for those dear souls who are lost because an ordained male pastor failed to reach them when an ordained woman could have?
And especially in the light that Ellen G White definitely stated that women ministering to such women should be ordained for that ministry. What are these men trying to avoid? The voice of God so that they may freely indulge in their male made headship role?
-
As I have already stated I was present at the 1995 GC session. Prior to that session I knew, according to Scripture and Ellen White, that female deacons should be ordained, but I was still hesitating on the question of pastors. I was under the influence of people claiming they were the only ones holding on to the true Seventh-day Adventist doctrines.
It was when I observed the strange methods used by the opponents of female ordination at the 1995 GC session I no longer had any doubt in my mind. It was as observing evil forces at work, even though some of the speakers appeared honest and convincing. I still recall how a former Union President, who is no longer among us, shook his head as a reaction to what he saw.
Were my observations all wrong? Was I deluded? My only purpose is to do the will of my God, guided by His Holy Spirit - and obeying what I see in His Word!
-
Bob said:
The problem with that approach is that it somewhat begs the question. Since the issue of ordination of women is a theological issue, not a policy issue, and since doctrinal matters, particularly major ones, are determined at GC Sessions, not by a small union conference executive committee, then to exclude entirely biblical considerations is putting the issue in a false light. It is treating the issue as if there is no theological issue involved, allowing it to be decided by small union conference executive committees after all.
The Biblical issues are more important than the policy issues: Policy should give way to Biblical teacheings.
I do not respond, generally to the Biblical issues because I believe that anything that I might say would be nothing more than what someone else has already said and probably better than I.
So, I selectively respond to policy issues, in part because they have not been discussed, in my opinion as much as the Biblical issues.
-
We have heard so many times in this discussion that all should follow the GC decisions because this is the will of God. Let's take heed to later counsel by Ellen G White:
"We have heard that the voice of the GC is the voice of God. Every time I have heard this, I have thought it was almost blasphemy." Manuscript 37, April 1, 1901
"That these men should stand in a sacred place, to be as the voice of God to the people, as we once believed the GC to be - this is past." General Conference Bulletin; 1901; pp. 23, 25
-
At least the General Conference has issued a publication denying the validity of the headship ideology. They would hardly have done that if it had been accepted by a majority vote at any time.
Could you provide a link?
http://books.google.is/books?id=tJqDo447Sl8C&pg=PA36&lpg=PA36&dq=headship+adventist&source=bl&ots=g1d1QF0W0w&sig=MEL0Ra6gvUIGWh12cIC5zwQA6jY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=SOR2T7Zagr3RBZXo2McN&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=headship%20adventist&f=false
Johann, that is not a link to a book issued by the General Conference. The Review and Herald was the publisher, and the copyright page contains a disclaimer that the authors (not the publisher) are responsible for the accuracy of the facts and quotations the book contains. If either the Review or the GC was issuing that book as an official statement, it wouldn't have contained such a disclaimer.
Were you thinking of a different book, or were you mistaken?
And especially in the light that Ellen G White definitely stated that women ministering to such women should be ordained for that ministry. What are these men trying to avoid? The voice of God so that they may freely indulge in their male made headship role?
She advocated that they be ordained as gospel ministers, as local church elders, or as deaconesses?
-
We have heard so many times in this discussion that all should follow the GC decisions because this is the will of God. Let's take heed to later counsel by Ellen G White:
"We have heard that the voice of the GC is the voice of God. Every time I have heard this, I have thought it was almost blasphemy." Manuscript 37, April 1, 1901
"That these men should stand in a sacred place, to be as the voice of God to the people, as we once believed the GC to be - this is past." General Conference Bulletin; 1901; pp. 23, 25
Johann, 9T 261 was published in 1909, 8 years after your quote above. How then do you conclude that a 1901 statement is "later" than the 1909 statement in 9T 261?
I have a particular interest in this question since 9T 261 even refers to what she said in 1901. So if you want to maintain that 1901 is later than 1909, you also need to explain why the 1909 statement refers to what she had not yet said in 1901. :)
-
Who is going to answer for those dear souls who are lost because an ordained male pastor failed to reach them when an ordained woman could have?
Whether or not a woman is ordained to the gospel ministry should not affect whether or not she reaches the lost.
-
Who is going to answer for those dear souls who are lost because an ordained male pastor failed to reach them when an ordained woman could have?
Whether or not a woman is ordained to the gospel ministry should not affect whether or not she reaches the lost.
You don't know that. And the same argument can be applied to men. Maybe there are parts of the world where the church, in its ultimate wisdom of course, will only send an ordained minister. If women are ruled out of that group by design, what happens then?
Sorry Bob - I don't buy your arguments.
-
At least the General Conference has issued a publication denying the validity of the headship ideology. They would hardly have done that if it had been accepted by a majority vote at any time.
Could you provide a link?
http://books.google.is/books?id=tJqDo447Sl8C&pg=PA36&lpg=PA36&dq=headship+adventist&source=bl&ots=g1d1QF0W0w&sig=MEL0Ra6gvUIGWh12cIC5zwQA6jY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=SOR2T7Zagr3RBZXo2McN&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=headship%20adventist&f=false
Johann, that is not a link to a book issued by the General Conference. The Review and Herald was the publisher, and the copyright page contains a disclaimer that the authors (not the publisher) are responsible for the accuracy of the facts and quotations the book contains. If either the Review or the GC was issuing that book as an official statement, it wouldn't have contained such a disclaimer.
Were you thinking of a different book, or were you mistaken?
And especially in the light that Ellen G White definitely stated that women ministering to such women should be ordained for that ministry. What are these men trying to avoid? The voice of God so that they may freely indulge in their male made headship role?
She advocated that they be ordained as gospel ministers, as local church elders, or as deaconesses?
1) Well, the book isn't an official statement. Why does an editor state:
The North American Division Women's Commission had a great desire that the research and experiences of these pages be made available to the church family. Allow the authors' messages to be understood.
Written by: Elizabeth Sterndale is a field secretary and director of Womens' Ministries of the North American Division of Seventh-day Adventists, Silver Spring, Maryland.
This is the North American Division of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists with a similar address as the GC. Why would they want this contents to be known to members of the church? Could it be more legal reasons the authors are held responsible for the wording? This is an opinion and not a legal document? A book is too long a document to be voted on?
A similar situation would be a book explaining our official faith - where the wording has not been voted on, so the words of the book remain the responsibility of the authors?
2) You sure wish Ellen White had never made that statement so you keep on nit picking hoping we will not take the Spirit of Prophecy seriously, it seems to me.
-
Purely a technical correction to a statement that Bob made:
Most of us reacing from 9T today, are reading from a book that was publiched in 1948, or perhaps from a computerdisk that was publish much later than that.
Pages 257 through 261 in 9T were taken from a speach given by EGW on May 30, 1909. So, Bob is essentially correct in his dating of what EGW said.
The minor technical correction is that the origin of that comment is from a speach given by EGW to the delegates of the General Conference, rather than some work that came off of a printing press. However, her comments were published later in a report of that General Conference.
-
I have not posted on this thread in the last few day's because I think it has been a great debate! Both sides are bringinging out excellent points.
I have taken the position along with Bob, Gailon, and others that women should not be ordained.
I believe that some women would make better leaders then men. I agree!
But...the bottom line is its not biblical. Women are not to be in authority over men. The Apostle Paul is clear on this.
Just because some women may make better leaders does that mean we should abandon biblical principle?
-
Who is going to answer for those dear souls who are lost because an ordained male pastor failed to reach them when an ordained woman could have?
Whether or not a woman is ordained to the gospel ministry should not affect whether or not she reaches the lost.
You don't know that. And the same argument can be applied to men. Maybe there are parts of the world where the church, in its ultimate wisdom of course, will only send an ordained minister. If women are ruled out of that group by design, what happens then?
It isn't just ministers who are supposed to be reaching out to the lost. If you have an area where all the members just sit in the pews letting the preacher do it all, that area has serious problems. That's not what Seventh-day Adventism is all about.
Such reasoning would possibly conclude that a Bible worker, whether male or female, cannot reach a person unless they are ordained. I don't see how that is valid.
-
I have not posted on this thread in the last few day's because I think it has been a great debate! Both sides are bringinging out excellent points.
I have taken the position along with Bob, Gailon, and others that women should not be ordained.
I believe that some women would make better leaders then men. I agree!
But...the bottom line is its not biblical. Women are not to be in authority over men. The Apostle Paul is clear on this.
Just because some women may make better leaders does that mean we should abandon biblical principle?
So according to you, a woman should not hold a management position where she supervises a man?? Uh-oh! That is NOT what my Bible says!!
-
Who is going to answer for those dear souls who are lost because an ordained male pastor failed to reach them when an ordained woman could have?
Whether or not a woman is ordained to the gospel ministry should not affect whether or not she reaches the lost.
You don't know that. And the same argument can be applied to men. Maybe there are parts of the world where the church, in its ultimate wisdom of course, will only send an ordained minister. If women are ruled out of that group by design, what happens then?
It isn't just ministers who are supposed to be reaching out to the lost. If you have an area where all the members just sit in the pews letting the preacher do it all, that area has serious problems. That's not what Seventh-day Adventism is all about.
Such reasoning would possibly conclude that a Bible worker, whether male or female, cannot reach a person unless they are ordained. I don't see how that is valid.
Well, Bob, I don't see how your point is valid, so I guess we are even. I also don't have the emotional energy nor the desire to argue with you about it further. So you can have the last word now!! In my opinion, it is this type of minutia that drives people away from church.
-
What really drives people away from church is their own opinions and go where they feel most comfortable with what their own desires want instead of excepting Bible Truth. and the other is just too busy or laziness to put first finding out Truth with open mind. Most just don't want to know to upset the apple cart. I know where some SDA congregate just to wear all their earrings, rings and all that goes including adultery and inter mingling. They seem to be just comfortable and no complaints.
-
We have heard so many times in this discussion that all should follow the GC decisions because this is the will of God. Let's take heed to later counsel by Ellen G White:
"We have heard that the voice of the GC is the voice of God. Every time I have heard this, I have thought it was almost blasphemy." Manuscript 37, April 1, 1901
"That these men should stand in a sacred place, to be as the voice of God to the people, as we once believed the GC to be - this is past." General Conference Bulletin; 1901; pp. 23, 25
Johann, 9T 261 was published in 1909, 8 years after your quote above. How then do you conclude that a 1901 statement is "later" than the 1909 statement in 9T 261?
I have a particular interest in this question since 9T 261 even refers to what she said in 1901. So if you want to maintain that 1901 is later than 1909, you also need to explain why the 1909 statement refers to what she had not yet said in 1901. :)
You caught that, Bob. Good! That gives me the opportunity to enforce some my earllier comments, and add some new ones.
That 1901 statement is also of particular interest to me, because that happens to be the time a reformation of our Church was approaching. When EGW was in Australia she worked there together with her own former secretary, A G Daniells. First leading the work in New Zealand, later in Australia, and finally in charge of all of most of the Australasian Division (no, that name was not coined yet). EGW was greatly impressed with this man, even if some of you might not, when I tell you this story about him:
My wife and I had a dear friend, who, together with her husband spent many years as missionaries to Madagascar. Most honest and sincere people. One day she told us that just before they left for the mission field, AGDaniells visited Denmark and had an appointment giving the young couple some good advise to follow on their way to the Mission Field.
- Be sure to wear wedding rings where you are going. This was the advice Ellen White gave us in Australia, and I have known it is good to follow her words. Take the rings off when you go to America because our Brethren over there don't like them, and Ellen White supported them in stating they are not needed over there.
Ellen White supported A G Daniells, and he supported her. He was elected president of the GC in 1901, and remained in that position longer than any other president before or after. It is evident that by her statement in 1909 Ellen White still supported the leadership of A G Daniells, in spite of what she had said in 1901.
Now the big question is if the 1909 is a fully valid statement until the final day of our history?
I have earlier mentioned my reaction to the happenings at the 1995 GC session. Led my just add to that another one of my observations. I never noticed before how easy it is for the chairman to manipulate a vote. If he is for the resolution he will present it with great enthusiasm as if expecting every vote cast to be in favor. Wile all of the vote cards are held up high and counted he prepares the onslaught with an exclamation as if only the idiots strolling by would cast a vote against it. He might be right, and yet is that democracy? It that how to force the Holy Spirit to be on your side?
What I discovered at the 2005 CG session was even worse. I got this documented by a reporter. You realize that most of the matters voted on first go through a committee. It so happened in a nomination committee that a man came in and told the members that if they would bring a certain name to the floor - this was the leader of an important section within our Church - then someone would donate a certain huge amount of dollars to that particular cause. That donation would not follow any other candidate.
Is that God or Mammon ruling? Does the statement of 1901 or 1909 apply now?
This, I think, is a serious question.
Purely a technical correction to a statement that Bob made:
Most of us reacing from 9T today, are reading from a book that was publiched in 1948, or perhaps from a computerdisk that was publish much later than that.
Pages 257 through 261 in 9T were taken from a speach given by EGW on May 30, 1909. So, Bob is essentially correct in his dating of what EGW said.
The minor technical correction is that the origin of that comment is from a speach given by EGW to the delegates of the General Conference, rather than some work that came off of a printing press. However, her comments were published later in a report of that General Conference.
Thank you, Gregory.
-
Snoopy: I do not know what Bible you read out of, but it is not the KJV.
Also, I am going to go even a step further than Bob, on this issue.
I do not believe women should be Sunday School teachers,pastors, Deacons, Prophets or etc. They are to remain silent and allow the men to do these things.
Now, I have seen EGW
mentioned. I do not agree with her on about 75% of her supposed prophocies. But.....I will not speak any further on my thoughts of a woman prophet, but to say I have issues with that.
-
This was shared with me:
"What tells me that WO is wrong goes even beyond the scriptural evidences. It comes from the fruit of its proponents.
Supporters of WO tend to be supporters of rock music in church, drama, sports, evolution, jewelry and lax Sabbath-keeping. They also are disinterested in doing outreach, sacrificial giving, and proclaiming distinctive SDA truths.
This fruit also shows itself in how the WO movement is progressing. Is God behind it? Hmmmmmm. Without exception, WO proponents seem to rely upon feelings, lies, subterfuge, rebellion, and hysterics to get their way. These are not kind and considerate people.
Look at the past 4 months. Look at the rebellion from the NAD on down. Look at how these people act if they don't get their way. "You won't give us a variance from the GC constitution? Fine, we'll vote it anyway...."
In the splits of the three churches in our area over this issue, the pro-WO indivuduals to include pastors, lay people, and elders have resorted to screaming, bullying, lying and a purposeful attempt to NOT have the issue studied Biblically before the church.
Maybe it will get voted by the GC sometime. And if it does, I fear for our church. Because, as I said, these are not nice people."
Wow!!
-
Alex: Generally I donot, for reasons that I have stated, get involved in a discussion of the Biblical issues in forums such as this one.
But, I will ask you a question: Do you see in either, or both, the OT and the NT females in leadership, to include spiritual leadership in a manner that is seemingly approved. IOW, I am not talking about pagan priestesses and witches.
Thanks,
-
We have a group of younger people in the congreation that I attend that is very active in: Outreach, financial support of church programs, outreach and the proclaimation of Christ and Calvary as the answer to the sin problem.
-
We have heard so many times in this discussion that all should follow the GC decisions because this is the will of God. Let's take heed to later counsel by Ellen G White:
"We have heard that the voice of the GC is the voice of God. Every time I have heard this, I have thought it was almost blasphemy." Manuscript 37, April 1, 1901
"That these men should stand in a sacred place, to be as the voice of God to the people, as we once believed the GC to be - this is past." General Conference Bulletin; 1901; pp. 23, 25
Johann, 9T 261 was published in 1909, 8 years after your quote above. How then do you conclude that a 1901 statement is "later" than the 1909 statement in 9T 261?
I have a particular interest in this question since 9T 261 even refers to what she said in 1901. So if you want to maintain that 1901 is later than 1909, you also need to explain why the 1909 statement refers to what she had not yet said in 1901. :)
You caught that, Bob. Good! That gives me the opportunity to enforce some my earllier comments, and add some new ones.
That 1901 statement is also of particular interest to me, because that happens to be the time a reformation of our Church was approaching. When EGW was in Australia she worked there together with her own former secretary, A G Daniells. First leading the work in New Zealand, later in Australia, and finally in charge of all of most of the Australasian Division (no, that name was not coined yet). EGW was greatly impressed with this man, even if some of you might not, when I tell you this story about him:
My wife and I had a dear friend, who, together with her husband spent many years as missionaries to Madagascar. Most honest and sincere people. One day she told us that just before they left for the mission field, AGDaniells visited Denmark and had an appointment giving the young couple some good advise to follow on their way to the Mission Field.
- Be sure to wear wedding rings where you are going. THIS MAKES HEARSAY A LIE.This was the advice Ellen White gave us in Australia, and I have known it is good to follow her words.THATS NOT THE WAY THE STORY GOES! READ IT FOR YOURSELF. Take the rings off when you go to America because our Brethren over there don't like them, and Ellen White supported them in stating they are not needed over there.
Ellen White supported A G Daniells, and he supported her. He was elected president of the GC in 1901, and remained in that position longer than any other president before or after. It is evident that by her statement in 1909 Ellen White still supported the leadership of A G Daniells, in spite of what she had said in 1901.
Now the big question is if the 1909 is a fully valid statement until the final day of our history?
I have earlier mentioned my reaction to the happenings at the 1995 GC session. Led my just add to that another one of my observations. I never noticed before how easy it is for the chairman to manipulate a vote. If he is for the resolution he will present it with great enthusiasm as if expecting every vote cast to be in favor. Wile all of the vote cards are held up high and counted he prepares the onslaught with an exclamation as if only the idiots strolling by would cast a vote against it. He might be right, and yet is that democracy? It that how to force the Holy Spirit to be on your side?
What I discovered at the 2005 CG session was even worse. I got this documented by a reporter. You realize that most of the matters voted on first go through a committee. It so happened in a nomination committee that a man came in and told the members that if they would bring a certain name to the floor - this was the leader of an important section within our Church - then someone would donate a certain huge amount of dollars to that particular cause. That donation would not follow any other candidate.
Is that God or Mammon ruling? Does the statement of 1901 or 1909 apply now?
This, I think, is a serious question.
Purely a technical correction to a statement that Bob made:
Most of us reacing from 9T today, are reading from a book that was publiched in 1948, or perhaps from a computerdisk that was publish much later than that.
Pages 257 through 261 in 9T were taken from a speach given by EGW on May 30, 1909. So, Bob is essentially correct in his dating of what EGW said.
The minor technical correction is that the origin of that comment is from a speach given by EGW to the delegates of the General Conference, rather than some work that came off of a printing press. However, her comments were published later in a report of that General Conference.
Thank you, Gregory.
Now a days you can't go by hearsay or 3rd party talk: Here is the truth of the matter and read very carefully exactly how the story goes for the truth of the matter. It's lengthy but factual.
This was a point of some concern to the bride before the wedding. She was aware of Ellen White's counsel addressed to American ministers laboring in Australia, written from Melbourne on August 3, 1892, and published in a pamphlet. Ellen White had found a growing feeling among some of the American workers that the wives of Seventh-day Adventist ministers should, in Australia, wear the ring. She said Americans could make their position clear by stating that "the custom is not regarded as obligatory" in their country, and added: {4BIO 196.1}
I feel deeply over this leavening process which seems to be
going on among us, in the conformity to custom and fashion.
Not one penny should be spent for a circlet of gold to testify that
we are married. In countries where the custom is imperative, we
have no burden to condemn those who have their marriage ring;
let them wear it if they can do so conscientiously, but let not our
missionaries feel that the wearing of the ring will increase their
influence one jot or tittle.--Special Testimonies to Ministers
and Workers, No. 3, p. 6 (TM, pp. 180, 181). {4BIO 196.2}
In May Lacey's heart there was no problem relative to this counsel. She had no desire to wear the ring, and so she hesitated about having the wedding in Tasmania, where she knew her father would be greatly disturbed if she did not wear the ring, especially over the fact that she would be traveling on ships and trains with an American almost twice her age. Before consenting to have the marriage at her home, she talked it over with Ellen White, and then on February 13, 1895, wrote to William: {4BIO 196.3}
I have talked with your mother on the matter of a wedding
ring and showed her what you said on the subject. She says she
has no objection whatever to my wearing one. {4BIO 196.4}
To tell you the truth, I had not given that matter very much
thought, but I believed that it would be better to have one, as
without doubt, in the colonies, if I was to travel with you not
wearing the sign that I was your wife, people would be led to
imagine all sorts of things, and we should in many instances lose
our influence for good that we might otherwise have over the
minds of others. I am very glad you look at the matter in the way
you do.
197 {4BIO 196.5}
I have wondered sometimes what you thought about it. I feel
sure that, as you say, God will not be displeased with me for
wearing it. [YEARS LATER, W. C. WHITE, ON ELLEN WHITE'S REQUEST,
RESPONDED TO AN INQUIRY FROM A MINISTER'S WIFE IN EDINBURGH,
SCOTLAND, ON THE POINT:
"NOW REGARDING THE QUESTION RAISED IN YOUR LETTER. THE WEARING
OF A GOLD RING AS A MATTER OF ORNAMENT IS A USELESS PRACTICE, AND
CONTRARY TO THE BIBLE INSTRUCTION REGARDING THE SIMPLICITY OF DRESS
AND APPAREL. THE WEARING OF A RING AS A TOKEN OF LOYALTY IN THOSE
COUNTRIES AND AMONG THOSE PEOPLE WHERE SUCH A CUSTOM IS SO THOROUGHLY
ESTABLISHED THAT DEPARTURE FROM THAT CUSTOM WILL BE UNIVERSALLY
MISUNDERSTOOD IS, IN MY OPINION, QUITE ANOTHER MATTER, AND I THINK
THAT IF YOU SHOULD FOLLOW THE COUNSEL OF MEN AND WOMEN OF EXPERIENCE
WHO HAVE LABORED IN GREAT BRITAIN AND IN INDIA, THE LORD WILL NOT
COUNT IT TO YOU AS A VIOLATION REGARDING THE SIMPLICITY OF WOMEN'S
APPAREL.
"POSSIBLY YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN THE STORY OF MY WIFE'S
EXPERIENCE WITH THE WEDDING RING. WHILE SHE WAS ATTENDING BIBLE
SCHOOL IN AUSTRALIA, I BECAME WELL ACQUAINTED WITH HER, AND WHEN THE
TIME DREW NEAR FOR OUR MARRIAGE, I PROPOSED THAT IT BE IN TASMANIA
AT HER FATHER'S HOME. REGARDING THIS SHE WAS NOT ENTHUSIASTIC, AND
UPON INQUIRY, I LEARNED THAT HER FATHER HAD VERY DECIDED OPINIONS
REGARDING THE DUTY OF THE WIFE TO WEAR THE WEDDING RING, AND MY WIFE,
KNOWING THAT AMERICANS LOOKED UPON THIS MATTER DIFFERENTLY THAN THE
BRITISH PEOPLE, SUPPOSED THAT I WOULD OBJECT.
"SHE DID NOT CARE FOR IT PERSONALLY, BUT I PURCHASED A RING, AND
WE WERE MARRIED WITH IT BECAUSE HER FATHER'S FAMILY AND ALL HER
FRIENDS REGARDED IT AS ESSENTIAL. AFTER WE HAD BEEN MARRIED A FEW
MONTHS, AND HAD SETTLED DOWN IN OUR HOME WHERE WE WERE WELL KNOWN,
SHE LAID ASIDE THE RING, AND WHEN I ASKED HER WHY SHE TOOK IT OFF,
SHE SAID IT WAS IN THE WAY WHEN SHE WAS WASHING. I DON'T KNOW WHAT
BECAME OF THE RING, BUT SHE HAS NOT WORN IT SINCE. I THINK THAT IN
THIS EXPERIENCE IT WAS HER DESIRE TO FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTION OF PAUL
WHEN HE WROTE, 'WHETHER THEREFORE YE EAT, OR DRINK, OR WHATSOEVER
YE DO, DO ALL TO THE GLORY OF GOD.'
"BY THE WEARING OF THE RING DURING THAT PORTION OF OUR EXPERIENCE
WHERE ITS ABSENCE WOULD HAVE BEEN WONDERED AT, AND CAUSED UNNECESSARY
PREJUDICE, AND BY LAYING IT ASIDE AS SOON AS THAT EXPERIENCE WAS
TERMINATED, SHE HAS FELT THAT SHE WAS DOING THAT WHICH WOULD BEST
SERVE THE CAUSE OF OUR MASTER."--DF 121, WCW TO MRS. W. E. INGLE,
APRIL 14, 1913.]--DF 121. {4BIO 197.1}
Now who in the world cannot understand this in content ? They found a reason, to justify and the church did the rest. I can state one thing the Menonite, and the Amish all do not sneak around or display what they know to be truth. At least they got that right.
-
For some reason I could not separate my post from "Quote" above but the response is on bottom.
-
For reasons I won't go into right now, I believe it is inevitable that the GC will vote for the ordination of women. If/when that happens, Bob, do you intend to honour that as the will of God? Should an action of the GC be honoured as the will of God, even when one believes it is not?
-
I'm not, Bob, but NEVER would that be the will of God. If the southern Baptist did that, I would disown them in a heartbeat!
-
Alex: Generally I donot, for reasons that I have stated, get involved in a discussion of the Biblical issues in forums such as this one.
But, I will ask you a question: Do you see in either, or both, the OT and the NT females in leadership, to include spiritual leadership in a manner that is seemingly approved. IOW, I am not talking about pagan priestesses and witches.
Thanks,
I can not recall any off hand, but if you give me time to look into this I will try my best to supply an answer.
Gregory, I base my standpoint on the requirements set forth for those desiring to be ordained. The Apostle Paul does NOT hesitate to make it clear that is ONLY men who should be ordained.
It is also clear that women are to remain silent, and submit themselves to whom? Their husbands.......not the other way around.
-
Alex: Generally I donot, for reasons that I have stated, get involved in a discussion of the Biblical issues in forums such as this one.
But, I will ask you a question: Do you see in either, or both, the OT and the NT females in leadership, to include spiritual leadership in a manner that is seemingly approved. IOW, I am not talking about pagan priestesses and witches.
Thanks,
I can not recall any off hand, but if you give me time to look into this I will try my best to supply an answer.
Gregory, I base my standpoint on the requirements set forth for those desiring to be ordained. The Apostle Paul does NOT hesitate to make it clear that is ONLY men who should be ordained.
It is also clear that women are to remain silent, and submit themselves to whom? Their husbands.......not the other way around.
What if they don't have a husband?
-
That makes no difference, Paul is clearly stating women are not to be superior to men.
-
That makes no difference, Paul is clearly stating women are not to be superior to men.
Does being ordained make one a person superior to others?
-
Thank you Alex, I now understand you.
-
Some patterns are getting clear.
1) When a GC session votes in favor of a traditional trait, even if it is tainted by Roman Catholicism - that is certainly the will of God and all must adhere without asking any questions.
2) If the GC session votes in favor of a revision of the Church Manual, then you can be sure it is a mistake and one must never follow the new trait.
Is this to be our new standard to show if we are true SDA?
-
That makes no difference, Paul is clearly stating women are not to be superior to men.
Does being ordained make one a person superior to others?
No it does not, ordaining just meant that you promise to preach under your denomination the doctrines of any particular church and not branch off like David K. and the other reason is paycheck. When it came to SDA women the laying on of hands was to be special prayer for them to go out into the fields of labor other then preaching that was definitely encouraged by EGW because men could not minister unto women like a women could in other fields. She encouraged women to take up education in being a Dr. so women could treat women. women and many more fields that once an ordained preacher went into the field he could focus just that. That is where the women were encouraged to pick up from there. Dorcas, and Deaconesses and teachers and special councils to ministers wives. But it was down tredded as much as possible but so far not overruled but the church people did try and still are.
-
Snoopy: I do not know what Bible you read out of, but it is not the KJV.
In a previous reply to you, Alex, I was quoting the KJV. It is all right with me that you did not respond to that.
Also, I am going to go even a step further than Bob, on this issue.
I do not believe women should be Sunday School teachers,pastors, Deacons, Prophets or etc. They are to remain silent and allow the men to do these things.
Are you putting some pressure on Bob to make him just as "good" as you are?
Now, I have seen EGW
mentioned. I do not agree with her on about 75% of her supposed prophocies. But.....I will not speak any further on my thoughts of a woman prophet, but to say I have issues with that.
Whatever percentage, Alex, does not make that much difference. You might get some support from Bob, the way I see it. Seems to me he is fighting all he is worth to prove that Ellen White made a grave mistake by supporting that females should receive any ordination at all, and he is trying to limit the value of that ordination down to as close as he can get to nothing. 75% or 99.9% - what is the difference?
As for me I have chosen to follow the Lord and be obedient to what He tells me through the reading of His Word and Message to me. If you can show me that I am wrong, I challenge you all, Alex, tinka, Bob, Gailon, or whoever, to make it evident. One thing is for sure, Jesus is coming soon.
-
1) Well, the book isn't an official statement. Why does an editor state:
The North American Division Women's Commission had a great desire that the research and experiences of these pages be made available to the church family. Allow the authors' messages to be understood.
Written by: Elizabeth Sterndale is a field secretary and director of Womens' Ministries of the North American Division of Seventh-day Adventists, Silver Spring, Maryland.
This is the North American Division of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists with a similar address as the GC. Why would they want this contents to be known to members of the church? Could it be more legal reasons the authors are held responsible for the wording? This is an opinion and not a legal document? A book is too long a document to be voted on?
Each division could have its own commission, and each commission could come up with different conclusions. Recall that the voted 1990 statement says that no consensus had been reached as to whether the practice was biblical or not, which means that some felt it was and some felt it wasn't.
That being so, there is no way to turn statements in that book into official, approved statements from an NAD commission, and then into a publication issued by the GC. Sure, the commission might want the stuff out there, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it approved every concept within the book. But even if one could find language in the book that shows that it was approved in its entirety, that wouldn't make it a publication issued by the GC, since clearly there was no consensus among the divisions in 1990, 1995, and 2010.
-
EGW was greatly impressed with this man, even if some of you might not, when I tell you this story about him:
I am not impressed by the falsehoods he stated, probably unintentionally, at the 1919 Bible Conference. That doesn't mean God didn't use him at other times.
- Be sure to wear wedding rings where you are going. This was the advice Ellen White gave us in Australia, and I have known it is good to follow her words.
Based on Tinka's quote, I would say that either Daniells never said this, or else Daniells was seriously mistaken at other times than just during the 1919 Bible Conference.
It is evident that by her statement in 1909 Ellen White still supported the leadership of A G Daniells, in spite of what she had said in 1901.
But, and I may have missed something, the 1909 statement does not address the authority of the GC president. It addresses the authority of the GC Session, and perhaps the full GC committee as it is composed today, not that of a single individual. Am I correct?
What I discovered at the 2005 CG session was even worse. I got this documented by a reporter. You realize that most of the matters voted on first go through a committee. It so happened in a nomination committee that a man came in and told the members that if they would bring a certain name to the floor - this was the leader of an important section within our Church - then someone would donate a certain huge amount of dollars to that particular cause. That donation would not follow any other candidate.
Did that really occur? Or was that just something an AToday reporter said?
-
I do not believe women should be Sunday School teachers,pastors, Deacons, Prophets or etc. They are to remain silent and allow the men to do these things.
In the NT you have Anna in the temple, and later Philip's four daughters who were prophets. Paul stopped at Philip's house in Acts on his last trip to Jerusalem, and that's where it says that Philip had four daughters who prophesied.
Acts 21:9 And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy.
-
For reasons I won't go into right now, I believe it is inevitable that the GC will vote for the ordination of women. If/when that happens, Bob, do you intend to honour that as the will of God? Should an action of the GC be honoured as the will of God, even when one believes it is not?
I will speak about general principles. The NAD Working Policy says that the GC Session is the highest authority under God. I take that to mean that the GC Session is not above the Bible. And it really can't be, for that was a mistake that Catholicism made, putting church councils above the Bible.
If a GC Session voted to now keep Sunday instead of the Sabbath, I would not honor that as the will of God.
-
"Wrong is Wrong even if everyone [including the best among us] is doing it. Right is Right even if" - I have to fight this battle alone. :oops: :dogwag:
-
Each division could have its own commission, and each commission could come up with different conclusions. Recall that the voted 1990 statement says that no consensus had been reached as to whether the practice was biblical or not, which means that some felt it was and some felt it wasn't.
That being so, there is no way to turn statements in that book into official, approved statements from an NAD commission, and then into a publication issued by the GC. Sure, the commission might want the stuff out there, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it approved every concept within the book. But even if one could find language in the book that shows that it was approved in its entirety, that wouldn't make it a publication issued by the GC, since clearly there was no consensus among the divisions in 1990, 1995, and 2010.
I'll give you credit, Bob, for being so almost right in many of your points, and that gives me the picture of you during a walk through the woods where you eye a dying baby raccoon. I see you fondling that poor sick raccoon baby in your arms as if your own life depends on its survival. Happy hunting!
Don't forget: "He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus." This is what counts!
-
EGW was greatly impressed with this man, even if some of you might not, when I tell you this story about him:
I am not impressed by the falsehoods he stated, probably unintentionally, at the 1919 Bible Conference. That doesn't mean God didn't use him at other times.
Referring to your last question here below I'm tempted to ask you: Did that really occur? Was this just a false report by one of his enemies? How can you be sure, even if one of your trusted friends have assured you it is true?
- Be sure to wear wedding rings where you are going. This was the advice Ellen White gave us in Australia, and I have known it is good to follow her words.
Based on Tinka's quote, I would say that either Daniells never said this, or else Daniells was seriously mistaken at other times than just during the 1919 Bible Conference.
How can I trust either one of you since you did not even bother to read the whole quotation in the EGW Biography? To me it seems like you only read what pleases you - or what helps keep you dying raccoon alive! It is evident that by her statement in 1909 Ellen White still supported the leadership of A G Daniells, in spite of what she had said in 1901.
But, and I may have missed something, the 1909 statement does not address the authority of the GC president. It addresses the authority of the GC Session, and perhaps the full GC committee as it is composed today, not that of a single individual. Am I correct?
Keeping that raccoon alive? You are correct that the 1909 statement does not address the president alone, but I feel your statement is a cheap way of getting around the point it would be a poor president if he does not have the support of his full GC committee behind him. So by her statement was EGW not supporting the people who still wanted A G Daniells to be their leader? If someone supports the present board of 3ABN would it not be because they also are supportive of the founder? What I discovered at the 2005 CG session was even worse. I got this documented by a reporter. You realize that most of the matters voted on first go through a committee. It so happened in a nomination committee that a man came in and told the members that if they would bring a certain name to the floor - this was the leader of an important section within our Church - then someone would donate a certain huge amount of dollars to that particular cause. That donation would not follow any other candidate.
Did that really occur? Or was that just something an AToday reporter said?
See above! My source gave me sufficient details in support of the account that it made me shudder. You could have used some of the same details in your recent defense case. Perhaps you did?
-
How in the world will the justifyers change this writing to get around New Age Progression of the majority?? This was EGW baptism that she writes of her belief, thought and feelings. SHE NEVER CHANGED FROM THIS ONE IOTA UNTIL SHE DIED AT 86. But look what all has been said and posted to justify against this:::
"Finally the day was appointed for us to receive this solemn ordinance. Although usually enjoying, at this time, great peace, I frequently feared that I was not a true Christian, and was harassed by perplexing doubts as to my conversion. It was a windy day when we, twelve in number, were baptized, walking down into the sea. The waves ran high and dashed upon the shore, but in taking up this heavy cross, my peace was like a river. When I arose from the water, my strength was nearly gone for the power of the Lord rested upon me. I felt that henceforth I was not of this world, but had risen from the watery grave into a newness of life. {LS80 145.3}
"My cousin Hannah made confession of her faith
146
at the same time that I did. She wished to be baptized by immersion, but her father, who was not a Christian, would not consent to this although we urged him to do so. So she knelt before the altar and had a few drops of water sprinkled upon her head. As I witnessed the ceremony, my heart rejoiced that I had not submitted to receive sprinkling for baptism, feeling confident that there was no Scripture to sustain it. {LS80 145.4}
"The same day in the afternoon, I was received into the church in full membership. A young woman, arrived at the age of maturity, stood by my side and was also a candidate for admission to the church with myself. My mind was peaceful and happy till I noticed the gold rings glittering upon this sister's fingers, and the large showy ear-rings in her ears. I then observed that her bonnet was adorned with artificial flowers and trimmed with costly ribbons, arranged in bows and puffs. My joy was dampened by this display of vanity in one who professed to be a follower of the meek and lowly Jesus. {LS80 146.1}
"I expected that the minister would give some whispered reproof or advice to this sister, but he was apparently regardless of her showy apparel and no rebuke was administered. We both received the right hand of fellowship. The hand decorated with jewels was clasped by the representative of Christ, and both our names were registered upon the Church
Same thing with the women's movement to be ordained and certain ones back then pushing for "liberal movement" . Ellen White never changed her views even tho other found justifications. There should be no argument with it. I could fill the posts up night and day of all writings but it still would do no good to those who want the "movement to agressive" I thought all was a ware of the actual movement against EGW.
And Alex I can understand why would not agree with EGW as you never probably really looked what the 3rd angels message was even to begin with. And Believe it or not Miller was the Baptist that started it. and EGW was given the vision when two other men refused to give a message of truth and understanding. Read up on Miller you might find it to be very interesting. It's pure history. Then follow the scripture and timeline to where we are now as Miller came to change his belief.
-
Yes, Miller was a Baptist, even though for a while he became a Diest. When he returned from the war where death was close to him, he returned to his Baptist faith.
Miller records the experience: "Suddenly the character of a Savior was vividly impressed upon my mind. It seemed that there might be a Being so good and compassionate as to Himself atone for our transgressions, and thereby save us from suffering the penalty of sin. I immediately felt how lovely such a Being must be; and imagined that I could cast myself into the arms of, and trust in the mercy of, such an One."
May we all have that experience - because Jesus in coming soon!
-
tINKA sAID:
. . .two other men refused to give a message of truth and understanding. Read up on Miller you might find it to be very interesting.
Tinka, you are one-half correct.
Hazen Foss refused to give the messages that he had recieved. Page 66
William Foy recieved his first vision on January 18, 1842. He had his second vision on Febuary 4, 1842. Following that second vision he spent three (3) months in public ministry present the message that he had recieved. He then quit for three months so he could earn a living for his family. Then he returned to public ministry and prsenting the messages of the visions again. He recieved his third vision near the 1844 time. He did not understand it in view of his beliefe that Christ was comming soon. In his perplexilty he asked God to relieve him of the burden of presenting the messages of the visions. NOTE: HE did not refuse. That was done and he began life as a Baptist minister. See pages 488 - 490
NOTE: The above is largely taken from: A.L. White, THE EARLY YEARS, vOL. 1, 1827-1862. However, some of what I said above was taken from a book on the life of William Foy.
The book on the life of William Foy is: THE UNKNOWN PROPHET, written by Delbert Baker, a name well-known in Adventism. It is 160 pags in length. You may access a review of that book at the following URL:
http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2011/03/03/unknown-prophet
-
Didn't William Foy not take it because he feared him being mulatto and he backed off for that reason as EW clearly states, He should have realized that God does the choosing as I believe the vision was taken from him. Finally he gave vision to Ellen White. I especially realized how when Holy Spirit went to Foy that should have let Christian people know that there should be no thought of race difference. And when one makes a difference it is definitely a sin. I was brought up to understand that and was very secure knowing all should be well with all races.
Well lets just say technically your right but there was reasons that the men did not take to the task and even tho she did not at first want the task she definitely made the The Holy Spirit regard her requests first before she would. I thought that was amazing. So I know how cautious she was (and humble) to do one thing that took on self vanity or self accomplishments pertaining to anything even what the church tried to instate her with or name her, or credentials they want to bestow on their own to her because she was that connected to Jesus and His message to last day people and not man's bestowing "vanity to her in anyway and the Angel and Jesus took her request that if she did this she would not be lost to "vanity" and lose eternity . That is the most important thing she requested and all the rest comes after that from man and his want of progression and change. What is good then is still good now as her thought from visions flowed.
That pact and extreme humble intelligence of EW made Holy Spirit protect her while the people moved on. She never changed or excepted credit that produced "vanity". Her "credentials came from Jesus" nothing else was accepted but she made no waves. So therefore I'm sure what ever man gave or church did above her council, they did on their own and-- sure documents or what ever laid in the dust somewhere. I don't believe she ever faltered except grew weak at time of complete grief and the loss of her husband or extreme illness or pain.
That was interesting reading for me and helped me go back and read again to try to overcome my grief. What I would like to see from the opposite arguments one single place of direct comment of "ordained women" to preach in the pulpit and not the statement where she is referring to "women's service or labors". I really don't worry about it cause it just is not there. and if the church goes in and does their thing again I will not agree with their direct changing of Biblical clear instruction, If you look closely to what I previously posted she also states the exact meaning of what Paul said and meant -- and straight away she definitely made point of. Did everyone get that??
I have only read the EGWs writing on Foy and ususally don't pay attention to others opinions or thoughts or books as many 3rd parties are just hearsay or false stories that have been told on here about other comments but have kept that policy all my years of reading.
-
Tinka, you are a student of history. Read the book that I cited. It is the best that there is on the life of William Foy.
Yes, there were racial concerns involved. However, the primary issue was that Foy did not understand the 3rd vision. It ran counter to what he believed. Foy felt that he could not preach something that appeared to him to be against the Bible. Yet, he could not find it in his heart to reject the visions. Faced with that problem he went to the Lord and asked God to take the responsibility away from him. God did.
His request was not a rejection. He had proclaimed the visions for 3 months at a time, twice. He had done what God had asked him to do.
It is easy for those of us who live 165 years later to point out the humaness in William Foy. It may be easy for us to point to a weakness and say that he should have relied upon God to strengthen him and bring him to understanding. But, I would ask everyone here: Would you have done as much as Foy did? Would you have stopped earning your living to go and preach a strange message for three months and do it twice. I cannot say that I would have had that level of faith.
Foy was not Foss, and I will suggest that we should recognize that.
-
Tinka, here is what Tim Poirier once wrote about Foy:
In Spectrum’s August 1987 issue Tim Poirier’s “Black Forerunner to Ellen White: William E. Foy” summarized Baker’s research and included an interview with him on the subject. Poirier wrote with the authority of the Ellen G. White Estate, then serving as its assistant secretary: “Recent research demands a revision of the traditional Adventist view of William Foy. In the past Foy has been linked to Hazen Foss as one whom the Lord called to be a prophet but who refused the gift but refused the gift, giving God no alternative but to turn to “the weakest of the weak,” Ellen Harmon. But Foy’s career is badly distorted by the link to Foss. Unlike Foss, who refused to relate his visions, Foy, in sermons and tracts, shared what he had seen.” Baker successfully cast Foy as a “John-the-Baptist figure who was given a limited assignment that he faithfully completed.”
Read the last sendtence:
NOTE: The above is a paragraph from the article that I cited.
-
For reasons I won't go into right now, I believe it is inevitable that the GC will vote for the ordination of women. If/when that happens, Bob, do you intend to honour that as the will of God? Should an action of the GC be honoured as the will of God, even when one believes it is not?
I will speak about general principles. The NAD Working Policy says that the GC Session is the highest authority under God. I take that to mean that the GC Session is not above the Bible. And it really can't be, for that was a mistake that Catholicism made, putting church councils above the Bible.
If a GC Session voted to now keep Sunday instead of the Sabbath, I would not honor that as the will of God.
The following quote from EGW is taken from the Church Manual page 31.
“I have often been instructed by the Lord that no man’s judgment should be surrendered to the judgment of any other one man. Never should the mind of one man or the minds of a few men be regarded as sufficient in wisdom and power to control the work and to say what plans shall be followed. But when, in a General Conference, the judgment of the brethren assembled from all parts of the field is exercised, private independence and private judgment must not be stubbornly maintained, but surrendered. Never should a laborer regard as a virtue the persistent maintenance of his position of independence, contrary to the decision of the general body.”
9T 260.
-
Snoopy, I have been reading as I haven't been here for a few days and looking for a "like" button!!! thumbs up, Girl!!! :thumbsup: ann, Excellent posting...that goes for Pastor Johann, Gergory, Murielago. Kind of glad I wasn't here though, some of these posts are positively dangerous to my continued Christianity......LOL!!!
Maybe Miss Piggy has the answer...
-
So Alex, I know you don't mean to take the word of Paul over the Word of God. What is your position on all the women prophetess' appointed by God(because that who appointed prophets)? Are you saying that God made a mistake when He appointed Deborah to be in political and spiritual authority over men...she was judge and prophetess. AND the only drama in that story came from the men!!! Don't you think there has to be more to what Paul was saying rather than contradicting the very actions of God?
I have not posted on this thread in the last few day's because I think it has been a great debate! Both sides are bringinging out excellent points.
I have taken the position along with Bob, Gailon, and others that women should not be ordained.
I believe that some women would make better leaders then men. I agree!
But...the bottom line is its not biblical. Women are not to be in authority over men. The Apostle Paul is clear on this.
Just because some women may make better leaders does that mean we should abandon biblical principle?
-
So Alex, I know you don't mean to take the word of Paul over the Word of God. What is your position on all the women prophetess' appointed by God(because that who appointed prophets)? Are you saying that God made a mistake when He appointed Deborah to be in political and spiritual authority over men...she was judge and prophetess. AND the only drama in that story came from the men!!! Don't you think there has to be more to what Paul was saying rather than contradicting the very actions of God?
I have not posted on this thread in the last few day's because I think it has been a great debate! Both sides are bringinging out excellent points.
I have taken the position along with Bob, Gailon, and others that women should not be ordained.
I believe that some women would make better leaders then men. I agree!
But...the bottom line is its not biblical. Women are not to be in authority over men. The Apostle Paul is clear on this.
Just because some women may make better leaders does that mean we should abandon biblical principle?
Nope, Paul made his position clear time and time again.
I cannot believe many here except myself, Gailon, Bob, and Tinka are the ones who are biblically correct on our position.
-
I respect and appreciate people whose world is black and white. Simplicity is a virtue that removes the complications of life. When math consists of 1, 2, 3, but has no integers, addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division are simple. When there is 1 choice instead of 10, decisions are easy. I know a young man who can only eat lunch at precisely 12:30pm, and he will not put a bite in his mouth if the clock says 12:29. That removes many decisions and choices from his life, but it is rather amusing when he crosses a time zone. The validity of time zones is called into question, in his agony, and that calls into question the validity of his own time zone as Greenwich Mean predates his. Then comes the nightmare of daylight saving... To harbour with folk who break their fast at 6:00am instead of 7, Raises feelings of fun and fear. But can he break from the mold?
-
So you're suggesting we should ignore Bible principle and the requirements set forth by the Apostle Paul in the book of Timothy to fit the mode?
Lol. Then why not just change everything to fit our desires and wants? Women want to be ordained? Too bad. No woman is called by God to be a "pastor", or to be "ordained".
-
Confusion?
Let me make it clear that during my half century of ministry for the Lord I have never baptized a person wearing an ornamental ring. I have never in these discussions rejected the counsel of EGW on wearing ornaments or ornamental rings.
If only we'd read all of what is stated in the quoted material we would not have these heated discussions. Some of us read only the portions which seemingly support our preconceived views. Please read again this part of what tinka has already posted:
[YEARS LATER, W. C. WHITE, ON ELLEN WHITE'S REQUEST,
RESPONDED TO AN INQUIRY FROM A MINISTER'S WIFE IN EDINBURGH,
SCOTLAND, ON THE POINT:
"NOW REGARDING THE QUESTION RAISED IN YOUR LETTER. THE WEARING
OF A GOLD RING AS A MATTER OF ORNAMENT IS A USELESS PRACTICE, AND
CONTRARY TO THE BIBLE INSTRUCTION REGARDING THE SIMPLICITY OF DRESS
AND APPAREL. THE WEARING OF A RING AS A TOKEN OF LOYALTY IN THOSE
COUNTRIES AND AMONG THOSE PEOPLE WHERE SUCH A CUSTOM IS SO THOROUGHLY
ESTABLISHED THAT DEPARTURE FROM THAT CUSTOM WILL BE UNIVERSALLY
MISUNDERSTOOD IS, IN MY OPINION, QUITE ANOTHER MATTER, AND I THINK
THAT IF YOU SHOULD FOLLOW THE COUNSEL OF MEN AND WOMEN OF EXPERIENCE
WHO HAVE LABORED IN GREAT BRITAIN AND IN INDIA, THE LORD WILL NOT
COUNT IT TO YOU AS A VIOLATION REGARDING THE SIMPLICITY OF WOMEN'S
APPAREL.
"POSSIBLY YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN THE STORY OF MY WIFE'S
EXPERIENCE WITH THE WEDDING RING. WHILE SHE WAS ATTENDING BIBLE
SCHOOL IN AUSTRALIA, I BECAME WELL ACQUAINTED WITH HER, AND WHEN THE
TIME DREW NEAR FOR OUR MARRIAGE, I PROPOSED THAT IT BE IN TASMANIA
AT HER FATHER'S HOME. REGARDING THIS SHE WAS NOT ENTHUSIASTIC, AND
UPON INQUIRY, I LEARNED THAT HER FATHER HAD VERY DECIDED OPINIONS
REGARDING THE DUTY OF THE WIFE TO WEAR THE WEDDING RING, AND MY WIFE,
KNOWING THAT AMERICANS LOOKED UPON THIS MATTER DIFFERENTLY THAN THE
BRITISH PEOPLE, SUPPOSED THAT I WOULD OBJECT.
"SHE DID NOT CARE FOR IT PERSONALLY, BUT I PURCHASED A RING, AND
WE WERE MARRIED WITH IT BECAUSE HER FATHER'S FAMILY AND ALL HER
FRIENDS REGARDED IT AS ESSENTIAL. AFTER WE HAD BEEN MARRIED A FEW
MONTHS, AND HAD SETTLED DOWN IN OUR HOME WHERE WE WERE WELL KNOWN,
SHE LAID ASIDE THE RING, AND WHEN I ASKED HER WHY SHE TOOK IT OFF,
SHE SAID IT WAS IN THE WAY WHEN SHE WAS WASHING. I DON'T KNOW WHAT
BECAME OF THE RING, BUT SHE HAS NOT WORN IT SINCE. I THINK THAT IN
THIS EXPERIENCE IT WAS HER DESIRE TO FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTION OF PAUL
WHEN HE WROTE, 'WHETHER THEREFORE YE EAT, OR DRINK, OR WHATSOEVER
YE DO, DO ALL TO THE GLORY OF GOD.'
"BY THE WEARING OF THE RING DURING THAT PORTION OF OUR EXPERIENCE
WHERE ITS ABSENCE WOULD HAVE BEEN WONDERED AT, AND CAUSED UNNECESSARY
PREJUDICE, AND BY LAYING IT ASIDE AS SOON AS THAT EXPERIENCE WAS
TERMINATED, SHE HAS FELT THAT SHE WAS DOING THAT WHICH WOULD BEST
SERVE THE CAUSE OF OUR MASTER."--DF 121, WCW TO MRS. W. E. INGLE,
APRIL 14, 1913.]--DF 121. {4BIO 197.1}
Notice the clear distinction made between ornamental and wedding rings in this letter EGW asked her son to write. He makes it clear that there are different customs in America and in other countries, and that the Brethren in these other countries should be consulted on what is appropriate there.
A few months after we came from America to work in Denmark in 1958 our conference president gave us "orders" to purchase and wear wedding rings. We did not have any, so we had to order them 4 years after we were married and we had the date of our wedding in Berrien Springs back in 1954 engraved in the new rings.
I had noticed how certain young ladies had been staring at my fingers, and since there was no ring there had seemingly come to the conclusion I was not married, because this is the age old custom in Europe. If a married person takes off the ring that is a clear signal to some that the person does not feel an obligation to be faithful to the marriage vows and is prepared to have some "fun".
There is nowhere a statement by Ellen White where she cancels the instructions she gave to areas outside America. Let Ellen White speak for herself without you messing things up by telling her she must adhere to your private interpretation. As late as 1913 she tells her son to clarify the confusion and let people know where she stands. Has God given you a vision about canceling her instructions?
Again: This does not apply to her instructions about ornaments - in case you are still confused!
-
What is a ring if it is not an ornament? I am sure your answer will be a "symbol" a symbol you put on your finger for who? , you ? your wife? or to prove you made promises to God on your marriage ?or, why do you have to convince other people as they come up with their challenges of evil surmising. The marriage is between man and woman and promises to God and to ask his blessing while man and women take on their "vanity ornament??? EGW highly advised.. don't do it in good conscience to cause a stumbling block to someone else it wasn't worth the loss of eternity. Thank you for your posting and your courtesy but I do know that the Holy Spirit did not give confusion for EGW to bongle up. You see "vanity" is a crucial thing to overcome and it will not enter in. So who do you Please, God or man's surmising???
Actually, this is no different then the Catholics superseding what God has said with no confusion other then man's.
So in your post above, why did they quite wearing it?? did you miss that point, it was for a better conscience of what was right as they bowed to please man's surmising at first...
-
I respect and appreciate people whose world is black and white. Simplicity is a virtue that removes the complications of life. When math consists of 1, 2, 3, but has no integers, addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division are simple. When there is 1 choice instead of 10, decisions are easy. I know a young man who can only eat lunch at precisely 12:30pm, and he will not put a bite in his mouth if the clock says 12:29. That removes many decisions and choices from his life, but it is rather amusing when he crosses a time zone. The validity of time zones is called into question, in his agony, and that calls into question the validity of his own time zone as Greenwich Mean predates his. Then comes the nightmare of daylight saving... To harbour with folk who break their fast at 6:00am instead of 7, Raises feelings of fun and fear. But can he break from the mold?
Very very true Murcielago, that life has many complications, but the rules of God are not and simple to understand. Did God give us complications, No
Did the devil?? yes. and that is black and white!
-
[/quote]
The following quote from EGW is taken from the Church Manual page 31.
“I have often been instructed by the Lord that no man’s judgment should be surrendered to the judgment of any other one man. Never should the mind of one man or the minds of a few men be regarded as sufficient in wisdom and power to control the work and to say what plans shall be followed. But when, in a General Conference, the judgment of the brethren assembled from all parts of the field is exercised, private independence and private judgment must not be stubbornly maintained, but surrendered. Never should a laborer regard as a virtue the persistent maintenance of his position of independence, contrary to the decision of the general body.”
9T 260.
[/quote]
That does not mean what you want it to mean by far..
-
Tinka, you are a student of history. Read the book that I cited. It is the best that there is on the life of William Foy.
Yes, there were racial concerns involved. However, the primary issue was that Foy did not understand the 3rd vision. It ran counter to what he believed. Foy felt that he could not preach something that appeared to him to be against the Bible. Yet, he could not find it in his heart to reject the visions. Faced with that problem he went to the Lord and asked God to take the responsibility away from him. God did.
His request was not a rejection. He had proclaimed the visions for 3 months at a time, twice. He had done what God had asked him to do.
It is easy for those of us who live 165 years later to point out the humaness in William Foy. It may be easy for us to point to a weakness and say that he should have relied upon God to strengthen him and bring him to understanding. But, I would ask everyone here: Would you have done as much as Foy did? Would you have stopped earning your living to go and preach a strange message for three months and do it twice. I cannot say that I would have had that level of faith.
Foy was not Foss, and I will suggest that we should recognize that.
Thank you Gregory here is a little of what I reread. Just had thought on why when God knows ending from beginning why he gave Foy the vision other then a "test:??
THE EXPERIENCE OF
WILLIAM ELLIS FOY
IN THE HEIGHT OF THE ADVENT AWAKENING WILLIAM FOY, A LIGHT-SKINNED MULATTO RESIDING IN NEW ENGLAND, WAS GIVEN TWO OR THREE VISIONS RELATING TO THE SECOND ADVENT OF CHRIST. SOMETIME BEFORE THE DISAPPOINTMENT OF OCTOBER 22, 1844, ELLEN HARMON HEARD HIM SPEAK IN BEETHOVEN HALL IN PORTLAND, MAINE. SOMETIME AFTER THE 1844 DISAPPOINTMENT, UNBEKNOWN TO ELLEN HARMON AT FIRST, HE WAS PRESENT IN A MEETING HELD IN THE COUNTRYSIDE EAST OF PORTLAND, TOWARD CAPE ELIZABETH, AT WHICH SHE SPOKE, TELLING OF HER FIRST VISION. WHILE SHE WAS SPEAKING, FOY STOOD TO HIS FEET AND PRAISED THE LORD, DECLARING THAT IT WAS JUST WHAT HE HAD SEEN. AFTER THE MEETING HE WANTED TO TALK WITH HER, AND THEY HAD A LITTLE VISIT. {1BIO 488.1}
IN 1835, FOY AS A YOUNG MAN, GAVE HIS HEART TO CHRIST AND BECAME A MEMBER OF THE FREEWILL BAPTIST CHURCH. SEVEN YEARS LATER, IN 1842, WHILE HE WAS PREPARING TO TAKE HOLY ORDERS AS AN EPISCOPAL MINISTER, TWO VISIONS WERE GIVEN HIM. ALTHOUGH DEEPLY RELIGIOUS, HE WAS BY HIS OWN TESTIMONY, "OPPOSED TO THE DOCTRINE OF JESUS' NEAR APPROACH." {1BIO 488.2}
THE VISIONS RELATING TO THE NEAR ADVENT OF CHRIST AND TO LAST-DAY EVENTS CREATED IN HIM A VERY DEFINITE INTEREST IN THE ADVENT MOVEMENT, AND HE JOINED OTHERS IN HERALDING THE MESSAGE OF THE EXPECTATION OF CHRIST'S SOON RETURN. {1BIO 488.3}
THE TWO INITIAL VISIONS OF WILLIAM FOY, TOGETHER WITH A BRIEF SKETCH OF HIS CHRISTIAN EXPERIENCE, WERE PUBLISHED IN 1845 IN A PAMPHLET IN PORTLAND, MAINE. THE FIRST VISION WAS GIVEN TO HIM ON JANUARY 18, 1842, WHILE HE WAS ATTENDING SERVICE IN A BOSTON CHURCH ON SOUTHARK STREET. EYEWITNESSES TO THE EXPERIENCE TESTIFY THAT HE
489
WAS IN VISION TWO AND A HALF HOURS. A PHYSICIAN WHO EXAMINED HIM TESTIFIED THAT HE COULD FIND NO APPEARANCE OF LIFE "EXCEPT AROUND THE HEART." IN HIS AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL ACCOUNT FOY DECLARES, "MY BREATH LEFT ME." {1BIO 488.4}
IN THE FIRST REVELATION FOY VIEWED THE GLORIOUS REWARD OF THE FAITHFUL AND THE PUNISHMENT OF SINNERS. HE FELT THE DUTY TO DECLARE WHAT HE HAD SEEN TO OTHERS, BUT NOT BEING INSTRUCTED TO RELATE THE VISION, HE DISCLOSED IT TO NO ONE. BUT HE HAD NO PEACE OF MIND. IN A SECOND REVELATION GIVEN TO HIM, ON FEBRUARY 4, 1842, HE VIEWED MULTITUDES OF EARTH, THOSE WHO HAD NOT DIED AND THOSE WHO HAD BEEN RAISED FROM THE DEAD, BEING ASSEMBLED TO RECEIVE THEIR REWARD. IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REVELATION HE WAS INSTRUCTED, "THOU MUST REVEAL THOSE THINGS WHICH THOU HAST SEEN, AND ALSO WARN THY FELLOW CREATURES TO FLEE FROM THE WRATH TO COME." {1BIO 489.1}
FOY'S UNWILLINGNESS TO RELATE TO OTHERS WHAT HAD BEEN SHOWN TO HIM STEMMED FROM BOTH THE PREJUDICE AGAINST ANY WHO CLAIMED TO HAVE DIVINE REVELATIONS AND THE PREJUDICE AGAINST THOSE OF HIS COLOR. HE QUESTIONED IN HIS MIND, "WHY SHOULD THESE THINGS BE GIVEN TO ME TO BEAR TO THE WORLD?" {1BIO 489.2}
A FEW DAYS LATER THE PASTOR OF THE BLOOMFIELD STREET CHURCH IN BOSTON CALLED UPON FOY TO RELATE THE VISIONS IN HIS HOUSE OF WORSHIP. RELUCTANTLY HE CONSENTED, AND THE NEXT EVENING HE FOUND A LARGE CONGREGATION ASSEMBLED AWAITING HIS MESSAGE. AS HE BEGAN TO SPEAK, HIS FEAR LEFT HIM, AND HE RELATED WITH GREAT FREEDOM THE THINGS THAT WERE SHOWN TO HIM, TO A CONGREGATION THAT GAVE RAPT ATTENTION. {1BIO 489.3}
WITH THIS AS A BEGINNING HE TRAVELED FOR THREE MONTHS, DELIVERING HIS MESSAGES TO CROWDED HOUSES OF ALL DENOMINATIONS. HE HAD A GOOD COMMAND OF LANGUAGE. AS HE DESCRIBED THE HEAVENLY WORLD, THE NEW JERUSALEM, AND THE COMPASSIONATE LOVE OF CHRIST, AND EXHORTED THE UNCONVERTED TO SEEK GOD, MANY RESPONDED TO HIS ENTREATIES. AS HIS FAMILY NEEDED SUPPORT, AFTER THREE MONTHS IN THE FIELD, FOY RETIRED FROM PUBLIC WORK TO LABOR WITH HIS HANDS. HE ENGAGED IN SUCH WORK FOR THREE MONTHS, AND THEN, FEELING IMPELLED TO STAND BEFORE THE PEOPLE, HE AGAIN TOOK UP HIS PUBLIC MINISTRY, EXPECTING SOON TO SEE HIS SAVIOUR WHEN HE SHOULD COME. WHEN SPEAKING, HE WORE THE CLERICAL ROBES OF THE EPISCOPAL CLERGY. {1BIO 489.4}
ACCORDING TO J. N. LOUGHBOROUGH, NEAR THE TIME OF THE EXPECTATION IN 1844 FOY WAS GIVEN A THIRD VISION IN WHICH WERE
490
PRESENTED THREE PLATFORMS THAT HE COULD NOT UNDERSTAND IN THE LIGHT OF HIS BELIEF IN THE IMMINENT COMING OF CHRIST. ACCORDING TO LOUGHBOROUGH, IN PERPLEXITY FOY CEASED PUBLIC WORK. IT IS KNOWN THAT IN THE 1850S AND THROUGH MID-LIFE HE FILLED POSITIONS AS A FREEWILL BAPTIST MINISTER IN MASSACHUSETTS AND MAINE, AND THEN TURNED TO FARMING IN SULLIVAN COUNTY IN MAINE. WHILE BUT LITTLE IS KNOWN OF HIS LATER EXPERIENCE, HIS TOMBSTONE BEARS THE RECORD THAT HE DIED IN 1893. {1BIO 489.5}
THERE IS NO OCCASION TO QUESTION THE GENUINENESS OF WILLIAM FOY'S EXPERIENCE. LOUGHBOROUGH FELT THAT THE VISIONS BORE CLEAR EVIDENCES OF BEING THE GENUINE MANIFESTATIONS OF THE SPIRIT OF GOD. MORE SIGNIFICANT, PERHAPS, IS THE FACT THAT ELLEN WHITE, WHO AS NOTED ABOVE HAD SOME ACQUAINTANCE WITH HIM, IN AN INTERVIEW IN 1912 TREATED HIS EXPERIENCE AS GENUINE.--AUTHOR.
SOURCES
DF 231. "THE CHRISTIAN EXPERIENCE OF WILLIAM E. FOY, TOGETHER WITH THE TWO
VISIONS HE RECEIVED IN THE MONTHS OF JANUARY AND FEBRUARY, 1842."
PORTLAND: J. AND C. H. PEARSON, 1845. ELLEN G. WHITE MANUSCRIPT 131, 1906. LOUGHBOROUGH, J. N. THE GREAT SECOND ADVENT MOVEMENT. WASHINGTON,
D.C.: REVIEW AND HERALD, 1909. PAGES 145-147. {1BIO 490.1}
-
What is a ring if it is not an ornament? I am sure your answer will be a "symbol" a symbol you put on your finger for who? , you ? your wife? or to prove you made promises to God on your marriage ?or, why do you have to convince other people as they come up with their challenges of evil surmising. The marriage is between man and woman and promises to God and to ask his blessing while man and women take on their "vanity ornament??? EGW highly advised.. don't do it in good conscience to cause a stumbling block to someone else it wasn't worth the loss of eternity. Thank you for your posting and your courtesy but I do know that the Holy Spirit did not give confusion for EGW to bongle up. You see "vanity" is a crucial thing to overcome and it will not enter in. So who do you Please, God or man's surmising???
Actually, this is no different then the Catholics superseding what God has said with no confusion other then man's.
So in your post above, why did they quite wearing it?? did you miss that point, it was for a better conscience of what was right as they bowed to please man's surmising at first...
Is that what he said?
-
oops,
-
Here's to the moments that are stolen
And stealing is certainly wrong,
But after those moments are stolen
To whom do they really belong?
For if my wife ne'er comes to claim them
And your husband ne're makes a fuss
Let's hold our heads up proudly
And say they belong to us.
For if you had bushels of apples,
And left them alone to rot.
And a neighbor came by and ate them
Would you blame him? Certainly not!
For apples were made to be eaten
And moments were made for delight.
And that's what we'll tell our conscience
If it keeps us awake to night.
-
Are you Horsethief ?? ;)
-
Is that what he said?
[/quote]
It was simple reasoning and questions to the oppositions of clear foundational beliefs.
If you really look at what the stumbling bock has developed into, just enter many churches and watch 3abn or Hope channel. Jewelry has now developed into diamonds, pearls, rubies and what ever, in the nose, in the ears, in the flesh and members getting tattoos along with the bands, rap and the rest. If one Adventist has just one item what makes the difference if they have all on at once?? not a thing, I will not be in the realm of someone's elses loss of eternity because of their love of self display in all things followed by me agreeing. and you know what else, the conference is well aware of it all. so does a person think he has to go along with opinions of conferences as Mercilago wants to point out and use. EGW when writing what he posted suggests that it should take many to stand firm against changes of foundation and not to change it to their desires or the peoples. That is the point if you read the whole book or books. So now with the majority's liberal agenda mounting higher and higher, yes I do think Jesus will come soon as those are the ones that will turn against "keepers of the foundation testamonies of Jesus. It's not hard to witness this happening now as Satan will also send in instrumentsto claim of Sunday being the time to change. Seems so unreal but this is just the start.
-
Is that what he said?
It was simple reasoning and questions to the oppositions of clear foundational beliefs.
If you really look at what the stumbling bock has developed into, just enter many churches and watch 3abn or Hope channel. Jewelry has now developed into diamonds, pearls, rubies and what ever, in the nose, in the ears, in the flesh and members getting tattoos along with the bands, rap and the rest. If one Adventist has just one item what makes the difference if they have all on at once?? not a thing, I will not be in the realm of someone's elses loss of eternity because of their love of self display in all things followed by me agreeing. and you know what else, the conference is well aware of it all. so does a person think he has to go along with opinions of conferences as Mercilago wants to point out and use. EGW when writing what he posted suggests that it should take many to stand firm against changes of foundation and not to change it to their desires or the peoples. That is the point if you read the whole book or books. So now with the majority's liberal agenda mounting higher and higher, yes I do think Jesus will come soon as those are the ones that will turn against "keepers of the foundation testamonies of Jesus. It's not hard to witness this happening now as Satan will also send in instrumentsto claim of Sunday being the time to change. Seems so unreal but this is just the start.
Is that what she said?
-
Burned Biscuits
When I was a kid, my Mom liked to make breakfast food for dinner every now and then.
I remember one night in particular when she had made
breakfast after a long, hard day at work. On that evening
so long ago, my Mom placed a plate of eggs, sausage and
extremely burned biscuits in front of my dad. I remember waiting
to see if anyone noticed!
Yet all my dad did was reach for his biscuit, smile at my Mom
and ask me how my day was at school. I don't remember
what I told him that night, but I do remember watching him
smear butter and jelly on that ugly burned biscuit. He ate every
bite of that thing... Never made a face nor uttered a word.
When I got up from the table that evening, I remember hearing
my Mom apologize to my dad for burning the biscuits.
And I'll never forget what he said: "Honey, I love burned
biscuits every now and then."
Later that night, I went to kiss Daddy good night and
I asked him if he really liked his biscuits burned.
He wrapped me in his arms and said, "Your Momma put in
a hard day at work today and she's real tired. And besides,
a little burned biscuit never hurt anyone!"
As I've grown older, I've thought about that many times.
Life is full of imperfect things and imperfect people.
I'm not the best at hardly anything, and I forget birthdays and
anniversaries just like everyone else. But what I've learned
over the years is that learning to accept each other's faults -
and choosing to celebrate each other's differences - is one
of the most important keys to creating a healthy, growing,
and lasting relationship.
And that's my prayer for you today... That you will learn to take the good, the bad, and the ugly parts of your life and lay them at the feet of God. Because in the end, He's the only One who will be able to give you a relationship where a burnt biscuit isn't a deal-breaker!
We could extend this to any relationship. In fact, understanding is the base of any relationship, be it husband-wife or parent-child or friendship!
"Don't put the key to your happiness in someone else's pocket -
keep It in your own."
So, please pass me a biscuit, and yes, the burned one will do
just fine.
-
The inspired writings of EGW were not to keep burning the biscuits! So it does sound like a pulpit story but don't really seem to go with the background you previously stated about your dad and who your named after.
To tell the truth as a wife, mother and grandmother, I absolutely would not put burned biscuits on the table for consumption! They would be in the trash, unless somebody had pigs to feed.
-
Good grief. :help:
-
Yep, unbelievable, but I did not see any help signs when
Bob was called a Jesuit, I could not believe what I read over and over to really believe what was said and kept thinking I was reading wrong and from whom. No :help: there either.
But in reality, what would you think if someone put burnt food out for your consumption. Hmmm, something wrong someplace.
-
What is a ring if it is not an ornament? I am sure your answer will be a "symbol" a symbol you put on your finger for who? , you ? your wife? or to prove you made promises to God on your marriage ?or, why do you have to convince other people as they come up with their challenges of evil surmising. The marriage is between man and woman and promises to God and to ask his blessing while man and women take on their "vanity ornament??? EGW highly advised.. don't do it in good conscience to cause a stumbling block to someone else it wasn't worth the loss of eternity. Thank you for your posting and your courtesy but I do know that the Holy Spirit did not give confusion for EGW to bongle up. You see "vanity" is a crucial thing to overcome and it will not enter in. So who do you Please, God or man's surmising???
Actually, this is no different then the Catholics superseding what God has said with no confusion other then man's.
So in your post above, why did they quite wearing it?? did you miss that point, it was for a better conscience of what was right as they bowed to please man's surmising at first...
You have said a lot, but never answered the question, when and for what reason did she quit wearing the wedding ring?
-
Read again the post, She put it away never to wear it again knowing in her conscience what she believed was truth. If that is not the case then she should not have put it away never to be worn again. as stated!
-
So you're suggesting we should ignore Bible principle and the requirements set forth by the Apostle Paul in the book of Timothy to fit the mode?
Lol. Then why not just change everything to fit our desires and wants? Women want to be ordained? Too bad. No woman is called by God to be a "pastor", or to be "ordained".
Honestly, Alex, where in your KJV Bible is anyone called to be a "pastor"? Male or female?
-
Read again the post, She put it away never to wear it again knowing in her conscience what she believed was truth. If that is not the case then she should not have put it away never to be worn again. as stated!
I know that text almost by heart now, tinka. You are not saying what her husband said. I would never dare change the messages God has given us. Because I think God means what He says in some of the last words of the Bible: 18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
20He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
21The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
Don't you believe in these words, tinka? I would not dare change the meaning of what I read in His Word.
-
I respect and appreciate people whose world is black and white. Simplicity is a virtue that removes the complications of life. When math consists of 1, 2, 3, but has no integers, addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division are simple. When there is 1 choice instead of 10, decisions are easy. I know a young man who can only eat lunch at precisely 12:30pm, and he will not put a bite in his mouth if the clock says 12:29. That removes many decisions and choices from his life, but it is rather amusing when he crosses a time zone. The validity of time zones is called into question, in his agony, and that calls into question the validity of his own time zone as Greenwich Mean predates his. Then comes the nightmare of daylight saving... To harbour with folk who break their fast at 6:00am instead of 7, Raises feelings of fun and fear. But can he break from the mold?
Very very true Murcielago, that life has many complications, but the rules of God are not and simple to understand. Did God give us complications, No
Did the devil?? yes. and that is black and white!
I respectfully disagree. God gave us a highly complex universe. There is nothing remotely simple about it. Its laws vary according to needs. Avians must have wings and feathers, fish must have fins. There are laws that apply to polar creatures that do not apply to tropical animals. a grain of sand is not just a grain of sand, but various molecules, made up of atoms, made up of sub-atomic particles, founded on quantum foam. God's creation and the laws that govern it are varied and complex. Black and white? No. We know of over 16 million colours in the visible spectrum between pure black (which is not a colour), and pure white. It is easier to stop at the grain of sand, to not acknowledge the shades that exist between black and white, to impose the laws that apply to us on everyone else, than to live in the broader world that God made.
-
The following quote from EGW is taken from the Church Manual page 31.
“I have often been instructed by the Lord that no man’s judgment should be surrendered to the judgment of any other one man. Never should the mind of one man or the minds of a few men be regarded as sufficient in wisdom and power to control the work and to say what plans shall be followed. But when, in a General Conference, the judgment of the brethren assembled from all parts of the field is exercised, private independence and private judgment must not be stubbornly maintained, but surrendered. Never should a laborer regard as a virtue the persistent maintenance of his position of independence, contrary to the decision of the general body.”
9T 260.
[/quote]
That does not mean what you want it to mean by far..
[/quote]
What do you think I want it to mean? What do you think it means?
-
Current SDA View in Northern Europe on Female Pastors
We have female pastors in all of the last three countries where I have lived, Denmark, Norway, and Iceland. I know that our leaders in these countries have not taken that step before much prayer and examination of the Word of God, and as a result they have arrived at these conclusions.
When I see some attacking what they are doing, using Roman Catholic reasoning, as far as I can see it, I cannot keep silent. Yes, a majority has still prevented this will of God to receive a universal acceptance, but has the majority always been right? Why wait for a majority on something that is clear and straight and fully in accordance with the Word of God and the Prophetic Gift to His Church?
Why should the voice of Rome hold sway among us? How long?
It is my Christian duty to defend the leaders God has appointed to lead His work where I reside.
Jesus is coming soon. There is not much time to loose.
-
I respectfully disagree. God gave us a highly complex universe. There is nothing remotely simple about it. Its laws vary according to needs. Avians must have wings and feathers, fish must have fins. There are laws that apply to polar creatures that do not apply to tropical animals. a grain of sand is not just a grain of sand, but various molecules, made up of atoms, made up of sub-atomic particles, founded on quantum foam. God's creation and the laws that govern it are varied and complex. Black and white? No. We know of over 16 million colours in the visible spectrum between pure black (which is not a colour), and pure white. It is easier to stop at the grain of sand, to not acknowledge the shades that exist between black and white, to impose the laws that apply to us on everyone else, than to live in the broader world that God made.
Wait a minute, you say God gave us a highly complex universe??? I sort of understood that God made His universe and this earth and us people for Himself. His complexes of His creations are beyond to understand the mysteries of Gods power to do this and cannot be all understood by man only their surmising until they surmise their selves into smarter then God -who in his complex created all for Himself and for what reason it all works together. In fact in His supreme "complex of creating" He made everything except man that gives of its self. Man is the only created being that does not give by creation as everything else. He has the choice. In doing so God longed to be loved back freely from choice.
His simple law and examples are only complex to those who like to jiggle God never expected everyone to know about the Atom or its complexity. In simplicity of understanding, He gave us a way to live and escape the death penalty.
-
I respectfully disagree. God gave us a highly complex universe. There is nothing remotely simple about it. Its laws vary according to needs. Avians must have wings and feathers, fish must have fins. There are laws that apply to polar creatures that do not apply to tropical animals. a grain of sand is not just a grain of sand, but various molecules, made up of atoms, made up of sub-atomic particles, founded on quantum foam. God's creation and the laws that govern it are varied and complex. Black and white? No. We know of over 16 million colours in the visible spectrum between pure black (which is not a colour), and pure white. It is easier to stop at the grain of sand, to not acknowledge the shades that exist between black and white, to impose the laws that apply to us on everyone else, than to live in the broader world that God made.
Wait a minute, you say God gave us a highly complex universe??? I sort of understood that God made His universe and this earth and us people for Himself. His complexes of His creations are beyond to understand the mysteries of Gods power to do this and cannot be all understood by man only their surmising until they surmise their selves into smarter then God -who in his complex created all for Himself and for what reason it all works together. In fact in His supreme "complex of creating" He made everything except man that gives of its self. Man is the only created being that does not give by creation as everything else. He has the choice. In doing so God longed to be loved back freely from choice.
His simple law and examples are only complex to those who like to jiggle God never expected everyone to know about the Atom or its complexity. In simplicity of understanding, He gave us a way to live and escape the death penalty.
God gave humans the desire and ability to learn and advance, to grow into an understanding and appreciation of the vast complexity of our world and his universe. He gave us the ability to understand that there is more that what our limited vision can see when we stand still, and instilled in us a wonder and curiosity that drives us to move from that standing position and see what else there is hiding beyond a horizon that goes into infinity. The servant who feared to go out and invest hid the treasure trusted to him in the ground. He didn't want to jiggle it around, or surmise that he could make more money out of it, and the master was not pleased. God did not create a static universe, but one that is filled with variety, constant change, and forward motion. When one reaches the point when they feel that there is nothing more to learn, it is a sad moment.
-
Current SDA View in Northern Europe on Female Pastors
We have female pastors in all of the last three countries where I have lived, Denmark, Norway, and Iceland. I know that our leaders in these countries have not taken that step before much prayer and examination of the Word of God, and as a result they have arrived at these conclusions.
When I see some attacking what they are doing, using Roman Catholic reasoning, as far as I can see it, I cannot keep silent. Yes, a majority has still prevented this will of God to receive a universal acceptance, but has the majority always been right? Why wait for a majority on something that is clear and straight and fully in accordance with the Word of God and the Prophetic Gift to His Church?
Why should the voice of Rome hold sway among us? How long?
It is my Christian duty to defend the leaders God has appointed to lead His work where I reside.
Jesus is coming soon. There is not much time to loose.
Years ago I came into contact with people who tried to convince me that SDA Reformers were the way to go. Somehow they got wind of what SDA officials did to us, I listened intently to all their reasoning why SDA is Babylon. Why is it I am almost hearing the same tinkling bell here of reasoning. I read their writings and putting together all sentences that were doctored in their articles, and if I was not grounded I would have left. The grounding took several years of research and I will definitely state the Reformers are wrong to do what they did and believe it or not it seemed to all start in your neck of the woods or lets say Swiss or
European. But this is the same type reasonings I am reading.
-
Murcielago,
We are not talking about not learning here, we are talking about man changing a certain doctrine of a religion because of "New era" of disinterested values that are against their lifestyle so their conscience feels good and not like the woman who took her wedding ring off and never wore it again..
-
Murcielago,
We are not talking about not learning here, we are talking about man changing a certain doctrine of a religion because of "New era" of disinterested values that are against their lifestyle so their conscience feels good and not like the woman who took her wedding ring off and never wore it again..
We are talking about many things, including rules that may apply in some areas while not in others. We are talking about definitions that are not black and white, but have variables. An understanding of variables comes with learning, and realizing that there may be more to things than what we see.
In simplicity of understanding, He gave us a way to live and escape the death penalty.
And in a broader understanding, He gave us that, and much more.
-
Read again the post, She put it away never to wear it again knowing in her conscience what she believed was truth. If that is not the case then she should not have put it away never to be worn again. as stated!
I know that text almost by heart now, tinka. You are not saying what her husband said. I would never dare change the messages God has given us. Because I think God means what He says in some of the last words of the Bible: 18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
20He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
21The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
Don't you believe in these words, tinka? I would not dare change the meaning of what I read in His Word.
Will you answer this is just ignore it?
-
So you're suggesting we should ignore Bible principle and the requirements set forth by the Apostle Paul in the book of Timothy to fit the mode?
Lol. Then why not just change everything to fit our desires and wants? Women want to be ordained? Too bad. No woman is called by God to be a "pastor", or to be "ordained".
Honestly, Alex, where in your KJV Bible is anyone called to be a "pastor"? Male or female?
Johann, are you kidding me? Read the book of Timothy.....
-
I cannot believe how "liberal" some of you folks are.....trying to change the Bible to fit your desires....
You know, in fact, that is what liberalism has done to our country...allowed abortion, no prayer in schools, etc...
May God have mercy!
If a woman claims to be called by God to preach....she is a liar. There is no biblical foundation to support it.
-
Historic Vote For Female Seminary Graduates in Bermuda
http://adventistbermuda.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=386&Itemid=214
-
Alex, I challenge you to read the book of Timothy. Not once do you find the word "pastor".
The only place in the New Testament where you find the word "pastor" is in Ephesians 4:11. Here it is rendered in plural, "pastors". It is never in the singular anywhere in the KJV Bible. Look for yourself!
Even the most conservative ought to be able to discover this without being labeled a "liberal"!
-
Aliex said:
If a woman claims to be called by God to preach....she is a liar. There is no biblical foundation to support it.
Alex, let me give you a true situation:
World War II was in progress. In a certaian country in Scandanavia the governmental authorities had removed all of the male clergy of the SDA church from their pulpits who were of a certain age range. The only male clergy left in that country were a very few elderly clergy.
Two women believed that in these circumstances, in a time of war, the gospel needed to be preached. So, they struck out on their own and began to hold evangelistic meetings. During the time that they held evangelistic meetings, several thousand people, accepted Christ and requested baptism.
That presented a problem. These women were not ordained. They believed that God had called them to preach the gospil. They did not believe that they should baptize. So, the few elderly male clergy left in the country baptized their converts.
Do you believe that under these circumstances God did not call them to preach? Do you believe that it would have been better if they had not preached the gospil in evangelistic meetings? Do you believe that it would have been better if these several thousand, both males and females, had not been converted to Christ tlhrough their preaching.
-
An interesting passage:
"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law" (1 Corinthians 14:34).
"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence" (1 Timothy 2:11-12).
In these verses, Paul cannot be addressing women who were in the ministry, but rather those in the congregation who were out of order. How do we know this? We have many such proofs, many from Paul himself. Here is a partial list of women who were all in influential positions of leadership in the early church.
Pheobe (Romans 16:1-2): This woman was a deaconess of the church in Cenchrea, who was beloved of Paul and many other Christians for the help she gave to them. She filled an important position of leadership. It would be a difficult stretch of the imagination to say that this woman fulfilled her duties without ever speaking in the church!
Priscilla (Acts 18:26): Priscilla and her husband Aquila are often mentioned with great respect by Paul. Together they were pastors of a church in Ephesus, and were responsible for teaching the full gospel to Apollos. We are informed that they both taught Apollos, and pastored the church together. In fact, Priscilla is sometimes listed ahead of Aquila when their names come up. This has led some to speculate that of the two, she was the primary teacher and her husband oversaw the ministry. At any rate, we see here a woman in a very prominent position of teaching and pastoring. (Other references to Priscilla and Aquila are Acts 18:2, 18; Romans 16:3, and I Corinthians 16:19).
Euodia and Syntyche (Philippians 4:2-3): Here we see reference to two women who were "true yokefellow" and who labored with Paul in the advancement of the gospel.
Junia (Romans 16:7): In this verse we see Paul sending greetings to Andronicus and Junia, his "fellow-prisoners" who are of note among the apostles. Junia is a woman's name. In some modern translations, an "s" has been added (Junias) because the translators were so sure a woman could not be an apostle, that they assumed a copyist has accidentally dropped the "s." However the proper male ending would have been "ius," not "ias." No church commentator earlier than the Middle Ages questioned that Junia was both a woman and an apostle.
Though there were other women throughout the Bible in positions of leadership, such as prophetesses, evangelists, judges, leaders, etc., the above references should be enough to establish that women were indeed a vital and normal part of church leadership. Paul expected women to speak in the church, or else why would he have given the following directive? It would have been useless to give directions for women who were speaking in the church, if they were never allowed to do so.
1 Corinthians 11:5, "But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven."
Furthermore, if Paul believed that all women should never teach or speak in church, why does he commend many women who did just that?
With all this in mind, what then do we make of the troubling verses that command women to be silent in the churches? First of all, we must interpret those verses in light of what we have just established--that there were women in leadership positions of the church. Obviously, Paul is not writing to them. He is must be addressing another issue entirely--the women who were loud and unruly during the service, causing disorder and confusion..
When he wrote the Corinthians, he was dealing with a church that was very disorderly in their services. Much of the letter was spent correcting excesses and abuses. Some of these pertained to women in particular and some were to the entire church. Paul is not being prejudiced against women when he instructs the Corinthian women to keep silence. In the early church the seating arrangement was quite different from our modern day churches. Men were seated on one side of the church while the women and children were seated on the opposite side. This is still practiced in many cultures today.
The women of Christ's day were generally uneducated and usually only the men were privileged with an education. Due to this situation, when the church met the women were tempted to shout across the room and ask their husbands the meaning of whatever was being taught. This disturbed the service. Paul was simply saying during the service, "Women, keep your children quiet and you be quiet, and if you have anything to ask your husbands, wait until you get home." Because of the new equality that Christianity brought to women, it could be that some of them were taking their freedom too far, to the point of being obnoxious.
When Paul wrote to Timothy, he gave him a similar directive. Again, it is important to understand the context in which the letter was written. In I Timothy, a careful reader becomes aware that many severe heresies and false teachings that were being dealt with. We can draw a conclusion here that many of the proponents and victims of the false teachings were women. Timothy pastored in Ephesus, and it has been suggested that goddess worship might have played a large part in Paul dealing so severely with the women. Ephesus was a primary center of the worship of Diana or Artemis. The heresies being taught might have suggested that women were authoritative over men and had higher access to spiritual knowledge than men did.
Regardless of the particulars, in both cases we can see that Paul is dealing with specific incidents in specific churches for very particular reasons.
We must understand that many of Paul's epistles dealt with local problems and his commandments are not meant to be taken as "commandments" across the board for all situations. Rather, we are to seek the Lord for the basic principal that needs to be incorporated in our churches. Because of Old Testament precedents that had already been set, apparently it never occurred to Paul to re-establish the case for women in ministry. Why would he need to? The early church took it as a matter of course that Jesus would call and ordain anyone He chose--and that settled it! As a matter of fact, the Bible mentions a prophetess who was in the Temple when Jesus was brought there as a baby. Her name was Anna (Luke 2:25-35), and she was one of two people who recognized Jesus as the Messiah because of her sensitivity to the Holy Spirit.
Paul's writings are sometimes misunderstood today because we do not know all the details that led him to write as he did. We must rely on the Holy Spirit, and the rest of the testimony of Scripture to interpret how we are to apply these things to our everyday lives. Scripture should always be compared with other Scripture and the context taken into consideration. Even in Paul's day, there were those who tried to twist the meaning his words.
"...His (Paul's) letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do other Scriptures, to their own destruction" ( 2 Peter 3:16).
It is a fair conclusion that the testimony of the bulk of Scripture, church history and God's anointing upon them, all speak plainly for women being able to fulfill all positions of the five-fold offices of apostle, prophet, pastor, evangelist and teacher.
The above was taken from:
http://www.bible.com/bibleanswers_result.php?id=141
-
An interesting commenet taken from the REVIEW:
Church planter extraordinaire Zu Xiu Hua, who has personally started 380 congregations in the northeastern province of Jilin, spoke with Paulsen through an interpreter over an evening meal hosted by Adventist leaders from the city. Her congregations, now totaling more than 20,000 persons in the mostly rural region, are served by dozens of volunteer women whom she trains to conduct Bible studies, preach, and offer spiritual care. One of her converts, Lan Yong Shen, now also an Adventist pastor in the same region, joined her in meeting with Paulsen and the other leaders. He managers more than 300 congregations with a total of 7000 members.
More than half of the Adventist pastors in China are women, and a large majority of the members are also female. Some pastors have earned formal degrees through seminaries sponsored by the China Christian Council, the umbrella organization that coordinates the affairs of the nation’s estimated 20 million Christians, but an increasing number are emerging from training centers established by local congregations. In meetings with both the national and regional branches of the Christian Council, Paulsen expressed the Adventist church’s interest in assisting both established seminaries and training centers in preparing larger numbers of pastors equipped to serve the distinctive needs of Adventists in the country.
http://www.adventistreview.org/article/2594/archives/issue-2009-1514/finding-faith-in-china-report-2
-
The Beginning of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Denmark
In 1878 John G. Matteson returned from USA to Denmark to proclaim the faith he had discoverd in America. One of his early converts was a young girl, known as Sine Renlev who took a course in the new school Matteson established, and soon after that she started preaching. Here is a word picture found in a local newpaper on February 14, 1890:
„A peculiar movement, rightfully named a Powerful Movement, has recently attacked the southern area of our generally tranquil parish. This movement started among the Baptists at Kolkaer. As far as we know most of these, who have had their services at this place, have now become Adventists. Among them has risen a great prophet in the person of a young and charming lady, using such a pleasant language and a lovely disposition that the audience is all taken by her message. It has been surprising to see what a power this woman has. She preaches one evening after another and people attend in great multitudes, returning to get more. People all want to have her in their homes, and many follow her as if she was an angel from heaven.“
Kronikøren A skriver i Herning Folkeblad d. 14. februar år 1890 From Wikisource.
That article goes on to describe a dangerous heresy which leads even solid Lutherans to leave the blessings of the holy water of infant baptism to follow the magic of this woman.
Sine Renlev kept preaching and sacrificed herself establishing new churches in Denmark. She also sang and played the guitar. I have seen that instrument which then belonged to a pastor‘s wife in Denmark. Sine was a great pastor/evangelist, our first in Denmark. Do you wonder if we have learned from our history and still want female preachers in Denmark?
Without the preaching around 1880 - 1899 by this female pastor our history in Denmark had never been the same. Where would we be without our history which shows us how God has guided His Church in the past? What are these new-comers following the dictates from Rome doing to His Church? What a loss when Sine Renlev died around 1899, but she gave probably about 20 years of her life to preach the gospel with great power. (Seems like I read somewhere years ago that she was sick some time before she died. There was a article about her in 1999 - the hundredth anniversary of her death - by Elder H J Schantz, but I have not been able to get hold of that article now.)
-
Aliex said:
If a woman claims to be called by God to preach....she is a liar. There is no biblical foundation to support it.
Alex, let me give you a true situation:
World War II was in progress. In a certaian country in Scandanavia the governmental authorities had removed all of the male clergy of the SDA church from their pulpits who were of a certain age range. The only male clergy left in that country were a very few elderly clergy.
Two women believed that in these circumstances, in a time of war, the gospel needed to be preached. So, they struck out on their own and began to hold evangelistic meetings. During the time that they held evangelistic meetings, several thousand people, accepted Christ and requested baptism.
That presented a problem. These women were not ordained. They believed that God had called them to preach the gospil. They did not believe that they should baptize. So, the few elderly male clergy left in the country baptized their converts.
Do you believe that under these circumstances God did not call them to preach? Do you believe that it would have been better if they had not preached the gospil in evangelistic meetings? Do you believe that it would have been better if these several thousand, both males and females, had not been converted to Christ tlhrough their preaching.
Gregory, I believe the country you are referring to is Finland. I have only been to Finland once on a short visit, but I remember reading articles about these remarkable female preachers in Finland who kept on preaching even after the male pastors returned and young ones joined the forces. I have seen at least one of these remarkable women attending a meeting for pastors in Scandinavia when I was still a young pastor.
-
Here is a word for those who consider Billy Graham an authority (others need not read it):
Dr. Billy Graham, when asked by David Frost about women's ordination, said, "Women preach all over the world. It doesn't bother me at all from my study of the Scriptures. And there were many women preachers in the Bible." . . .
Yet, each leaves open the possibility of women as preachers. Ironically, on the same day that the SBC published its proposed revision to the "Baptist Faith and Message," USA Today carried an article about Anne Graham Lotz, daughter of the famous evangelist. In that article, Graham called her the "best preacher in the family."
From the Texas Baptist Committed, July 2000
-
A lot of these called SDA pastors that went to war now presented a problem for that certain sect from that area. They turned out to be conscientious objectors. Now what shall they do?? EW was asked this very question and not to make the post long and not quoting, she advised that if they were to go to war then they should go and did not back their reasoning against the government. With out presenting the whole story it came across that why let others die and protect them--?? and that would leave in other words bad taste against SDA not doing their part. If some could be medics or placed in a position they were not on the firing line it was good but all could not be and therefore seek to do their part.
Well, from that the SDA were much appalled and accusing EW of going against thou shalt not kill. At that time they broke away from SDA and formed the SDA Reformers it is a huge situation by now.
Their main talk is "Who is Jesuits" and constant talk of the "Catholics" filtrating the SDA secretly. That SDA is Babylon, Just on and on. It all has the same familiar talk that is now being posted along with complete liberalism. It has great cause in me now to wonder just what really did happen at 3abn beside misuse of funds and backing "Ordained women preachers yea or nay. But yet it appears now that 3abn must handle infiltrated wantabes. Who knows what happened of what appears to be for this length of time and observance.
and clear off the wall and subject and as I posted on posts long ago after observance of all court proceedings and aspects I felt OJ was innocent. and now some of you may have heard...he was! Fox is now interested in getting justice --the story is tragic. But I brought this up cause one never knows secrets of evil until they are caught up in it and it leaks one way or the other. till sin finds you out!!! Yes, I should probably keep many thoughts but no one that knows me including children have to guess my coming and goings. and then I get truth out my way...
-
Here is a word for those who consider Billy Graham an authority (others need not read it):
Dr. Billy Graham, when asked by David Frost about women's ordination, said, "Women preach all over the world. It doesn't bother me at all from my study of the Scriptures. And there were many women preachers in the Bible." . . .
Yet, each leaves open the possibility of women as preachers. Ironically, on the same day that the SBC published its proposed revision to the "Baptist Faith and Message," USA Today carried an article about Anne Graham Lotz, daughter of the famous evangelist. In that article, Graham called her the "best preacher in the family."
From the Texas Baptist Committed, July 2000
Billy Grahm did not get a lot of scripture right including that, BTW has anyone came across the decked out "ornament, many color flamboyant hair where the hair and eyelashes met" lady --worse then Tammie Faye Baker appeared. I discovered it is part of the "Grahm Kingdom". I do not claim to dislike Billy Grahm or his wife, I listened to him a lot but knew the jumping off point but always felt sorry he never grasped "scripture as it stated" on the Sabbath, and death and rapture but so it goes. But the lady had been hilarious for me to imagine her next concoction of hair as her facial expressions looked to be off into another world while squeaking her voice into such dramatizations. Just watched it the other night and I think her hair must be falling out as now she finally had to cut it. I turned it as I laughed again of such stupid vanity. Almost like someone else on tv that you get glimpses of once in a while. Oh my, Scripture does say their will be strange dress in last days. lol I just did not like to see some on Hope and abn being shown going that route. so I stated about it.
Conclusion of Billy Grahm, he made no waves of any doctrine therefore he drew in the most money! Sort of what Olsen is doing. and that leads people into falseness of Ten Commandments or Gods Law
-
A lot of these called SDA pastors that went to war now presented a problem for that certain sect from that area. They turned out to be conscientious objectors. Now what shall they do?? EW was asked this very question and not to make the post long and not quoting, she advised that if they were to go to war then they should go and did not back their reasoning against the government. With out presenting the whole story it came across that why let others die and protect them--?? and that would leave in other words bad taste against SDA not doing their part. If some could be medics or placed in a position they were not on the firing line it was good but all could not be and therefore seek to do their part.
Well, from that the SDA were much appalled and accusing EW of going against thou shalt not kill. At that time they broke away from SDA and formed the SDA Reformers it is a huge situation by now.
Their main talk is "Who is Jesuits" and constant talk of the "Catholics" filtrating the SDA secretly. That SDA is Babylon, Just on and on. It all has the same familiar talk that is now being posted along with complete liberalism. It has great cause in me now to wonder just what really did happen at 3abn beside misuse of funds and backing "Ordained women preachers yea or nay. But yet it appears now that 3abn must handle infiltrated wantabes. Who knows what happened of what appears to be for this length of time and observance.
and clear off the wall and subject and as I posted on posts long ago after observance of all court proceedings and aspects I felt OJ was innocent. and now some of you may have heard...he was! Fox is now interested in getting justice --the story is tragic. But I brought this up cause one never knows secrets of evil until they are caught up in it and it leaks one way or the other. till sin finds you out!!! Yes, I should probably keep many thoughts but no one that knows me including children have to guess my coming and goings. and then I get truth out my way...
I don't know where you get your history from, tinka, but for your information Europe is much more than one nation with many independent countries where there is also quite a difference between Adventists.
One of those Finnish young men who were drafted into war, Bengt Lillas, wrote a book where he told about his encounters and fight to follow his conscience. Just the title of the book gives a good idea of what kind of soldier he was, A Fighter Without Weapons. Incidentally the Swedish word for fighter also means a champion. The book came as a serial in youth magazines in various countries and was a great challenge to be true to God and fight for him without carrying a gun in warfare nor compromise with your conscience and the principles God has given us.
I have met several SDA Reform people, and even their former Union President and his wife became very dear friends of ours. They gave us a pretty good idea of how it all started and what was going on. This leader of the Reformed movement left the Reformers and joined our Church, when they discovered how many mistakes they had made. At a later date I was asked to have meetings with the Reformers on behalf of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, so I am fairly well acquainted with what has gone on.
Besides that I have also struck an acquaintance with the Reform movement in the United States to get an idea of what was going on there.
What you are stating is partly true. . .
-
For a fact.. the president or leader of the North American Division SDA Reformers and his associate stayed at our farm for 4 weeks before traveling on to their Conference Convention. They were told by someone that knew us they could find hospitality with us and then were told of what had happened to us by SDA and have the story right from the top whether anyone knows the history or not. We were almost convinced but much study led us to not venture there. I am well aquainted with their origination and why. We had already studied much before hand and started to realize their point sounding wrong bells.
-
Johann, I believe that you are correct that the two women I mentioned were from Finland. I had forgotten.
-
SDA Reform Movement: Their history goes back into Europe and Nazi Germany, although I do not deny a background that is prior to Hitler. It is complex. For those who know their history there are two points that are clear:
1) The elected SDA Leadershilp, in the area in which the Reform SDAs arose clearly made some major mistakes.
2) The leadership of what became the Reform SDA Movement clearly made some mistakes and their hands are not clean.
While the outline of the issues that resulted in the growth of the SDA Reform movement have been known for years. It is clear that the picture of the events of the times in which the Reform Movement grew have not been fully understood. Seminal work in understanding the history of this period has been done by a SDA historian teaching at a New York college (CIty College of New York ?). I have forgotten his last name, but his first name, as I recall is Ron.
Tinka, as Johann said, your post is only partially true.
By the way, the SDA Reform Movement is a strong supporter of EGW. One of their issues with the SDA Chruch is their belief that it does not follow EGW as closely as it should.
There is a nice article about the SDA Reform Movement on page 1332 of the 1976 edition of the SDA Encyclodia. That article concentrates on the Pre- Nazi Germany origins and is basicly silent on WW II and Nazi Germany. In my personal approach I place the emphasis on the Nazi Germany time frame, but, I acknowledge the earlier background.
One of the reasons that I do this is that The Reform Movement itself gives a high priority to the Nazi Germany time frame in their accusations of wrong doing on the part of the SDA Church. There is truth in their accusations of wrong doing. but, their hands are not clean either.
-
Paul said that but there is a clear contradiction with God appointing women in political and spiritual authority, and Paul's later comments against it. How do you reconcile that contradiction?
Nope, Paul made his position clear time and time again.
I cannot believe many here except myself, Gailon, Bob, and Tinka are the ones who are biblically correct on our position.
-
In one of the churches where I was a pastor in Denmark I learned of a woman who had meant so much to that church in the past. For years she had held the church together, and I actually met this lady before she died. Although she never received a salary from the church, she functioned like a church pastor, evangelist, Sabbath School teacher - everything.
This was before automobiles were in general use, but to help the church out the Conference President (Hakon Muderspach was his name) had a public campaign in that town. He would travel a couple of hours each way by train. Somehow, like I suppose it happens to administrators, several times during the season something came up suddenly which prevented him from getting to the meeting. Each time he called the female lay evangelist on a short notice, and she always managed to preach a sermon on the subject announced.
This woman kept the church alive for a number of years in spite of her being a female. Several years later this church had a female pastor employed by the conference, and she did the work almost like her sister had done it in the past. She manage to keep the church well alive as long as she was there - better than most male pastors.
-
As I said before, the German Union President of the Reform movement and his wife became good friends of ours after they joined our Church. We had actually lived and worked in the same area some years before, and both of us regretted that we had not become friends already then. Later he showed me some of the material he had been using against the Church while we were "neighbors". Later he discovered the material he had was not true. Now I am giving this only by memory, where some of the details could be faulty.
His wife's family were the original Reformers, SDA workers in Hannover, Germany. It happened during World War I (1914-1918) when the European Division President (Conradi) sent an order to all workers in Europe that if any pastor would discourage drafted Adventist from from fighting for the Emperor and carry the gun assigned to him, they were no longer workers in good and regular standing in the Adventist Church.
This portion I also heard from Dr. Walter, professor of Church History at Andrews. He was originally from Switzerland and he told us that as a young worker he had received this order from Conradi.
Back to Hannover where a youth leader disagreed with Conrady and helped hide a young man to prevent him from having to carry a gun in the war. For this reason he was fired on orders from Conradi, and with that he and some sympathizers formed the Reformed Church. It seems to me they had to go under ground for the rest of the war. We can agree now that the Reform Movement was, at that time, the true Church.
After the war, seems like it was 1920, men from the GC came to Germany to negotiate with the Reform people. According to docujments I have seen, and also acknowledged by my friend, the former Reformed President, and also a former Reformed member from USA, the GC people acknowledged the mistake Conradi had made. Conrady left our church and joined the Seventh-day Baptist Church (in Holland, as far as I remember). They apologized to the Reformed people and welcomed them beck into our fellowship.
Unfortunately the negotations did not succeed. These were the reasons I learned:
1) The reformers refused to accept the apology, because they felt the GC was at fault for what Conradi had done. They felt the GC should have been able to prevent him from making the mistales he did.
2) The reformers then maintained that the GC should not have permitted the SDA young people to response to the draft even if they could work as medical cadets, while the GC maintained this was in accordance with the agreement made between the Church and Abraham Lincoln.
The present Reformers seem to have added a few items which they use as reasons for still having their own movement apart from the main Church, but I will not attempt to get into that here.
-
and...one of the other most recent things they did as they sent me their papers for several years and as I read their quotes of EW (of course they use her more then we in some of our churches) I found after reading their lessons and realizing something really strange. I would think to my self that I did not remember much of statements of EW completely like I my understanding ,so then, I started following along back and forth with their quotes and lo and behold they were cutting and pasting sort of to speak in terms now. One sentence joined with another an the actual quotes were seldom quoted as it was, they had to change much to bring all around to their point of view. Time after time I discovered that. So what ever one thinks of the Reformers and how great they are, You must realize they are followers and are brought in by falsehood for them to believe as they do now. I was so upset with one of their theories that I wrote in and told them exactly what I saw and they were wrong.
It was months later they came out with a study that my husband and I went over on the subject and we just sort of laughed as it seemed to change but I told them also quit sending the papers as I did not appreciate their combining one sentence with another to come up with what was not actually said.
I don't even think about it anymore for years as it was just another episode impact and hit of Satan to SDA ...until now and I don't like the sound of things ..for myself ..that is.. but according to Gregory.. I was told the truth mostly. Except their secret inner voice is to undermine the SDA church claiming we are infiltrated with Jesuits. Boy did I come lose when I started hearing that. and now SDA is not free from Catholism yet... that is the belief of a Reformer. Zing!!! or convinced by one
-
Alex, I challenge you to read the book of Timothy. Not once do you find the word "pastor".
The only place in the New Testament where you find the word "pastor" is in Ephesians 4:11. Here it is rendered in plural, "pastors". It is never in the singular anywhere in the KJV Bible. Look for yourself!
Even the most conservative ought to be able to discover this without being labeled a "liberal"!
OK! But Johann....Paul is clear on ordination. Perhaps, you just chose to overlook that? I'm sorry but your ideas are liberal.
-
Aliex said:
If a woman claims to be called by God to preach....she is a liar. There is no biblical foundation to support it.
Alex, let me give you a true situation:
World War II was in progress. In a certaian country in Scandanavia the governmental authorities had removed all of the male clergy of the SDA church from their pulpits who were of a certain age range. The only male clergy left in that country were a very few elderly clergy.
Two women believed that in these circumstances, in a time of war, the gospel needed to be preached. So, they struck out on their own and began to hold evangelistic meetings. During the time that they held evangelistic meetings, several thousand people, accepted Christ and requested baptism.
That presented a problem. These women were not ordained. They believed that God had called them to preach the gospil. They did not believe that they should baptize. So, the few elderly male clergy left in the country baptized their converts.
Do you believe that under these circumstances God did not call them to preach? Do you believe that it would have been better if they had not preached the gospil in evangelistic meetings? Do you believe that it would have been better if these several thousand, both males and females, had not been converted to Christ tlhrough their preaching.
I stand by my statement. No woman is called to "pastor" it is also unbiblical for them to be ordained.
-
Here is a word for those who consider Billy Graham an authority (others need not read it):
Dr. Billy Graham, when asked by David Frost about women's ordination, said, "Women preach all over the world. It doesn't bother me at all from my study of the Scriptures. And there were many women preachers in the Bible." . . .
Yet, each leaves open the possibility of women as preachers. Ironically, on the same day that the SBC published its proposed revision to the "Baptist Faith and Message," USA Today carried an article about Anne Graham Lotz, daughter of the famous evangelist. In that article, Graham called her the "best preacher in the family."
From the Texas Baptist Committed, July 2000
Have I ever said I consider Billy Graham an authority? Billy happens to be Southern Baptist just like myself.....but not all of his ideas represent the SBC. It is a stretch to call him an authority!
-
Here is a word for those who consider Billy Graham an authority (others need not read it):
Dr. Billy Graham, when asked by David Frost about women's ordination, said, "Women preach all over the world. It doesn't bother me at all from my study of the Scriptures. And there were many women preachers in the Bible." . . .
Yet, each leaves open the possibility of women as preachers. Ironically, on the same day that the SBC published its proposed revision to the "Baptist Faith and Message," USA Today carried an article about Anne Graham Lotz, daughter of the famous evangelist. In that article, Graham called her the "best preacher in the family."
From the Texas Baptist Committed, July 2000
Billy Grahm did not get a lot of scripture right including that, BTW has anyone came across the decked out "ornament, many color flamboyant hair where the hair and eyelashes met" lady --worse then Tammie Faye Baker appeared. I discovered it is part of the "Grahm Kingdom". I do not claim to dislike Billy Grahm or his wife, I listened to him a lot but knew the jumping off point but always felt sorry he never grasped "scripture as it stated" on the Sabbath, and death and rapture but so it goes. But the lady had been hilarious for me to imagine her next concoction of hair as her facial expressions looked to be off into another world while squeaking her voice into such dramatizations. Just watched it the other night and I think her hair must be falling out as now she finally had to cut it. I turned it as I laughed again of such stupid vanity. Almost like someone else on tv that you get glimpses of once in a while. Oh my, Scripture does say their will be strange dress in last days. lol I just did not like to see some on Hope and abn being shown going that route. so I stated about it.
Conclusion of Billy Grahm, he made no waves of any doctrine therefore he drew in the most money! Sort of what Olsen is doing. and that leads people into falseness of Ten Commandments or Gods Law
OK! The SBC including myself have issues with the Adventist on grave sleeping...That is NOT biblical either. Neither is the Adventist position on hell! There are many strong differences between Adventist and the SBC.
-
Paul said that but there is a clear contradiction with God appointing women in political and spiritual authority, and Paul's later comments against it. How do you reconcile that contradiction?
Nope, Paul made his position clear time and time again.
I cannot believe many here except myself, Gailon, Bob, and Tinka are the ones who are biblically correct on our position.
How is there ANY controdiction?
-
Johann is correct in the comments that he has made about the SDA Reform Movementat WW I--1914-1918. I am not nearly as well informed about this period of their history as I am about the WW II period and Nazi Germany.
I First came into contact with them in the period of 1959 though the 1960s. At that time, their U.S. leadership said very little about the WW I period of their history. Rather they concentrated on the Nazi Germany period. Very few people in the U.S. are aquainted wjth the issues that arose at that time. Other than superficial comments about it, little has been said about it until the SDA historian that I previously mentiond began to research and write about it. (Is his name Ron Lawson?)
Anyway, they are an interesting group. With the passage to time, they had split. A regional headquarters of one of their splits is located in the Denver area and I have often driven by it. The leaders of that group that I have talked to seem much less agressive that what I once saw in their leadership in the early 60s.
-
NOTE- Perhaps, I should have been more clearer....My issue is a woman pastoring a congregation. I used the word "preach", but I should have said "pastor."
It is COMPLETELY unbiblical for a woman to be a pastor and ask to be ordained.
-
Ronald Lawson is professor of sociology in the urban studies department at Queens College, the City University of New York.
He has pubblished a number it studies on aspects of the SDA Church. His works on aspects of the SDA Church in Nazi Germany have contributed much to our knowledge of this time and era.
-
NOTE- Perhaps, I should have been more clearer....My issue is a woman pastoring a congregation. I used the word "preach", but I should have said "pastor."
It is COMPLETELY unbiblical for a woman to be a pastor and ask to be ordained.
Alex, the Bible says many things to many different people. It can be convenient to confine differences of opinion into boxed terms like "conservative" or "liberal" but that is a patently intellectually dishonest form of avoiding reality in it's largeness. God is not anywhere near as small as we sometimes try to make him, when we decide that he must be created in our own image and after our likeness, when we presume to impose our personal smallness on him. Our personal dislikes, whether it be women, jewelry, or anything else, is not justification for claiming that God can be no bigger than us in his embrace.
-
Starck, Stark, - not until now did I recall the name of the Reformed Union president, but I still do not recall if it was spelled with a c or not. They were both Germans, but lived in Denmark from where they reigned over all of the Reformed churches in Europe. They remained in Denmark after they joined our church. Many of the other Reformed people followed them into our fellowship, so there remained only a handful. Some of them have worked diligently in an attempt to reorganize their work in Europe. They also split when their leader divorced his wife, some remaining with the old leader while others refused to have anything to do with a divorced person.
Many years ago I met an American family who were visiting England. Seems like we talked almost a whole Sabbath afternoon in the garden by Newbold College. They were brought up in the Reformed SDA church in USA where they were taught the SDA was Babylon, and they must never visit one of our churches or they would get contaminated, since the big church did not follow EGW, and none of them were vegetarians, and several other things.
On a Sabbath they happened to be in a town where there was no Reformed church, so they decided to venture into Sabbath School and church, just to learn for themselves how wicked the those Adventist were. To their great surprise they found the Adventists following the true pattern even better than themselves, and they had a most wonderful fellowship so superior to the critical and condemning spirit they were used to in their assemblies. They found the same as they returned to their home town and visited the local Adventist church.
He said they had been brought up on a big lie, but now they enjoyed true Christian fellowship and people who really followed the Christian pattern they had been taught was absent among Adventists. Reformers, he said, were kept under a lid of ignorance.
Lets avoid living under such a lid of ignorance.
-
After more than 60 years together, Jimmy Carter has announced himself at odds with the Southern Baptist Church -- and he's decided it's time they go their separate ways. Via Feministing, the former president called the decision "unavoidable" after church leaders prohibited women from being ordained and insisted women be "subservient to their husbands." Said Carter in an essay in The Age:
At its most repugnant, the belief that women must be subjugated to the wishes of men excuses slavery, violence, forced prostitution, genital mutilation and national laws that omit rape as a crime. But it also costs many millions of girls and women control over their own bodies and lives, and continues to deny them fair access to education, health, employment and influence within their own communities.
And, later:
The truth is that male religious leaders have had -- and still have -- an option to interpret holy teachings either to exalt or subjugate women. They have, for their own selfish ends, overwhelmingly chosen the latter. Their continuing choice provides the foundation or justification for much of the pervasive persecution and abuse of women throughout the world.
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/07/20/jimmy-carter-leaves-church-over-treatment-of-women/
-
For the latest on the SDA Church in China see:
http://www.adventistreview.org/article/5246/archives/issue-2012-1509/09-cn-wilson-gc-leaders-visit-adventists-in-china
-
OK! The SBC including myself have issues with the Adventist on grave sleeping...That is NOT biblical either. Neither is the Adventist position on hell! There are many strong differences between Adventist and the SBC.
Maybe an easy way to look at this Alex is this:
There is only One "Immortal"
If all that sin-- does not die, them we are Immortal too
Most believe, we have a soul or (ghost) that goes back to heaven after we die, and the wicked go down to hell. There is no Hell except the grave is called that and death called a sting.
Hell or more real is the Hell fire "fire of destruction after the 1000 years that Satan is loosed on earth with his angels. Even the wicked dead until that time.. know nothing under the sun, hear, worship, love or look out for others as so now very popular to believe. It is not biblical.
It is the breath of life that (only is returned to God as he gave it the moment of birth) Breath of Life and Spirit in that context is the same
Then at birth called now a "living soul"
All souls shall die, or if one dies on the side of Jesus, it mentions we are asleep in Jesus,
People that have went to sleep in Jesus or died do not know anything that is going on under the sun
We are only mortal and Only God Immortal.
The first Resurrection is for those who sleep in Jesus and righteous, No Spirits or ghosts of human beings, go anywhere until that time. Only the invisible Holy Spirit is in ghost form not humans. Satan yet has that power but not us. The second Resurrection is for the unjust after the thousand years, If you read in rev. it is plain, very plain
In your belief, maybe or for sure the Catholics, believe we will be looking down from heaven for eternity to watch eternal burning of bodies. Not so either, It only means "until" stubble" and never more a chance for eternity. as they will be as they never were " forever" or finality of the wicked.
The Heavens and earth are made new and Creation is then witnessed by the saved and then Holy City descends in the place of original Garden of Eden,
It is important to find truth for your own individual satisfaction. At least we will be accountable for doing so.
That is why it says to beware of false Prophets
It's a wonderful feeling to follow and read actual Biblical timeline. It is wisdom and feeling of being secure in God's word. It don't take long to read Rev
EGW was only called to present 3 rd Angels message and the inspiration to make fine details of "prophecy " more clear. Never did she give out doctrine of her own but gave better insight to symbols and put all History together to show Bible was "Infinite truth." and to correct fanaticism of a lot of people and to warn them of wrong and doctrine directing back only by Biblical scripture. You must realize also people that like to "progress to change" will not be happy with reading as she "always pointed back to scripture" and nothing more and she did not call herself a "prophet" like the people did.
Our religion is simple but only for those that give self up to truth. SDA has only been the last stepping stone from Martin Luther, Lutherans, Methodist, Baptist etc, etc, to present day to finally bring back "all " the law of God and people from early ages no longer knew. After that Jesus comes. and truth is spreading very fast but few will heed. Most Adventist, do come in because of History of original Sabbath change but don't really can't seem to shake self wants and changes on how to abide in simple love back to Jesus with almost no change of their characters. Yet we have some of the best Evangelist, preachers, and teachers and christians in the whole world that God is still leading that will multiply from other folds and as the sands of the seas while a lot of Adventists will be lost because of the advantage they were given.
-
How much does one reveal of what has gone on in one's own family?
We had a member with this selfish interpretation of Scripture which some of you relish. After he had relieved his selfish desires on some minor girls in the family, he fondled the Bible in front of the pastor, demanding if this book didn't say you should love children? Then he demanded to know where this book states that this love should not include showing your love with the genitals.
Did you read the reasons Jimmy Carter departed from the Southern Baptists after 60 years of membership? A selfish male interpretation of Scripture?
PS. The girls involved were scared and did not report until they were grown up, and even then did it only reluctantly. By then it was way too late to notify the police. This was when they all met with a pastor.
-
Alex, there is constradiction because God was appointing women as political and spiritual leaders. Paul said that he would not. On the surface there is a comflict, if Paul considered himself a follower of God. I don't know how much more set aside then to have God personally set you aside for His service. So, if women like Miriam, Deborah, and Anna were chosen to be prophetess', Why should we take Paul's word over God's when he says he would not hae women serve in that compacity.
Please explain why a woman can preach, but can't pastor? NOTE- Perhaps, I should have been more clearer....My issue is a woman pastoring a congregation. I used the word "preach", but I should have said "pastor."
It is COMPLETELY unbiblical for a woman to be a pastor and ask to be ordained.
-
Well, I for one, believe that there in no contradiction. I do not see how Paul could have been any more clearer in the book of Timothy.
He plainly states the requirements in Timothy.
Women are not to be ordained! Women have no more right to pastor a church than a practicing homosexual.
I am sure you do not disagree that a practicing homosexual should not be over a church, correct?
Women should not be ordained or pastor. It is completely contrary to Gods word.
-
Tinka, I have made a copy of this post of yours and placed under Sabbath School, because I feel that here you are giving your testimony. And this is what our lesson is about, How to give our personal testimony of our faith.
I'd like to invite you all to participate inn this discussion. Take a look at the testimony of tinka, and see how it funktions. Study your current Sabbath School lesson and see how it fits in? And do that over in the SS ssection.
Thank you, tinka!
OK! The SBC including myself have issues with the Adventist on grave sleeping...That is NOT biblical either. Neither is the Adventist position on hell! There are many strong differences between Adventist and the SBC.
Maybe an easy way to look at this Alex is this:
There is only One "Immortal"
If all that sin-- does not die, them we are Immortal too
Most believe, we have a soul or (ghost) that goes back to heaven after we die, and the wicked go down to hell. There is no Hell except the grave is called that and death called a sting.
Hell or more real is the Hell fire "fire of destruction after the 1000 years that Satan is loosed on earth with his angels. Even the wicked dead until that time.. know nothing under the sun, hear, worship, love or look out for others as so now very popular to believe. It is not biblical.
It is the breath of life that (only is returned to God as he gave it the moment of birth) Breath of Life and Spirit in that context is the same
Then at birth called now a "living soul"
All souls shall die, or if one dies on the side of Jesus, it mentions we are asleep in Jesus,
People that have went to sleep in Jesus or died do not know anything that is going on under the sun
We are only mortal and Only God Immortal.
The first Resurrection is for those who sleep in Jesus and righteous, No Spirits or ghosts of human beings, go anywhere until that time. Only the invisible Holy Spirit is in ghost form not humans. Satan yet has that power but not us. The second Resurrection is for the unjust after the thousand years, If you read in rev. it is plain, very plain
In your belief, maybe or for sure the Catholics, believe we will be looking down from heaven for eternity to watch eternal burning of bodies. Not so either, It only means "until" stubble" and never more a chance for eternity. as they will be as they never were " forever" or finality of the wicked.
The Heavens and earth are made new and Creation is then witnessed by the saved and then Holy City descends in the place of original Garden of Eden,
It is important to find truth for your own individual satisfaction. At least we will be accountable for doing so.
That is why it says to beware of false Prophets
It's a wonderful feeling to follow and read actual Biblical timeline. It is wisdom and feeling of being secure in God's word. It don't take long to read Rev
EGW was only called to present 3 rd Angels message and the inspiration to make fine details of "prophecy " more clear. Never did she give out doctrine of her own but gave better insight to symbols and put all History together to show Bible was "Infinite truth." and to correct fanaticism of a lot of people and to warn them of wrong and doctrine directing back only by Biblical scripture. You must realize also people that like to "progress to change" will not be happy with reading as she "always pointed back to scripture" and nothing more and she did not call herself a "prophet" like the people did.
Our religion is simple but only for those that give self up to truth. SDA has only been the last stepping stone from Martin Luther, Lutherans, Methodist, Baptist etc, etc, to present day to finally bring back "all " the law of God and people from early ages no longer knew. After that Jesus comes. and truth is spreading very fast but few will heed. Most Adventist, do come in because of History of original Sabbath change but don't really can't seem to shake self wants and changes on how to abide in simple love back to Jesus with almost no change of their characters. Yet we have some of the best Evangelist, preachers, and teachers and christians in the whole world that God is still leading that will multiply from other folds and as the sands of the seas while a lot of Adventists will be lost because of the advantage they were given.
-
What should be done in the event that there are no males available to lead a congregation? The SDA chruch has had in the past, and has today congregations that have no male who is capable of leading: a congregation. Should that congregation be disolved? Should it be ordered not to meet and by whom? Should the women who lead out in its spiritual activities by directed to quit?
What do I mean by "no male capable of leading a congregation?
1) A child of one of the female members. Yes, I know that the history of Christianity has stories of God raising up children to lead and preach--some of whom were female.
2) A male non-member who attends. I attend a SDA Church today that has a male who in not a member of any Christian group, but has attended this SDA Chruch for several years. He has made spiritual progress and has grown in his knowledge and priactice Christianity. But, he is not yet ready to become a member.
3) A male who may attend, but is struggling with issues in his life that deny him the prevlige of spiritual leadershlp over a congregation.
O.K. Let me take this in another direction:
The military of the United States has thousands of people who claim SDA background and who are assigned to locations around the world to include places where there is no opportunity for them to worship with local congregations. Yes, SDA military chaplains serve these people as much as is possible. But, it is often impossible for them to personally serve SDAs in these locations.
NOTE: Presently, females are allowed to serve in all of the individual services (Army, Air force, Navy, Coast Guard, Marines and the USPHS). In addition, females, with some exceptions, are allowed to serve in the majority of the military jobs. The American public has little knowledge at to how much our ability to go to war depends upon our ability to send females into combat.
Adventist Chaplaincy Ministries (ACM), a part of the organizational structure of the SDA Chruch has a plan to attempt to meet the spiritual needs of small groups of SDA military who are isolasted from contact with SDA Clergy. In that plan, it authorizes groups to meet and it accredits a miliatary person to be the spiritual leader of that group. ACM Then attempts to coordinate administrative support to that group. What should ACM do:
1) If the only SDAs present in that area are female? This can happen.
2) Males who may attend are quite irregular in attending? Combat opperations may make such the norm for some people.
3) Males who attend may not be in a positon where they can/should provide spiritual leadership.
I would really like to see some of those who believe that females should never take posiitons of spiritual leadership respond to these situations.
-
Where 3 are only gathered together and present makes a wonderful opportunity for discussion and Bible study and a good prayer time. Extreme circumstances always has its simple solutions with out finding away to justify.
-
A voice of reason.
However, keep in mind that this group of 3 may be advertised through military channels as being the place for SDA in the area to meet together to worship. IOW that group of 3 will be presented in the area as an organized SDA group.
-
Hmmm, smile
Is the "organized church" essential for the "worship" of God?
Not sure the "organized" church will still be intact going through the tribulations of time of trouble. But the "righteous church of remnant" will.
and in all scenario's God is the "organized Head" into all situations and in this situation you do all that can be done under His directions.
The extreme situations will be bearing down soon enough. We really won't be thinking of "organization" as organization that seems to becoming more and more corrupt. But until then each true person of God will help lift in their capacity "without papered credentials".
-
I agree with you, Tinka!
-
When the time comes where there is no organized church, and the church is underground existing only in small groups, will there be any small groups that are led by a female?
?? Isn't there some kind of a verse in the Bible telling us that in the last days, just before the end of time and the Second Advent, that our sons and daughters will prophecy? In those days, will the sons and daughters who prophecy exercise spiritual leadership?
Well, I believe it was Peter who stated: "Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, they will prophesy." Acts 2:18 [Read the 17th verse also.]
-
When the time comes where there is no organized church, and the church is underground existing only in small groups, will there be any small groups that are led by a female?
By then i do not think so as we will be led by the directions of Holy Spirit and cared for and all our needs met by angels.
?? Isn't there some kind of a verse in the Bible telling us that in the last days, just before the end of time and the Second Advent, that our sons and daughters will prophecy? In those days, will the sons and daughters who prophecy exercise spiritual leadership?
Absolutely, they will and they have as we read and who they were starting at the time of 3rd Angels messages. Many will have dreams and led but 9 out of 10 they won't run after credentials because they did have dreams or visions. I've had a couple of dreams very early in life, and one shortly after my husband went to rest.
Well, I believe it was Peter who stated: "Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, they will prophesy." Acts 2:18 [Read the 17th verse also.]
In the magnitude poured forth of 3rd angels in visions in a lifetime of writings of EW according to that verse- I truly believe she was the last messenger addressed in scripture right as the era is told. There is no need for another unless one feels God gives vision to make change and that happening, I would not believe. That scripture has already happened. What new is there? Would one come forth to announce the change of Sabbath?? I would not believe any new change. that verse is what happened to a very small group like you have been talking about only now that small group is at the end of time.(your scenario)
The visions were put forth in 1844 era to both men and woman and they had the whole weight or burden to the whole world on their shoulders to relate back the final message to worship the Creator and make whole the 10 commandments that had been changed
-
Well, I for one, believe that there in no contradiction. I do not see how Paul could have been any more clearer in the book of Timothy.
He plainly states the requirements in Timothy.
Women are not to be ordained! Women have no more right to pastor a church than a practicing homosexual.
I am sure you do not disagree that a practicing homosexual should not be over a church, correct?
I do agree... a practicing homosexual is sinning by way of fornication. What sin is a women committing? You want me to believe that God would deny a woman to serve Him in this way because HE made her a woman?
Women should not be ordained or pastor. It is completely contrary to Gods word.
But not contrary to God's own actions, Alex. He placed women in spiritual authority over men all through the Bible. The prophets in the Bible were spiritual leaders, higher than the Levites. Everyone, including the priests and kings had to submit to the spiritual authority o a prophet. God appointed many prophetess' in the Bible. I have to take God's actions over Paul's words.
-
I suppose Paul was just a sexist?.....
-
EGW was greatly impressed with this man, even if some of you might not, when I tell you this story about him:
I am not impressed by the falsehoods he stated, probably unintentionally, at the 1919 Bible Conference. That doesn't mean God didn't use him at other times.
Referring to your last question here below I'm tempted to ask you: Did that really occur? Was this just a false report by one of his enemies? How can you be sure, even if one of your trusted friends have assured you it is true?
Johann, anyone in the world can read Daniells' misstatements in the published 1919 Bible Conference minutes. He spoke of Conybeare and Howson causing trouble over LP and of finding word for word, page after page the same when comparing their book and Wylie's with material by Ellen White. Both those statements were very serious misstatements.
-
No more than any other man in those times of patriarchal societies. Those are the little details we have to take into consideration. I believe it also played a part in the compilation of the Bible as we know it. You are correct that the men would not ordain a woman, but you notice that God did set them apart fo His service all the time.
I suppose Paul was just a sexist?.....
-
Confusion?
Let me make it clear that during my half century of ministry for the Lord I have never baptized a person wearing an ornamental ring. I have never in these discussions rejected the counsel of EGW on wearing ornaments or ornamental rings.
If only we'd read all of what is stated in the quoted material we would not have these heated discussions. Some of us read only the portions which seemingly support our preconceived views. Please read again this part of what tinka has already posted:
[YEARS LATER, W. C. WHITE, ON ELLEN WHITE'S REQUEST,
RESPONDED TO AN INQUIRY FROM A MINISTER'S WIFE IN EDINBURGH,
SCOTLAND, ON THE POINT:
"NOW REGARDING THE QUESTION RAISED IN YOUR LETTER. THE WEARING
OF A GOLD RING AS A MATTER OF ORNAMENT IS A USELESS PRACTICE, AND
CONTRARY TO THE BIBLE INSTRUCTION REGARDING THE SIMPLICITY OF DRESS
AND APPAREL. THE WEARING OF A RING AS A TOKEN OF LOYALTY IN THOSE
COUNTRIES AND AMONG THOSE PEOPLE WHERE SUCH A CUSTOM IS SO THOROUGHLY
ESTABLISHED THAT DEPARTURE FROM THAT CUSTOM WILL BE UNIVERSALLY
MISUNDERSTOOD IS, IN MY OPINION, QUITE ANOTHER MATTER, AND I THINK
THAT IF YOU SHOULD FOLLOW THE COUNSEL OF MEN AND WOMEN OF EXPERIENCE
WHO HAVE LABORED IN GREAT BRITAIN AND IN INDIA, THE LORD WILL NOT
COUNT IT TO YOU AS A VIOLATION REGARDING THE SIMPLICITY OF WOMEN'S
APPAREL.
"POSSIBLY YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN THE STORY OF MY WIFE'S
EXPERIENCE WITH THE WEDDING RING. WHILE SHE WAS ATTENDING BIBLE
SCHOOL IN AUSTRALIA, I BECAME WELL ACQUAINTED WITH HER, AND WHEN THE
TIME DREW NEAR FOR OUR MARRIAGE, I PROPOSED THAT IT BE IN TASMANIA
AT HER FATHER'S HOME. REGARDING THIS SHE WAS NOT ENTHUSIASTIC, AND
UPON INQUIRY, I LEARNED THAT HER FATHER HAD VERY DECIDED OPINIONS
REGARDING THE DUTY OF THE WIFE TO WEAR THE WEDDING RING, AND MY WIFE,
KNOWING THAT AMERICANS LOOKED UPON THIS MATTER DIFFERENTLY THAN THE
BRITISH PEOPLE, SUPPOSED THAT I WOULD OBJECT.
"SHE DID NOT CARE FOR IT PERSONALLY, BUT I PURCHASED A RING, AND
WE WERE MARRIED WITH IT BECAUSE HER FATHER'S FAMILY AND ALL HER
FRIENDS REGARDED IT AS ESSENTIAL. AFTER WE HAD BEEN MARRIED A FEW
MONTHS, AND HAD SETTLED DOWN IN OUR HOME WHERE WE WERE WELL KNOWN,
SHE LAID ASIDE THE RING, AND WHEN I ASKED HER WHY SHE TOOK IT OFF,
SHE SAID IT WAS IN THE WAY WHEN SHE WAS WASHING. I DON'T KNOW WHAT
BECAME OF THE RING, BUT SHE HAS NOT WORN IT SINCE. I THINK THAT IN
THIS EXPERIENCE IT WAS HER DESIRE TO FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTION OF PAUL
WHEN HE WROTE, 'WHETHER THEREFORE YE EAT, OR DRINK, OR WHATSOEVER
YE DO, DO ALL TO THE GLORY OF GOD.'
"BY THE WEARING OF THE RING DURING THAT PORTION OF OUR EXPERIENCE
WHERE ITS ABSENCE WOULD HAVE BEEN WONDERED AT, AND CAUSED UNNECESSARY
PREJUDICE, AND BY LAYING IT ASIDE AS SOON AS THAT EXPERIENCE WAS
TERMINATED, SHE HAS FELT THAT SHE WAS DOING THAT WHICH WOULD BEST
SERVE THE CAUSE OF OUR MASTER."--DF 121, WCW TO MRS. W. E. INGLE,
APRIL 14, 1913.]--DF 121. {4BIO 197.1}
Notice the clear distinction made between ornamental and wedding rings in this letter EGW asked her son to write. He makes it clear that there are different customs in America and in other countries, and that the Brethren in these other countries should be consulted on what is appropriate there.
A few months after we came from America to work in Denmark in 1958 our conference president gave us "orders" to purchase and wear wedding rings. We did not have any, so we had to order them 4 years after we were married and we had the date of our wedding in Berrien Springs back in 1954 engraved in the new rings.
I had noticed how certain young ladies had been staring at my fingers, and since there was no ring there had seemingly come to the conclusion I was not married, because this is the age old custom in Europe. If a married person takes off the ring that is a clear signal to some that the person does not feel an obligation to be faithful to the marriage vows and is prepared to have some "fun".
There is nowhere a statement by Ellen White where she cancels the instructions she gave to areas outside America. Let Ellen White speak for herself without you messing things up by telling her she must adhere to your private interpretation. As late as 1913 she tells her son to clarify the confusion and let people know where she stands. Has God given you a vision about canceling her instructions?
Again: This does not apply to her instructions about ornaments - in case you are still confused!
Note that your quote says nothing about Willie wearing a ring. Thus, what he describes does not violate the only published counsel of Ellen White on this question: American missionaries serving in countries where the custom is considered obligatory should not for that reason wear wedding rings. But citizens of that country may.
Am I remembering the counsel in TM correct? And why does the Norwegian version of that quote omit part of it?
-
Well, Di, I happen to agree with Paul. A womans place is to remain quiet. A woman should not be ordained and should NEVER be over a man.
-
Note that your quote says nothing about Willie wearing a ring. Thus, what he describes does not violate the only published counsel of Ellen White on this question: American missionaries serving in countries where the custom is considered obligatory should not for that reason wear wedding rings. But citizens of that country may.
Am I remembering the counsel in TM correct? And why does the Norwegian version of that quote omit part of it?
Yes, customs vary. In many parts of the world it is only the woman who wears a wedding ring. Not so in Northern Europe. Here it is just as important that the man wear one too, because here it takes two to get married! In Sweden you use two rings, one for the engagement and a similar ring for the wedding. So if you only wear one ring there you are only engaged and not married - unless customs have changed there recently.
I have no idea which TM quotation you are referring to nor any Norwegian translation. That book was not available in Norwegian last time I checked, although Gospel Workers has been for many years.
-
Yes, EGW said what she said. I b elieve that she has been quoted accurately. However, you will note that she said:
In countries where the custom is imperative, we have no burden to condemn those who have their marriage ring; let them wear it . . .
Does her advice against a wedding ring remain for eternity and in all culutures? Is it possible that our culture may have changed to the point were some should wear the wedding rding?
I understand that to mean that she said that there were situations where it was best to wear a wedding ing.
NOTE: I do not wear a wedding ring. My wife does not wear a wedding ring.
However, I believe that some of our members and some of our clergy are in situaitons where it may be best for them to wear a wedding ring.
If the time comes where I believe it would be best for me to wear a wedding riong, I will wear one.
-
Traditions vary. Did you know that when Martin Luther finally decided he'd take the nun Kathrine von Bora he had a most elaborate engagement? The wedding was nothing like it. We are told that it was unthinkable to cancel an engagement. It was just as binding as the wedding.
-
Traditions varry:
One of our student missionaries in Korea, some years back, became engaged to a Korean woman. Shortly before the wedding he returned to the U.S. for a short visit. When he returned to Korea, he was accompanied by his wife, his old girlfriend whom he had married!
At that point the Korean woman became "dead meat," so to speak. No Korean man woud consider marriage to a woman who had been rejected by an American. The news of her rejection was quickly carried throughout the country among the SDA community.
As to his effectiveness as a student missionary. . . . . . .?
-
Traditions varry:
One of our student missionaries in Korea, some years back, became engaged to a Korean woman. Shortly before the wedding he returned to the U.S. for a short visit. When he returned to Korea, he was accompanied by his wife, his old girlfriend whom he had married!
At that point the Korean woman became "dead meat," so to speak. No Korean man woud consider marriage to a woman who had been rejected by an American. The news of her rejection was quickly carried throughout the country among the SDA community.
As to his effectiveness as a student missionary. . . . . . .?
Unfortunately this story is somewhat similar to what happened elsewhere within our Church. Weren't these men "blameless" as long as they were only "engaged"? Weren't they following the letter of the law? Afer all, is the man not a "head" and does not have to take the same consideration to a woman who in dignity is "lower" than the man??????
How about an unmarried pastor who gets engaged to the daughter of another pastor. Shortly before their wedding is to take place he becomes aware of the availability of a better looking girl, whom he thinks will be a better minister's wife, so he cancels the wedding at the last moment. No problem as long as he is in the "head" position and females are to be subdued and submissive?
-
Note that your quote says nothing about Willie wearing a ring. Thus, what he describes does not violate the only published counsel of Ellen White on this question: American missionaries serving in countries where the custom is considered obligatory should not for that reason wear wedding rings. But citizens of that country may.
Am I remembering the counsel in TM correct? And why does the Norwegian version of that quote omit part of it?
...
I have no idea which TM quotation you are referring to nor any Norwegian translation. That book was not available in Norwegian last time I checked, although Gospel Workers has been for many years.
"Some have had a burden in regard to the wearing of a marriage ring, feeling that the wives of our ministers should conform to this custom. All this is unnecessary. Let the ministers' wives have the golden link which binds their souls to Jesus Christ, a pure and holy character, the true love and meekness and godliness that are the fruit borne upon the Christian tree, and their influence will be secure anywhere. The fact that a disregard of the custom occasions remark is no good reason for adopting it. Americans can make their position understood by plainly stating that the custom is not regarded as obligatory in our country. We need not wear the sign, for we are not untrue to our marriage vow, and the wearing of the ring would be no evidence that we were true. I feel deeply over this leavening process which seems to be going on among us, in the conformity to custom and fashion. Not one penny should be spent for a circlet of gold to testify that we are married. In countries where the custom is imperative, we have no burden to condemn those who have their marriage ring; let them wear it if they can do so conscientiously; but let not our missionaries feel that the wearing of the ring will increase their influence one jot or tittle. If they are Christians, it will be manifest in their Christlikeness of character, in their words, in their works, in the home, in association with others; it will be evinced by their patience and long-suffering and kindliness. They will manifest the spirit of the Master, they will possess His beauty of character, His loveliness of disposition, His sympathetic heart" (TM 180-181).
When I showed the above to a young Norwegian back around 1993, he emphatically stated that part of it was missing from what I recall he identified as being the Norwegian edition. I recall, but not well, him saying that the "Not one penny" sentence was missing.
-
Note that your quote says nothing about Willie wearing a ring. Thus, what he describes does not violate the only published counsel of Ellen White on this question: American missionaries serving in countries where the custom is considered obligatory should not for that reason wear wedding rings. But citizens of that country may.
Am I remembering the counsel in TM correct? And why does the Norwegian version of that quote omit part of it?
...
I have no idea which TM quotation you are referring to nor any Norwegian translation. That book was not available in Norwegian last time I checked, although Gospel Workers has been for many years.
"Some have had a burden in regard to the wearing of a marriage ring, feeling that the wives of our ministers should conform to this custom. All this is unnecessary. Let the ministers' wives have the golden link which binds their souls to Jesus Christ, a pure and holy character, the true love and meekness and godliness that are the fruit borne upon the Christian tree, and their influence will be secure anywhere. The fact that a disregard of the custom occasions remark is no good reason for adopting it. Americans can make their position understood by plainly stating that the custom is not regarded as obligatory in our country. We need not wear the sign, for we are not untrue to our marriage vow, and the wearing of the ring would be no evidence that we were true. I feel deeply over this leavening process which seems to be going on among us, in the conformity to custom and fashion. Not one penny should be spent for a circlet of gold to testify that we are married. In countries where the custom is imperative, we have no burden to condemn those who have their marriage ring; let them wear it if they can do so conscientiously; but let not our missionaries feel that the wearing of the ring will increase their influence one jot or tittle. If they are Christians, it will be manifest in their Christlikeness of character, in their words, in their works, in the home, in association with others; it will be evinced by their patience and long-suffering and kindliness. They will manifest the spirit of the Master, they will possess His beauty of character, His loveliness of disposition, His sympathetic heart" (TM 180-181).
When I showed the above to a young Norwegian back around 1993, he emphatically stated that part of it was missing from what I recall he identified as being the Norwegian edition. I recall, but not well, him saying that the "Not one penny" sentence was missing.
Don't you find it interesting that Ellen White also states clearly that she has no burden condemning those who with good conscience use the wedding ring? Since when has the Lord placed the burden on you than Ellen White did not have? Are you a greater prophet than Ellen White?
I have no idea who your Norwegian friend is, nor where he finds a Norwegian edition of a book which has never been published by our publishing houses in Scandinavia. Because Danish and Norwegian are quite similar languages, some of the Ellen White books have been published in one of these languages and not the other, but I have never seen TM in either of those languages. I worked as the sales manager of one of these publishing houses for a while, and have kept a good check on our publications since then, especially what concerns our ministers.
-
Note that your quote says nothing about Willie wearing a ring. Thus, what he describes does not violate the only published counsel of Ellen White on this question: American missionaries serving in countries where the custom is considered obligatory should not for that reason wear wedding rings. But citizens of that country may.
Am I remembering the counsel in TM correct? And why does the Norwegian version of that quote omit part of it?
...
I have no idea which TM quotation you are referring to nor any Norwegian translation. That book was not available in Norwegian last time I checked, although Gospel Workers has been for many years.
"Some have had a burden in regard to the wearing of a marriage ring, feeling that the wives of our ministers should conform to this custom. All this is unnecessary. Let the ministers' wives have the golden link which binds their souls to Jesus Christ, a pure and holy character, the true love and meekness and godliness that are the fruit borne upon the Christian tree, and their influence will be secure anywhere. The fact that a disregard of the custom occasions remark is no good reason for adopting it. Americans can make their position understood by plainly stating that the custom is not regarded as obligatory in our country. We need not wear the sign, for we are not untrue to our marriage vow, and the wearing of the ring would be no evidence that we were true. I feel deeply over this leavening process which seems to be going on among us, in the conformity to custom and fashion. Not one penny should be spent for a circlet of gold to testify that we are married. In countries where the custom is imperative, we have no burden to condemn those who have their marriage ring; let them wear it if they can do so conscientiously; but let not our missionaries feel that the wearing of the ring will increase their influence one jot or tittle. If they are Christians, it will be manifest in their Christlikeness of character, in their words, in their works, in the home, in association with others; it will be evinced by their patience and long-suffering and kindliness. They will manifest the spirit of the Master, they will possess His beauty of character, His loveliness of disposition, His sympathetic heart" (TM 180-181).
When I showed the above to a young Norwegian back around 1993, he emphatically stated that part of it was missing from what I recall he identified as being the Norwegian edition. I recall, but not well, him saying that the "Not one penny" sentence was missing.
Don't you find it interesting that Ellen White also states clearly that she has no burden condemning those who with good conscience use the wedding ring? Since when has the Lord placed the burden on you than Ellen White did not have? Are you a greater prophet than Ellen White?
Johann, I do not understand why you are writing in this manner.
1. Ellen White's "no burden" comment applies only to non-Americans who are living in countries where the custom is obligatory.
2. She also tells that specific group to wear their rings if they can do so "conscientiously." What does the use of this word tell us regarding what the motive of the wearer should be?
3. What specific burden are you suggesting that I have that goes beyond what Ellen White plainly stated?
-
Neither do I understand you, Bob. I am not an American, and I am living in my own country, and I am stating that I was told by my conference president that we should wear wedding rings because that is the custom in our part of the world.
When I gave as a reason the words of A G Daniells quoting Ellen White, you immediately call him a liar. Other quotes by Ellen White or her son you keep arguing do not apply, so it seems like you are just condemning me by any means possible, even where Ellen White states clearly she is not condemning. And you even claim that some Norwegian friend of yours is telling you that TM has been altered here. So what are you fighting?
-
Neither do I understand you, Bob. I am not an American, and I am living in my own country, and I am stating that I was told by my conference president that we should wear wedding rings because that is the custom in our part of the world.
When I gave as a reason the words of A G Daniells quoting Ellen White, you immediately call him a liar.
I did not call him a liar, did I? I said he stated falsehoods at the 1919 Bible Conference. Only if those falsehoods were intentional would he be a liar, and I said nothing about them being intentional.
Other quotes by Ellen White or her son you keep arguing do not apply ....
There is only one quote by Ellen White on the topic, found at TM 180-181; SpTA03 6-7; 4Bio 196. That one is quite clear. What other quotes by Ellen White are you referring to?
As far as the quote by W. C. White goes, found on 4Bio 197, only if Mrs. Ingle was a missionary from a place where the custom was not considered obligatory would there be an apparent contradiction between W. C. White and Ellen White. What evidence do you have that Mrs. Ingle was from such a place?
Your previous statement:
My wife and I had a dear friend, who, together with her husband spent many years as missionaries to Madagascar. Most honest and sincere people. One day she told us that just before they left for the mission field, AGDaniells visited Denmark and had an appointment giving the young couple some good advise to follow on their way to the Mission Field.
- Be sure to wear wedding rings where you are going. This was the advice Ellen White gave us in Australia, and I have known it is good to follow her words. Take the rings off when you go to America because our Brethren over there don't like them, and Ellen White supported them in stating they are not needed over there.
"Be sure to wear wedding rings where you are going. This was the advice Ellen White gave us in Australia ...."
Where is there any evidence that Ellen White counseled missionaries to wear wedding rings where they were going? The only statement we have tells American missionaries not to wear wedding rings, even where the custom is considered obligatory.
-
This reminds me of the early Christian battle regarding food and circumcision. The folks in Jerusalem insisted that new converts must conform to the Jewish laws on these matters, but Paul told them that these little things don't matter. He told them that if they felt it was a sin to eat unclean food or not to be circumcised, then to them it was sin, but don't try to impose it on others, because to them it is not sin.
But here is my concession to reality. Religion is about appearance. Beards, hair, vestments, crosses, jewelry, no jewelry, makeup, no makeup, burkas, hijab... appearance is what defines many religious people. Deviation from what defines them is an attack on who they are. Others can't see what is in their heart, but their apparel is there for all to see. So they say that their appearance reflects what is in their heart. Does it? The Amish didn't want to change their looks because in appearing plain they wouldn't be noticed. Now their "plainness" is their pride and makes them a spectacle. Does the modesty of the Taliban make them a beautiful thing? No. Does the wearing of vestments and crosses make anyone more Christian than anyone else? No. Neither apparel nor lack of apparel make a person more Christian, it just makes them more dressed or less dressed. So in my opinion, if not wearing a ring makes one feel more Christian then by all means don't wear the ring. If that is what defines your Christianity, then by all means keep your identity, just like the early Christians who wanted to be defined by their food and circumcision.
-
A friend of mine has this statement on his FaceBook page:
God is more tolerant than all religions
What is your view?
-
A friend of mine has this statement on his FaceBook page:
God is more tolerant than all religions
What is your view?
Does he need our guidance?
-
A friend of mine has this statement on his FaceBook page:
God is more tolerant than all religions
What is your view?
Does he need our guidance?
Any organization that wishes to exert the authority of God over people must identify God has having given them His authority. Then they can do whatever it is they do in His name. Questioning them is questioning God, disobeying them is disobeying God, not being like them is not being like God, not having their intolerance is not having God's intolerance, leaving them is leaving God, joining them is joining God (on terms that God never set). In the end, we know what will happen,they will say say "but God! Look at everything we did in your name?! and he will reply "Go away from me you doers of evil deeds, I never knew you."
-
A friend of mine has this statement on his FaceBook page:
God is more tolerant than all religions
What is your view?
Does he need our guidance?
Any organization that wishes to exert the authority of God over people must identify God has having given them His authority. Then they can do whatever it is they do in His name. Questioning them is questioning God, disobeying them is disobeying God, not being like them is not being like God, not having their intolerance is not having God's intolerance, leaving them is leaving God, joining them is joining God (on terms that God never set). In the end, we know what will happen,they will say say "but God! Look at everything we did in your name?! and he will reply "Go away from me you doers of evil deeds, I never knew you."
Amen and Amen!! You are SO right, Murcielago. I have personal experience with these people! They will go to any end to control in the name of God. I am so grateful that the God I serve doesn't work that way.
-
A friend of mine has this statement on his FaceBook page:
God is more tolerant than all religions
What is your view?
Does he need our guidance?
Any organization that wishes to exert the authority of God over people must identify God has having given them His authority. Then they can do whatever it is they do in His name. Questioning them is questioning God, disobeying them is disobeying God, not being like them is not being like God, not having their intolerance is not having God's intolerance, leaving them is leaving God, joining them is joining God (on terms that God never set). In the end, we know what will happen,they will say say "but God! Look at everything we did in your name?! and he will reply "Go away from me you doers of evil deeds, I never knew you."
The two of you have something in common. Both of you admire your parents. Both of you are sons of . . . I could go on. . . but it might be too close to revealing identities.
-
A news feature recently revealed that the two largest industries in our country both have female directors. The latest one is a Danish lady who found a husband in our country about six years ago and she has since managed to master our difficult language (something my Danish mother never managed during the 40 years she was here) but also win the confidence of the strong male metal workers at one of the world's largest aluminum production factory utilizing the tremendous hydroelectric power available when a new dam was constructed.
-
It was interesting hearing from an expert - and from the pulpit - this morning that people investigating the history of the early church are discovering how Christianity spread to the Celts in Ireland already in the second century A.D. This was un-amalgamated Christianity and still the way Jesus Christ and the Apostles had taught and practiced their faith and religion.
Several hundred years later soldiers with bayonets forced the people to accept a new form of religion where new ideas were introduced. Among the prominent changes was to discard the Sabbath in exchange for Sunday worship and also the introduction of male headship, something that was strange to the early Christian Church where there was full equality between male and female Christians, and where women served freely as prophets and preachers and pastors. This was something the Roman Church would not allow.
Was this something that only happened to the Celtic Christians or did this happen elsewhere in the world as well?
-
Historic documents indicate that by the 6th century AD Celtic Christians who were not willing to adhere to the Roman teachings in the northern part of the British Isles took their boats and fled to Iceland where they isolated themselves until the Norwegian and Swedish Vikings invaded Iceland in the 9th century. No records have been discovered to indicate what happened to the Christians after that.
-
Johann, you might be interested in the following book:
James Rrston, THE LAST APOCALYPSE: EUROPE AT THE YEAR 1000 A.D., Doubleday, 1998, 299 pages.
This book focuses on religion and how it came to certain countries. It is enlightening to learn of the methods that were often used to convert countries either to Christianity, or to Paganism. E.G. A red-hot poker that was about to be inserted in the throat of a reluctant convertant.
NOTE: The time-line is near to 1000 AD.
Of interest to you might be the 2nd chapter, "Thorgeir the Lawspeaker," pages 35 - 56, which deal with the conversion of Iceland.
NOTE: Iceland seemed to have escaped at that time conversion efforts of the magniltude that I have mentioned above.
Johann, you and students of religious history, I believe, will find this a very interesting book.
-
Here is how Amazon describes the book I have mentioned below:
Enter the world of 1000 A.D., when Vikings, Moors, and barbarians battled kings and popes for the fate of Europe.
As the millennium approached, Europeans feared the world would end. The old order was crumbling, and terrifying and confusing new ideas were gaining hold in the populace. Random and horrific violence seemed to sprout everywhere without warning, and without apparent remedy. And, in fact, when the millennium arrived the apocalypse did take place; a world did end, and a new world arose from the ruins.
In 950, Ireland, England, and France were helpless against the ravages of the seagoing Vikings; the fierce and strange Hungarian Magyars laid waste to Germany and Italy; the legions of the Moors ruled Spain and threatened the remnants of Charlemagne's vast domain. The papacy was corrupt and decadent, overshadowed by glorious Byzantium. Yet a mere fifty years later, the gods of the Vikings were dethroned, the shamans of the Magyars were massacred, the magnificent Moorish caliphate disintegrated: The sign of the cross held sway from Spain in the West to Russia in the East.
James Reston, Jr.'s enthralling saga of how the Christian kingdoms converted, conquered, and slaughtered their way to dominance brings to life unforgettable historical characters who embodied the struggle for the soul of Europe. From the righteous fury of the Viking queen Sigrid the Strong-Minded, who burned unwanted suitors alive; to the brilliant but too-cunning Moor Al-Mansor the Illustrious Victor; to the aptly named English king Ethelred the Unready; to the abiding genius of the age, Pope Sylvester II--warrior-kings and concubine empresses, maniacal warriors and religious zealots, bring this stirring period to life.
The Last Apocalypse is a book rich in personal historical detail, flavored with the nearly magical sensibility of an apocalyptic age.
James Reston, Jr., is the author of ten previous books, including Galileo: A Life and Sherman's March and Vietnam. He has written for The New Yorker, Esquire, Vanity Fair, Time, Rolling Stone, and many other publications. His television work includes three "Frontline" documentaries, including "Eighty-Eight Seconds in Greensboro." The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars provided him with a Visiting Fellowship during the course of his work on this book. Reston lives in Chevy Chase, Maryland.
-
James Reston Jr. is a very interesting author on several levels. He writes the history of the past as he sees it from the various data he collects. I'd say he uses the best information available although he does not so much verify by direct quotes, This reminds me of some quotes from the Gospels. Take a look at these verses:
Matthew 10:19
King James Version (KJV)
19But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak.
Mark 13:11
King James Version (KJV)
11But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost.
Luke 12:11. 12
King James Version (KJV)
11And when they bring you unto the synagogues, and unto magistrates, and powers, take ye no thought how or what thing ye shall answer, or what ye shall say: 12For the Holy Ghost shall teach you in the same hour what ye ought to say.
Some may wonder why did the Gospel Writers not quote Jesus using the same terms? My answer would be that even Ellen White makes it clear that inspiration is not tied to a specific terminology because the memory of the writers might be different.
James Reston Jr. is a great historian, but he is not tied to specific terms in his accounts of what happened.
I'd like to tell you that the ancient Althing is located only 30-45 minutes from us. Ida and I often take Sabbath afternoon rides to the place where we watch the rocks, the stones, the river, the lake, and even the natural pulpit where history happened from the year 930 AD. From there we occasionally take a ride for another 20 minutes to see the thermal baptismal pool where those farmers were baptized in the year 1000 AD who did not want to be baptized in the ice cold mountain stream of Öxará at Althing. 1012 years later the pool is still there giving us a living history of baptism not taking place by sprinkling children, but grown up people entering into the waters of baptism.
This is living history.
-
Last Sabbath afternoon I was both in Europe and America within a minute or two together with Ida and two daughters. (Both of the daughters are grandmothers, still young, but that is another story.)
By studying earthquakes and volcanoes geologists have determined that Europe and America are standing on different plates or foundations, and these under a peninsula in the South Western part of Iceland where there is a cleft. A bridge has been built across this cleft making it possible to walk over to the geological part of America. This ties Iceland to Greenland which is in North America, just by Canada.
Be sure to see this spot too when you travel to Iceland to "read" ancient Church History.
-
Johann, you might be interested in the following book:
James Rrston, THE LAST APOCALYPSE: EUROPE AT THE YEAR 1000 A.D., Doubleday, 1998, 299 pages.
This book focuses on religion and how it came to certain countries. It is enlightening to learn of the methods that were often used to convert countries either to Christianity, or to Paganism. E.G. A red-hot poker that was about to be inserted in the throat of a reluctant convertant.
NOTE: The time-line is near to 1000 AD.
Of interest to you might be the 2nd chapter, "Thorgeir the Lawspeaker," pages 35 - 56, which deal with the conversion of Iceland.
NOTE: Iceland seemed to have escaped at that time conversion efforts of the magniltude that I have mentioned above.
Johann, you and students of religious history, I believe, will find this a very interesting book.
Thanks Gregory, I'll be ordering this book.
-
North German Union Conference Constituency Session Votes to Ordain Women
Submitted: Apr 27, 2012
By AT News Team [Adventist Today--GM]
The fifth constituency session of the North German Union Conference, meeting in Geseke on April 22 and 23, was the first gathering of official Seventh-day Adventist delegates since the 1881 General Conference session to vote approval of ordination for women serving in pastoral ministry. The resolution was approved by more than a two-thirds majority of the delegates.
The text of the action reads as follows: “Voted, to ordain in the North German Union female pastors [in the same way] as their male colleagues.” Pastor Klaus van Treeck, union conference president, told Adventist Today that the action is “without any limitations” in terms of when it will be implemented. It did not include language such as that in a similar vote by the Southern Union Conference executive committee in the United States deferring to the granting of permission by the General Conference.
“There was not change of the constitution nor bylaws,” van Treeck stated. The topic of ordination is not part of the constitution of the union conference. The action also did not involve a change in the working policy of the denomination in Germany. The working policy there is under the authority of a body named the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Germany (FiD) which is constituted of a joint meeting of the executive committees of the two union conferences in that country.
There was not vote taken to propose changes in the working policy because “the delegates didn’t want to push the South German Union … in the matter,” said van Treeck. “We didn’t want to open the way or to encourage others to oppose the guidelines of the world church or to join us in civil disobedience. We discussed the matter in the context of our culture and ask the world church for understanding of our situation and decision. We are respectful towards our brothers and sisters in any area of our world church. We feel deeply associated with them in the love of Jesus and in the unity and mission of the church.”
Although there was no mention of the precedent in China, clearly the North German Union Adventists are in hopes that the General Conference will take the same attitude of tolerance toward their cultural and legal context. In Germany both the law and social values strongly condemn discrimination against women in the selection of leaders in any organization, including the Church.
It was also voted to require that at least 40 percent of the delegates sent by the local conferences to the next North German Union constituency session be female. About 20 percent of the delegates at this session were women.
A third item voted by the delegates charged the union executive committee with implementing additional study of the topic of ordination, including research to be conducted by Friedensau University, the Adventist higher education institution in Germany. The findings from this study are to be presented to the Euro-Africa Division and the General Conference.
There was a motion to amend the union conference constitution to delete the language that requires that the president and secretary be ordained ministers. This motion was not passed by the required two-thirds majority.
The North German Union Conference covers 11 states in the northern region of the German Federal Republic, including Berlin and other major urban areas. It is made up of four local conferences with a total of about 20,000 church members among a population of more than 47 million. There are 346 local churches and 149 ministers, including two women.
-
North German Union Conference Constituency Session Votes to Ordain Women
Submitted: Apr 27, 2012
By AT News Team [Adventist Today--GM]
The fifth constituency session of the North German Union Conference, meeting in Geseke on April 22 and 23, was the first gathering of official Seventh-day Adventist delegates since the 1881 General Conference session to vote approval of ordination for women serving in pastoral ministry.
"... was the first gathering of official Seventh-day Adventist delegates since the 1881 General Conference session to vote approval of ordination for women serving in pastoral ministry."
When someone wrote to me this statement a month or more ago, I decided to check it out. See http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/GCB/GCB1863-88.pdf#Page=197. The resolution in question is dealt with in paragraphs 6 and 7 on page 197. I count a total of 40 resolutions presented to the session at one time or another, and the only one of the 40 not "adopted," "carried," or "approved" is the one on women's ordination. But somehow the failure to vote approval for that resolution has morphed over the years into a vote of approval.
Have I missed something in the GC Session minutes? Or is the pro-ordination side so bankrupt of support that it must resort to historical fiction to promote its agenda? As far as Germany goes, the precedent they are setting would seem to dictate that if culture and the laws of the land require that Sunday rather than the Sabbath be kept holy, we must comply.
Could someone please help me with this? Where is the evidence that that 1881 resolution was ever approved?
-
Historic documents indicate that by the 6th century AD Celtic Christians who were not willing to adhere to the Roman teachings in the northern part of the British Isles took their boats and fled to Iceland where they isolated themselves until the Norwegian and Swedish Vikings invaded Iceland in the 9th century. No records have been discovered to indicate what happened to the Christians after that.
Johann, I would like some clarification on this since it is a topic that interests me.
Do you think 6th century might be the wrong time? Or that the Celtic Christians might have come from elsewhere other than northern Britain? The reason I ask is that Augustine didn't reach Britain on behalf of Rome until 597 AD. It seems unlikely that the persecution of the Celtic Christians could get so bad before 600 AD, particularly in the north, that some would have left the island by that time. Do you think maybe it was the 7th century instead?
-
North German Union Conference Constituency Session Votes to Ordain Women
Submitted: Apr 27, 2012
By AT News Team [Adventist Today--GM]
The fifth constituency session of the North German Union Conference, meeting in Geseke on April 22 and 23, was the first gathering of official Seventh-day Adventist delegates since the 1881 General Conference session to vote approval of ordination for women serving in pastoral ministry.
"... was the first gathering of official Seventh-day Adventist delegates since the 1881 General Conference session to vote approval of ordination for women serving in pastoral ministry."
When someone wrote to me this statement a month or more ago, I decided to check it out. See http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/GCB/GCB1863-88.pdf#Page=197. The resolution in question is dealt with in paragraphs 6 and 7 on page 197. I count a total of 40 resolutions presented to the session at one time or another, and the only one of the 40 not "adopted," "carried," or "approved" is the one on women's ordination. But somehow the failure to vote approval for that resolution has morphed over the years into a vote of approval.
Have I missed something in the GC Session minutes? Or is the pro-ordination side so bankrupt of support that it must resort to historical fiction to promote its agenda? As far as Germany goes, the precedent they are setting would seem to dictate that if culture and the laws of the land require that Sunday rather than the Sabbath be kept holy, we must comply.
Could someone please help me with this? Where is the evidence that that 1881 resolution was ever approved?
The way I understand it is that the resolution of ordaining women was left in a committee - and I have seen some maintain, whether right or wrong, that it is still there, unresolved since it was neither voted nor rejected.
I will agree with you that this resolution by the Germans will be quite dramatic.
Perhaps some will leave the church because of it. We still have a number of church members who maintain that the Roman Catholic inspired commandment 10 A, "Thou shalt not ordain a female!" is the most important of them all, and that the Lord will decide who are the faithful ones on the basis of their allegiance to this man-made commandment.
Where in the special message to the Church as recorded in Rev. 14 is this given? Verse 12 refers to the commandments of God and not those made by man.
-
Historic documents indicate that by the 6th century AD Celtic Christians who were not willing to adhere to the Roman teachings in the northern part of the British Isles took their boats and fled to Iceland where they isolated themselves until the Norwegian and Swedish Vikings invaded Iceland in the 9th century. No records have been discovered to indicate what happened to the Christians after that.
Johann, I would like some clarification on this since it is a topic that interests me.
Do you think 6th century might be the wrong time? Or that the Celtic Christians might have come from elsewhere other than northern Britain? The reason I ask is that Augustine didn't reach Britain on behalf of Rome until 597 AD. It seems unlikely that the persecution of the Celtic Christians could get so bad before 600 AD, particularly in the north, that some would have left the island by that time. Do you think maybe it was the 7th century instead?
Last time I looked at my calender the year 597 was in the 6th century. I was referring to what we heard from the pulpit in our local church given by a senior pastor I consider one of our most conservative preachers. He told us soldiers enforced the Roman proclamations. How long would you like to face a bayonet pointing at you before you'd turn your heels around?
In case the soldiers got too seasick during the crossing to accomplish their task immediately, I have no problem counting their deeds as done mainly during the 7th century. What difference does that make? What difference does it make how long their flight took? As far as I know there is no date stamp on the documents available.
We do know that a number fled from Ireland to the island of Iona. You should visit that island on your next trip to Europe. No cars allowed from the mainland, only for those who live there. There are strong indications Colomba and others there kept the Sabbath and this is what has kindled the interest of Adventist scholars. Everything we saw on Iona is from the time after the Catholic church had cleansed the island of most of the influence of Columba. We found more of that around Loch Ness, but none of the ancient documents are found there now.
Yes, I could have said "from the end of the 6th century onwards". Would you please accept my apology for not being more accurate. I understood our speaker referring to the 6th century.
The following quotation from Celtic Christianity in Wikipedia might be of interest: Definition
"Celtic Christianity" has been conceived of in different ways at different times. Some ideas are fairly consistent. Above all, Celtic Christianity is seen as being inherently distinct from – and generally opposed to – the Catholic Church.[9] Other common claims are that Celtic Christianity denied the authority of the Pope, was less authoritarian than the Catholic Church, more spiritual, friendlier to women, more connected with nature, and more comfortable dealing with the ancient Celtic religion.[9] One view, which gained substantial scholarly traction in the 19th century, was that there was a "Celtic Church", a significantly organized Christian body or denomination uniting the Celtic peoples and separating them from the "Roman" church of continental Europe.[10] Others have been content to speak of "Celtic Christianity" as consisting of certain traditions and beliefs intrinsic to the Celts.[11]
I recall an Adventist Bible Scholar, Dr. Hardinge, working on his doctoral thesis at the University of London telling me his conclusion that the early fugitives from Ireland/ Scotland fleeing to Iceland because of the Sabbath question. I do not know how long they found refuge in Iona before going on to Iceland.
Who were the Celts? - is another interesting question. Linguistic, cultural, DNA?
Iceland still maintains the most ancient language of Northern Europe. Therefore Icelanders have regarded themselves as Norwegians. Recent DNA tests indicate, however, there might be even more Celtic/ Irish blood in our veins so the question remains if we are Celts or Norse?
-
Johann:
I just reported on the official action and related it in its English wording.
As to the 1881 General conference, that has been well discussed here.
I simply think that regardless of the historical accuracy in regart to 1881, that action of the North German Conference is interesting and perhaps historic in some aspects of its action.
I suspect that this may be the beginning of further action. It is a door opening that most of us whoudl not have guessed would open. It takes the center of action away from North America. This clearly elevates this issue to something more than a uniquely North American issue.
-
I somehow would like this post to get through to CHRISSIA FONG-
Sabbath morning at 5:00 was awake and turned on TV to see this person at the pulpit. It took me a few minutes to see that it was not a man but a women as the voice was throwing me in my half slumbers. Then I saw the hair knotted in the back of head and decided it was a "woman preacher". I laid there in disgust to see the man's white pointed shirt collar with top button open instead of tie to go along with the masquerade of black hair slicked back. At the end of a man's black jacket she sported a very large masculine watch displayed the same as a man would wear in its position. I am sure one of the reason's that Biblical account for non women "ordained" preachers was taken in with these tendencies in mind of just what "confused identity" could and would do.
This was a very clear example and 3 abn ran it.
The next was actions of very masculine nature except for two things, the high pitched fast talker with Aussie accent and the sometimes womanly trait of moving theirs hand so flippant keeping up with the fast talk of pulpit stories.
Miss Fong-- What is your message here????
and 3 abn why are you doing this????
Does anyone realize the progression and for what reason now???
Of course it is an ongoing thing in the evil world today!
Did anyone hear the sermon last night with Justin Kim. the degrading of men as a new world thing to do??
Here is a better one for you.
Last week while listening to news two women were on discussing the prostitution of the Top Security Men in S America.
Very sincerely one woman spoke up and told the other that would not have happened if the Obama's body guards would have been women.
I don't think my body made a move in shock until it really settled in to what she had just said.
Does a man really want a women to protect him?? The president of the United States to take on that " legacy". How proud can that make him??
You got to be kidding with all this or else all reasonability is gone. No I do not like what is going on here or in this world but what can you expect making words seem what they are not saying to push for this over the line agenda for women. and the only books I have read are the ones I can count on and not waste my time with only "opinions" of writers as history in ones eyes are not the same in another. I count only on our last message and all that is needed to know before coming confused with "hearsay of non inspired writers." Reading of the North and South is one good example.
In fact all the above is exactly what will happen as "stated".
-
Johann:
I just reported on the official action and related it in its English wording.
As to the 1881 General conference, that has been well discussed here.
I simply think that regardless of the historical accuracy in regart to 1881, that action of the North German Conference is interesting and perhaps historic in some aspects of its action.
I suspect that this may be the beginning of further action. It is a door opening that most of us whoudl not have guessed would open. It takes the center of action away from North America. This clearly elevates this issue to something more than a uniquely North American issue.
Furthermore, Gregory, this meeting could not have taken place without the representation of the Euro-Asia Division of the General Conference of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, either by the president or one he had authorized. As we have pointed out before, a Division President is also considered a Vice President of the General Conference.
Is there any record of the Division President attempting to stop this on behalf of the General Conference?
So you are right, Gregory, this is a significant event. I thank God that by this we are signifying that the SDA Church is fully independent of the yoke of Rome which demands that all Christians unite under the banner of denying women ordination.
I feel we should unite in singing
Praise God, from whom all blessings flow;
Praise Him, all creatures here below;
Praise Him above, ye heavenly host;
Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Amen.
-
Vatican orders crackdown on American nuns
David Gibson | Apr 18, 2012 | Comments (0)
Share
WASHINGTON (RNS) The Vatican has launched a crackdown on the umbrella group that represents most of America's 55,000 Catholic nuns, saying that the group was not speaking out strongly enough against gay marriage, abortion and women’s ordination.
Do we support the pope? He equals gay marriage and abortion with women's ordination! Are we doing that toi? It may make him happy with some Seventh-day Adventists, if we support his actions against the Catholic nuns in America!
-
Not all Catholism is wrong. Most but not all. In fact when they find out the truth Mrs. White says that they will come fiercely to the front lines with the battle, while many Adventist who had all the direction and opportunities to fight will not be on the battlefront. So on this point of not "ordaining women preachers" they are right. and to tell you the truth they don't like what Obama has done to them either. and guess who is right there. If that is the Catholic belief then that is their freedom to believe how they choose. Obama is an enforcer whether people like it or not.
Did you all just take a gander at what was portrayed on 3abn Sabbath morning. That is what I call Adventist going after the flow. There is a reason for not "ordaining women". By any chance has anyone read where a women is to dress like a women and not in men's clothing? Of course that must be out the door with the jewelry concept too.
Little by little and inch by inch is how the devil is working and the elect of SDA that are liberal in one thing will be in all things and
stand to enforce change with the times (for peoples sake) and will be deceived in the end as they helped and voted out the foundations of truth.
So are the Catholics wrong on view of abortions, at least they stand up! Oh, I know in the end what it means, but many Catholics that are strong now will be strong when truth passes their sight. Not like the Reformers who were in and left and follow who ever leads them or the satisfiers of people that are deadly within.
-
The Bible is clear when it comes to gay marriages, but where in Scripture does the Lord forbid the ordination of women? Nobody has yet given a clear word of Scripture nor a quotation by Ellen White where such ordination is forbidden.
If this is so clear it should be easy to convince our Brethren in North Germany, in the Potomac Conference, and elsewhere, that they are doing the wrong thing.
Where does God require of us to apply a complicated man-made explanation to understand His Word - when there is neither such as explanation given to us by Ellen White?
-
Ellen G White counsel:
Women who are willing to consecrate some of their time to the service of the Lord should be appointed to visit the sick, look after the young, and minister to the necessities of the poor. They should be set apart to this work by prayer and laying on of hands. In some cases they will need to counsel with the church officers or the minister; but if they are devoted women, maintaining a vital connection with God, they will be a power for good in the church. This is another means of strengthening and building up the church. We need to branch out more in our methods of labor. Not a hand should be bound, not a soul discouraged, not a voice should be hushed; let every individual labor, privately or publicly, to help forward this grand work. Place the burdens upon men and women of the church, that they may grow by reason of the exercise, and thus become effective agents in the hand of the Lord for the enlightenment of those who sit in darkness. {RH July 9, 1895, par. 8}
-
Ellen G White counsel:
Women who are willing to consecrate some of their time to the service of the Lord should be appointed to visit the sick, look after the young, and minister to the necessities of the poor. They should be set apart to this work by prayer and laying on of hands. In some cases they will need to counsel with the church officers or the minister; but if they are devoted women, maintaining a vital connection with God, they will be a power for good in the church. This is another means of strengthening and building up the church. We need to branch out more in our methods of labor. Not a hand should be bound, not a soul discouraged, not a voice should be hushed; let every individual labor, privately or publicly, to help forward this grand work. Place the burdens upon men and women of the church, that they may grow by reason of the exercise, and thus become effective agents in the hand of the Lord for the enlightenment of those who sit in darkness. {RH July 9, 1895, par. 8}
Yes, as special laborers in teachers, doras ( community service) and many fields, health etc, etc, I have been very busy and have not had time to find and post but eventually will present more evidence where it is sound and not the use of "forbidden".
-
Ellen G White counsel:
Women who are willing to consecrate some of their time to the service of the Lord should be appointed to visit the sick, look after the young, and minister to the necessities of the poor. They should be set apart to this work by prayer and laying on of hands. In some cases they will need to counsel with the church officers or the minister; but if they are devoted women, maintaining a vital connection with God, they will be a power for good in the church. This is another means of strengthening and building up the church. We need to branch out more in our methods of labor. Not a hand should be bound, not a soul discouraged, not a voice should be hushed; let every individual labor, privately or publicly, to help forward this grand work. Place the burdens upon men and women of the church, that they may grow by reason of the exercise, and thus become effective agents in the hand of the Lord for the enlightenment of those who sit in darkness. {RH July 9, 1895, par. 8}
Yes, as special laborers in teachers, doras ( community service) and many fields, health etc, etc, I have been very busy and have not had time to find and post but eventually will present more evidence where it is sound and not the use of "forbidden".
I will look forward to read your posts in the future when you have found what you are looking for.
-
It is interesting that a Seventh-day Adventist church in Ghana in West Africa was among the first to elect a female local elder already 40-50 years ago.
Some years later the most vocal opposition against female ordination came from Ghana.
-
On the Northern German Union Vote for Women's Ordination
24 April 2012 | Dennis Meier
| 147 PrintPrint Email Tweet FB ShareThis
Frustration over the global impasse on the issue of women's ordination has finally led to an amendment of the constitution of the Northern German Union, as the delegates voted on April 23 in Geseke/Westfalia to accord equal rights in ordination regardless of gender. An individual's motion to ordain women was successfully passed through the administrative levels in order to qualify for the agenda. It would be an overstatement to say that discussions were controversial. There was not one speaker on the microphone who spoke against the ordination of women. Some obviously tended towards rating global unity over equality as everyone knew a positive vote would lead to a clash with the General Conference's Working Policy.
The call for unity and patience in regard to the next General Conference session in 2015 came from the Euro-Africa Division as expected. They tried illustrate the dilemma with an ill-chosen German metaphor: If one of the sixteen states constituting the Federal Republic of Germany voted to limit the speed on the Autobahn to 20km/h, the regulation would be meaningless since German highways are property of the federation, not the states and changes would require national legislation, not regional. The responses to the metaphor gave insight into the thinking on the floor. One delegate (female) said that the comparison should be made global and that while the roads in Africa are probably not fit for speeding like those in Germany, that wouldn't warrant a global speedlimit. Another delegate somewhat jokingly said: If they brought us down to 20, we would run at 100 anyway, as long as there is no police around.
All in all the final vote of 160 to 47 (taken electronically for the first time) mirrored the unanimity on the topic. While some insisted on their conscience for a "Yes" vote and others mentioned terms like revolution or reformation, it became clear that the floor had made up its mind that on the issue of the equality of female with male pastors playing for time is no more an option. Patience has yielded to resolution.
While the decision is in contradiction to global regulation, it should be noted that it was emphasized more than once that this is not to be considered as an act of disloyalty towards the world church, but as an act of conscience toward the gospel, albeit with a flavor of civil disobedience.
Dennis Meier is pastor of the Grindelberg church in Hamburg, Germany.
Spectrum
-
:ROFL:
Many will follow to jump off a cliff too or take a kool-aid.
I have never been taught to be a follower or look what someone else is doing. I know to be an individual to be responsible for my own actions and why.
are you aware that many Adventist will fall to Sunday worship too and that reason will because they were never an individual to look straight ahead to the mark and keep their eyes straight on Jesus as they have studied all for their self. I am very aware that even the biggest percentage that post on here do not even begin to have studied every single book or no way would they come off as they do.
Most new Adventist follow the leader and the serious ones read for their self. All I know that is in Europe they are more liberal then here so why wouldnt they follow the leader. Did not the Americans find an excuse to wear their golden rings to appease the "overseas agenda". Just an excuse is all it was.
None of this will matter to me except for one thing.This proves the "Signs of the Times." I know it's coming in which the foundation will be swayed ever way the wind can blow it. I am thankful for my time that I was able to "understand and even this morning I read Romans and Corinthians and Galations.
Jesus promised me one thing, he would not let me believe a lie and therefore my eye is on what I have read and the meaning of every context of which was spoken or written. I do not go after phrases that sound one way and make them into saying another.
There was no confusing in her contexts and what she meant or stated. I know for a fact that just because once church or one conference came up with their own thing does not mean she approved. She clearly states!!
-
Shun the burning desire to get up something new and bring it in as new light—If we only knew what is before us, we should not be so dilatory in doing the work of the Lord. There are ministers and workers who will present a tissue of nonsensical falsehoods as testing truths, even as the Jewish rabbis presented the maxims of men as the bread of heaven. These are given to the flock of God, as their portion of meat in due season, while the poor sheep are starving for the bread of life. Even now there seems to be a burning desire to get up something startling, and bring it in as new light. Thus men are weaving into the web as important truths a tissue of lies. This imaginary food that is being prepared for the flock will cause spiritual consumption, decline, and death.—The Review and Herald, January 22, 1901. {PaM 30.1}
-
The Role of NAD
President Jackson . . . described the conferences and unions as doing what they feel God is calling them to do, and the NAD did not see its role as one of trying to stop them. “We are not going to chastise them…we are not going to affirm them.” Instead, President Jackson sees the role of the NAD as one of educating the North American constituencies. He noted that it was clear at the 2011 year-end meeting that this question is not going away for NAD, and that its role, in addition to education, is to find more pathways for women in leadership.
Spectrum
-
:ROFL:
are you aware that many Adventist will fall to Sunday worship too and that reason will because they were never an individual to look straight ahead to the mark and keep their eyes straight on Jesus as they have studied all for their self. I am very aware that even the biggest percentage that post on here do not even begin to have studied every single book or no way would they come off as they do.
Yes, and what the Roman Catholic Church seems to be doing these days is to catch those who are unwilling to yield their Sabbath to accept the Roman Catholic view of women. Just look at what is happening to someone like you, tinka. You would never give up the Sabbath, but you seem to swallow the Roman Catholic view on women without a question.
You keep claiming you are following Ellen White and the Bible, but you have not yet produced a single proof. Nobody has yet. Where is yours?
-
On the Northern German Union Vote for Women's Ordination
While the decision is in contradiction to global regulation, it should be noted that it was emphasized more than once that this is not to be considered as an act of disloyalty towards the world church, but as an act of conscience toward the gospel, albeit with a flavor of civil disobedience.
However, it must be noted that this is not just civil disobedience. It is rebellion. God has told us that GC Session votes have authority. The words above indicate that the Northern German Union has rejected that authority.
The Role of NAD
President Jackson . . . described the conferences and unions as doing what they feel God is calling them to do, and the NAD did not see its role as one of trying to stop them. “We are not going to chastise them…we are not going to affirm them.” Instead, President Jackson sees the role of the NAD as one of educating the North American constituencies. He noted that it was clear at the 2011 year-end meeting that this question is not going away for NAD, and that its role, in addition to education, is to find more pathways for women in leadership.
Spectrum
If Jackson isn't going to do his job, he should resign. He is not the man for the job.
For one thing, he has himself admitted that the NAD is but part of the GC. What you quote above indicates that he has decided not to urge conferences and unions in the NAD to follow the policies of the very organization of which he is a part. If he can't support his own organization's policies, he shouldn't be NAD president.
-
On the Northern German Union Vote for Women's Ordination
While the decision is in contradiction to global regulation, it should be noted that it was emphasized more than once that this is not to be considered as an act of disloyalty towards the world church, but as an act of conscience toward the gospel, albeit with a flavor of civil disobedience.
However, it must be noted that this is not just civil disobedience. It is rebellion. God has told us that GC Session votes have authority. The words above indicate that the Northern German Union has rejected that authority.
The Role of NAD
President Jackson . . . described the conferences and unions as doing what they feel God is calling them to do, and the NAD did not see its role as one of trying to stop them. “We are not going to chastise them…we are not going to affirm them.” Instead, President Jackson sees the role of the NAD as one of educating the North American constituencies. He noted that it was clear at the 2011 year-end meeting that this question is not going away for NAD, and that its role, in addition to education, is to find more pathways for women in leadership.
Spectrum
If Jackson isn't going to do his job, he should resign. He is not the man for the job.
For one thing, he has himself admitted that the NAD is but part of the GC. What you quote above indicates that he has decided not to urge conferences and unions in the NAD to follow the policies of the very organization of which he is a part. If he can't support his own organization's policies, he shouldn't be NAD president.
Both of these organizations seem to be in full disagreement with you. They state that they are following their conscience and the will of God in this matter. Jackson is stating that it is the purpose of NAD to educate people in these matters. I'd say those who are being blinded into obeying the will of the Papacy. Since Papacy is not able to convince SDA they should not keep the Sabbath, Papacy is succeeding in blinding people into thinking they are doing the right thing by treating women the way the Papacy has done since they gained the supremacy in the Christian world.
Didn't you see this in the history of the Celtic church?
Have you forgotten, it was just last year that the Roman Catholic Church invited members of the Church of England to join their ranks on just one condition: That they agreed with Rome on the status of women in ministry! Getting people used to following man-made commandments. Why should we yield?
How long have you believed that the Little Horn would change the requirement of the Law of God?
We know and agree that this applies to the Sabbath commandment. Does this mean that the Roman Catholic Church is free to change or add other commandments to the Law of God?
Here the Roman Catholic Church has added this man made commandment - and it makes absolutely no impression on you. What does it take for you to see this clear message to people who believe in Prophecy?
Because you no longer can find any word in Scripture nor the Spirit of Prophecy to justify your view you turn to a technicality to justify the Pope!
You are too good a man to be made a vehicle to support such a fallacy. May God have mercy on us.
I am afraid that anyone who gets into the habit of supporting papacy in some things, will soon be able to follow in other more important issues.
-
In case some have misunderstood:
I am fully supporting the actions of duly elected leaders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church while refusing to support those who are finding fault with our leaders. Thereby I am in accord with warnings given by Ellen White in this matter.
-
In case some have misunderstood:
I am fully supporting the actions of duly elected leaders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church while refusing to support those who are finding fault with our leaders. Thereby I am in accord with warnings given by Ellen White in this matter.
Johann, please explain to all of us how your support of rebellion against properly constituted church authority is in harmony with 9T 261, which was written by Ellen White.
Please explain how the actions of a few elected leaders take precedence over the actions of an entire GC Session which is composed of far more elected leaders and delegates.
-
:ROFL:
Many will follow to jump off a cliff too or take a kool-aid.
I guess I have a hard time understanding the thought process of someone who finds that funny... :dunno:
-
In case some have misunderstood:
I am fully supporting the actions of duly elected leaders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church while refusing to support those who are finding fault with our leaders. Thereby I am in accord with warnings given by Ellen White in this matter.
Johann, please explain to all of us how your support of rebellion against properly constituted church authority is in harmony with 9T 261, which was written by Ellen White.
Comparing what Ellen White wrote on different occasions is a strong indication to me that 9T 261 does not have a universal application, especially if a leader discovers how that vote means supporting the Roman Catholic doctrine of ordination and is not supported by New Testament Christianity.
The vote, as far as I understand, was not a rejection of ordaining women. It meant a further study was to take place, giving the scholars up to a year or two to fulfill their task.
Usually when a team fulfills their task in a shorter time than allocated they receive an appreciation for using less time than required.
Reading the various reports and explanation of several leaders gives me the impression they are satisfied no further studies will change the outcome, so they go ahead and do the right thing under the circumstances, as is explained.
My conscience would not permit me to go any other way, as long as I serve the Living God.
Please explain how the actions of a few elected leaders take precedence over the actions of an entire GC Session which is composed of far more elected leaders and delegates.
Because they have a conscience in tune with the Word of God and are not in a league with Roman tradition. And they are satisfied the scholars assigned to a specific task have already delivered enough evidence to satisfy what they were asked to do. Why should they now be forced to follow the dictates of Roman Catholicism when the matter seems clear to them?
If your "other" elected leaders were really as convinced as you seem to be that this is taking the Church in a wrong direction, they should be more vocal than now.
-
In case some have misunderstood:
I am fully supporting the actions of duly elected leaders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church while refusing to support those who are finding fault with our leaders. Thereby I am in accord with warnings given by Ellen White in this matter.
Johann, please explain to all of us how your support of rebellion against properly constituted church authority is in harmony with 9T 261, which was written by Ellen White.
Please explain how the actions of a few elected leaders take precedence over the actions of an entire GC Session which is composed of far more elected leaders and delegates.
Bob, this raises the question of divine authority. If the GC in session votes for the ordination of women will you accept that as a divine mandate, or will you not accept it and thereby be in rebellion? Can you in good conscience give up your beliefs and convictions to the vote of the GC Session? Should they vote a mandate on the church that you strongly consider unbiblical would you say that Unions or Divisions that don't accept it are in rebellion, and if they are not, should they be?
-
:ROFL:
Many will follow to jump off a cliff too or take a kool-aid.
I guess I have a hard time understanding the thought process of someone who finds that funny... :dunno:
What is funny is self proclaimed Adventists that don't know that is what is going to happen as the foundations are torn away inch by inch till the "organized church seems to fall" That part is not funny but the argument sure is!! A true Adventis will not follow the majority which is against S_P so they might as well jump off a cliff with the rest of voters on New age theories. Does that say it any better??
-
A Change Is Taking Place
The conversation has changed. No longer must women working as pastors in local Seventh-day Adventist churches defend the validity of their role, exegete the challenging biblical passages, argue the appropriateness of their vocation in light of Adventist history, or humbly articulate their commitment to their congregations and their ability to be effective in pastoral ministry. At the recent North American Division Women Clergy Conference, April 23-26, 2012, the leaders of the North American Division (NAD) Ministerial Department assumed all of the above without question. Acceptance of women in ministry was the new normal. In his final presentation to the group of approximately 120 ministers, President Dan Jackson repeated what had been said many times throughout the conference: “I want to thank each of you for responding to the call of God.” The only issue now, it seemed, was just how to resolve the ordination issue in terms of church policy and governance.
http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2012/05/02/reflections-nad-women-clergy-conference
-
:ROFL:
Many will follow to jump off a cliff too or take a kool-aid.
I guess I have a hard time understanding the thought process of someone who finds that funny... :dunno:
What is funny is self proclaimed Adventists that don't know that is what is going to happen as the foundations are torn away inch by inch till the "organized church seems to fall" That part is not funny but the argument sure is!! A true Adventis will not follow the majority which is against S_P so they might as well jump off a cliff with the rest of voters on New age theories. Does that say it any better??
Since when has rebellion against the Seventh-day Adventist Church become the only true sign of sanctification?
-
The Official NAD Report
5-2-12 North American Division Affirms Women Clergy
.
Report of the first organized conference for women clergy
Most of the 107 women pastors in the North American Division were able to attend the largest conference for Women Clergy to date on April 23-26. It was held at the Adventist Frontier Mission Retreat Center on Lake Chapin, in Berrien Springs, Mich.
Boosting the attendance to nearly 300 were chaplains, seminary students and Division, Union, and Conference administrators who were there to show their support of women in ministry.
The women clergy gathered in small groups to share their personal stories of God’s call to ministry. They also articulated some of the gender obstacles to ministry that they have encountered and came up with positive suggestions as to how the NAD could enhance the role of female clergy.
Stan Hickerson, pastor of the Stevensville, Mich., Seventh-day Adventist Church, presented the early history of women in ministry. He noted the high point for women in ministry was in 1878 when in some conferences nearly 10% of the pastoral staff were women.
Ron du Preez,, Michigan Conference communication director, shared his personal journey of how he came to endorse the role of women clergy and addressed some deeper insights on many of the texts used by those who object to women pastors.
Dwight Nelson, senior pastor, Pioneer Memorial Church, pointed out that the Bible does not forbid women in ministry and further stated that since the Holy Spirit is blessing women, we should follow the Spirit.
Darius Jankiewicz, associate professor of historical theology at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary on the campus of Andrews University shared his recent study of scripture where he concluded that ordination was not part of the New Testament Church. Furthermore, his historical study revealed that ordination began in the pagan world and developed over the centuries into a theology that puts the priests in a position of authority over the laity and limits the dispensation of God’s grace to the priesthood.
Dan Jackson, Division president, attended the meeting. He said, "It was my privilege to spend time last week with a very special group of godly, Christian, Seventh-day Adventist pastors just outside of Berrien Springs, Mich. These pastors were women and I was blessed to hear their stories, to witness their energy and to see their commitment to God's work. It was a moment in time where I was personally able to witness the fulfillment of the promise of Joel 2:28, 29 where we are told that God would ‘pour out His Spirit on all flesh.’ God be praised for the Spirit-filled women pastors of the North American Division."
Donna Holland, administrative pastor at the Beltsville, Mary., Adventist Church, expressed her reactions to the conference. She said,”I appreciated the Women's Clergy Conference because it provided opportunity to meet other women clergy and to learn more about what is being done to bring more equality between men and women clergy.”
“I’ve been to four of these conferences so far but this was the first time that someone from the NAD came," exclaimed Ann Roda-Hernandez, pastor for families at New Hope Seventh-day Adventist Church in Fulton, Mary. "It was absolutely amazing that the NAD leadership was there — Dan Jackson, the Ministerial Department team and some Union presidents. It was the greatest show of affirmation that I’ve ever seen from our church! It meant a lot to the women clergy and it was a positive and inspiring experience for us who have experienced opposition to our calling.”
The Women’s Clergy Conference was planned by Esther Knott, associate ministerial director of the North American Division and a pastor at Pioneer Memorial Church. The event was sponsored by the North American Division Ministerial Department.
The NAD Ministerial team is working to upload the presentations and other highlights from the Women Clergy Conference. Watch NewsPoints for an update or visit www.nadministerial.org
-
Stan Hickerson, pastor of the Stevensville, Mich., Seventh-day Adventist Church, presented the early history of women in ministry. He noted the high point for women in ministry was in 1878 when in some conferences nearly 10% of the pastoral staff were women.
Why did this not continue in our church? Why not go back to the pattern laid out by our pioneers?
-
In case some have misunderstood:
I am fully supporting the actions of duly elected leaders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church while refusing to support those who are finding fault with our leaders. Thereby I am in accord with warnings given by Ellen White in this matter.
Johann, please explain to all of us how your support of rebellion against properly constituted church authority is in harmony with 9T 261, which was written by Ellen White.
Please explain how the actions of a few elected leaders take precedence over the actions of an entire GC Session which is composed of far more elected leaders and delegates.
Bob, this raises the question of divine authority. If the GC in session votes for the ordination of women will you accept that as a divine mandate, or will you not accept it and thereby be in rebellion? Can you in good conscience give up your beliefs and convictions to the vote of the GC Session? Should they vote a mandate on the church that you strongly consider unbiblical would you say that Unions or Divisions that don't accept it are in rebellion, and if they are not, should they be?
So right. As I ponder over this I see a number of other nuts that must be cracked but I feel this is enough for now.
-
The vote, as far as I understand, was not a rejection of ordaining women. It meant a further study was to take place, giving the scholars up to a year or two to fulfill their task.
Could you quote from the voted action where that thought is made clear? What I recall the 1990 action stating is that there was no consensus as to whether it was biblical or not, which to me means that some thought it was biblical and some thought it was unbiblical. Because of the disunity that would result, the idea of ordaining women now was rejected. That's how I recall it.
Reading the various reports and explanation of several leaders gives me the impression they are satisfied no further studies will change the outcome, so they go ahead and do the right thing under the circumstances, as is explained.
... without an inspired mandate to do so. That's where I have a problem with going contrary to a GC Session vote. What we're supposed to do is not keep pushing our personal opinions under such circumstances. How would still pushing our opinions be any different from what the Judaizers did in Paul's day after the council of Acts 15 had already occurred?
Because they have a conscience in tune with the Word of God and are not in a league with Roman tradition. And they are satisfied the scholars assigned to a specific task have already delivered enough evidence to satisfy what they were asked to do.
When the alleged biblical reasons given by the scholars are closely examined, they appear unconvincing or inconclusive. This should not be surprising, since the book Women in Ministry is clearly not infallible, given the fact that it cites the non-existent action of the 1881 GC Session.
-
Bob, this raises the question of divine authority. If the GC in session votes for the ordination of women will you accept that as a divine mandate, or will you not accept it and thereby be in rebellion? Can you in good conscience give up your beliefs and convictions to the vote of the GC Session? Should they vote a mandate on the church that you strongly consider unbiblical would you say that Unions or Divisions that don't accept it are in rebellion, and if they are not, should they be?
GC and NAD Working Policy states that the GC Session is the highest authority under God. I don't have a problem with that.
The Bible and SoP are inspired by God, and in my view thus take precedence over a GC Session.
The difficulty for the women's ordination side is that they can't provide a solid biblical reason for the practice. For example, the idea that Peter's statements on the priesthood of all believers means that we should ordain women ignores the fact that peter is quoting Ex. 19:6, and all believers were not ordained as priests in OT times.
If a GC Session were to vote that we should now keep Sunday, I would choose not to rebel against the authority of God, and thus would not obey that GC Session vote.
-
Stan Hickerson, pastor of the Stevensville, Mich., Seventh-day Adventist Church, presented the early history of women in ministry. He noted the high point for women in ministry was in 1878 when in some conferences nearly 10% of the pastoral staff were women.
Why did this not continue in our church? Why not go back to the pattern laid out by our pioneers?
First of all, is it true? And if so, in what way is it true?
Note that the quote says "pastoral staff." Why don't we start by identifying three or four men who were on the pastoral staff of any specific conference, and then identify which church or churches they were pastor of. I suspect that we won't be able to, since the "pastoral staff" of those days were probably not pastoring churches. And if that really is the case, then they really shouldn't be called "pastoral staff."
So then we are down to ministerial staff. Then we need to determine what tasks those ministerial staff were doing. For example, while the 1879 (I think) report from MN indicated that a number of women received licenses, it was only men that received credentials. So what was the difference between the two?
I followed one of those ladies for a few years. I seem to recall that she sometimes received a license which was different than a canvassing license, and sometimes she received a canvassing license. The latter would be clear. But what tasks did she do for which she received a license? Was she a Bible worker? Or a canvassing leader? The Review isn't specific enough for me to know.
These are the kind of questions that need answering.
-
“I’ve been to four of these conferences so far but this was the first time that someone from the NAD came," exclaimed Ann Roda-Hernandez, pastor for families at New Hope Seventh-day Adventist Church in Fulton, Mary. "It was absolutely amazing that the NAD leadership was there — Dan Jackson, the Ministerial Department team and some Union presidents. It was the greatest show of affirmation that I’ve ever seen from our church! It meant a lot to the women clergy and it was a positive and inspiring experience for us who have experienced opposition to our calling.”
Since God as a general rule has not called male tithe-paid Adventist ministers to pastor local churches, according to the SoP, I think Ann needs to explain why she thinks God has called females to do that.
-
The vote, as far as I understand, was not a rejection of ordaining women. It meant a further study was to take place, giving the scholars up to a year or two to fulfill their task.
Could you quote from the voted action where that thought is made clear? What I recall the 1990 action stating is that there was no consensus as to whether it was biblical or not, which to me means that some thought it was biblical and some thought it was unbiblical. Because of the disunity that would result, the idea of ordaining women now was rejected. That's how I recall it.
Were you there? I was, and I have earlier given my impression of the climate there. There are times when our elected leaders know more of the climate under which a vote was taken than what appears in the legal documents.
Reading the various reports and explanation of several leaders gives me the impression they are satisfied no further studies will change the outcome, so they go ahead and do the right thing under the circumstances, as is explained.
... without an inspired mandate to do so. That's where I have a problem with going contrary to a GC Session vote. What we're supposed to do is not keep pushing our personal opinions under such circumstances. How would still pushing our opinions be any different from what the Judaizers did in Paul's day after the council of Acts 15 had already occurred?
Whose personal opinion? Did you miss the point in the report where an officer of the conservative Michigan Conference confessed this had not been his personal opinion but the result of a thorough investigation of the Word of God? He admitted having laid his personal opinion aside to discover the will of God. Would you ever do that? Is your personal opinion that the pope is right of greater importance to you?
Because they have a conscience in tune with the Word of God and are not in a league with Roman tradition. And they are satisfied the scholars assigned to a specific task have already delivered enough evidence to satisfy what they were asked to do.
When the alleged biblical reasons given by the scholars are closely examined, they appear unconvincing or inconclusive. This should not be surprising, since the book Women in Ministry is clearly not infallible, given the fact that it cites the non-existent action of the 1881 GC Session.
Are you sure your evaluation is not biased in favor of the pope? My impression is so different. Pray about it!
-
Stan Hickerson, pastor of the Stevensville, Mich., Seventh-day Adventist Church, presented the early history of women in ministry. He noted the high point for women in ministry was in 1878 when in some conferences nearly 10% of the pastoral staff were women.
Why did this not continue in our church? Why not go back to the pattern laid out by our pioneers?
First of all, is it true? And if so, in what way is it true?
Note that the quote says "pastoral staff." Why don't we start by identifying three or four men who were on the pastoral staff of any specific conference, and then identify which church or churches they were pastor of. I suspect that we won't be able to, since the "pastoral staff" of those days were probably not pastoring churches. And if that really is the case, then they really shouldn't be called "pastoral staff."
So then we are down to ministerial staff. Then we need to determine what tasks those ministerial staff were doing. For example, while the 1879 (I think) report from MN indicated that a number of women received licenses, it was only men that received credentials. So what was the difference between the two?
I followed one of those ladies for a few years. I seem to recall that she sometimes received a license which was different than a canvassing license, and sometimes she received a canvassing license. The latter would be clear. But what tasks did she do for which she received a license? Was she a Bible worker? Or a canvassing leader? The Review isn't specific enough for me to know.
These are the kind of questions that need answering.
If we keep questioning until the minutest detail is clarified we might have to wait until after the Second Coming.
Reminds me of the teacher who kept questioning how it was possible for Jonah to enter the whale.
- I'll ask him when we get to heaven, said a little girl who just believed.
- How about if he doesn't get there, questioned the unbelieving teacher.
- Then you ask him, answered the little girl.
On either side we will get the final answers, Bob, if we insist. But we might have to stop asking if we want to be on the right side. Faith does not require an answer to every detail, and we must also trust our leaders. Unless the pope has already convinced us we'll spend a few centuries in purgatory if we agree with the ordination of women.
-
Bob, this raises the question of divine authority. If the GC in session votes for the ordination of women will you accept that as a divine mandate, or will you not accept it and thereby be in rebellion? Can you in good conscience give up your beliefs and convictions to the vote of the GC Session? Should they vote a mandate on the church that you strongly consider unbiblical would you say that Unions or Divisions that don't accept it are in rebellion, and if they are not, should they be?
Perhaps we have more in common with Catholicism than we thought...
-
“I’ve been to four of these conferences so far but this was the first time that someone from the NAD came," exclaimed Ann Roda-Hernandez, pastor for families at New Hope Seventh-day Adventist Church in Fulton, Mary. "It was absolutely amazing that the NAD leadership was there — Dan Jackson, the Ministerial Department team and some Union presidents. It was the greatest show of affirmation that I’ve ever seen from our church! It meant a lot to the women clergy and it was a positive and inspiring experience for us who have experienced opposition to our calling.”
Since God as a general rule has not called male tithe-paid Adventist ministers to pastor local churches, according to the SoP, I think Ann needs to explain why she thinks God has called females to do that.
She has simply read the writings of Ellen G White, in particular a quotation you seem to fear like the plague. Ellen White states clearly that women are called to such tasks - and should be ordained. Perhaps you need to take a trip to Damascus and meet Ananias. He might be able to clear your vision on this point, unless you also need a couple of years in the wilderness?
After his visit to Ananias, Paul preached Christ boldly! Do we need such a vision?
-
Bob, this raises the question of divine authority. If the GC in session votes for the ordination of women will you accept that as a divine mandate, or will you not accept it and thereby be in rebellion? Can you in good conscience give up your beliefs and convictions to the vote of the GC Session? Should they vote a mandate on the church that you strongly consider unbiblical would you say that Unions or Divisions that don't accept it are in rebellion, and if they are not, should they be?
Perhaps we have more in common with Catholicism than we thought...
:dogwag:
-
I really hate that I lost this information once, but here it is in part:
Hattie Enoch (Late 1800s)Licensed to preach in Kansas. GC President G. I. Butler, said, "Elder Cook (Conference President) thinks she is a better laborer in such things than any minister in the state." She and her husband later pioneered the work in Bermuda.
Ellen S. Lane (1880s)An evangelist with her husband, Ellen Lane became the first Adventist woman to receive a ministerial license. She is said to have been a more popular preacher than her husband.
Mary Walsh (1890 - )Preacher, pastor, Bible worker, trainer of pastors.
...and here is the link: http://adventistwomensministries.org/index.php?id=58#Additional_Biographies_of_SDA_Women_7 (http://adventistwomensministries.org/index.php?id=58#Additional_Biographies_of_SDA_Women_7)
Now, the real question is what changed after the death of EGW and these women that the church no longer allows women to pastor When they obviously had no problem with it before?
Stan Hickerson, pastor of the Stevensville, Mich., Seventh-day Adventist Church, presented the early history of women in ministry. He noted the high point for women in ministry was in 1878 when in some conferences nearly 10% of the pastoral staff were women.
Why did this not continue in our church? Why not go back to the pattern laid out by our pioneers?
First of all, is it true? And if so, in what way is it true?
Note that the quote says "pastoral staff." Why don't we start by identifying three or four men who were on the pastoral staff of any specific conference, and then identify which church or churches they were pastor of. I suspect that we won't be able to, since the "pastoral staff" of those days were probably not pastoring churches. And if that really is the case, then they really shouldn't be called "pastoral staff."
So then we are down to ministerial staff. Then we need to determine what tasks those ministerial staff were doing. For example, while the 1879 (I think) report from MN indicated that a number of women received licenses, it was only men that received credentials. So what was the difference between the two?
I followed one of those ladies for a few years. I seem to recall that she sometimes received a license which was different than a canvassing license, and sometimes she received a canvassing license. The latter would be clear. But what tasks did she do for which she received a license? Was she a Bible worker? Or a canvassing leader? The Review isn't specific enough for me to know.
These are the kind of questions that need answering.
-
Now, the real question is what changed after the death of EGW and these women that the church no longer allows women to pastor When they obviously had no problem with it before?
Increasing numbers of egotistical men??
-
I attended Mass last Sunday and the priest opened his remarks with this question:
"Who was the first individual to recognize Jesus after He arose from the dead?"
I just thought it was interesting...!!
-
. . that the church no longer allows women to pastor . . .
1) The SDA Church has formally approved females serving as pastors. lWe have many such and this has been done for some years.
2) Under General Conference policy, the above women are Commissioned, not Ordained. Their ministerial privliges are almost (not quite) the same as are granted to males who are ordained.
3) The SDA Church formally endorses women for Federal Chaplalincies. We have SDA females serving as military chaplains.
4) The SDA Chruch recognizes females in China as ordained SDA Clergy.
-
Were you there? I was, and I have earlier given my impression of the climate there. There are times when our elected leaders know more of the climate under which a vote was taken than what appears in the legal documents.
Yet we aren't talking about merely a voted action. We are talking about a previously prepared recommendation that was passed 1,173 to 377, which recommendation states matters pretty much as I described.
Whose personal opinion? Did you miss the point in the report where an officer of the conservative Michigan Conference confessed this had not been his personal opinion but the result of a thorough investigation of the Word of God? He admitted having laid his personal opinion aside to discover the will of God.
Then if it is really what the Bible mandates and not simply his personal opinion of what the Bible says, he can simply quote the Bible verse where it says, "Thou shalt ordain women," and the matter is forever settled.
But if he can't come up with a clear, inspired mandate, then he ought to set aside his personal opinion or preference, and submit to the GC Session votes of 1990 and 1995. Otherwise, he is following in the footsteps of the Judaizers who caused Paul so many problems after Acts 15.
-
“I’ve been to four of these conferences so far but this was the first time that someone from the NAD came," exclaimed Ann Roda-Hernandez, pastor for families at New Hope Seventh-day Adventist Church in Fulton, Mary. "It was absolutely amazing that the NAD leadership was there — Dan Jackson, the Ministerial Department team and some Union presidents. It was the greatest show of affirmation that I’ve ever seen from our church! It meant a lot to the women clergy and it was a positive and inspiring experience for us who have experienced opposition to our calling.”
Since God as a general rule has not called male tithe-paid Adventist ministers to pastor local churches, according to the SoP, I think Ann needs to explain why she thinks God has called females to do that.
She has simply read the writings of Ellen G White, in particular a quotation you seem to fear like the plague. Ellen White states clearly that women are called to such tasks - and should be ordained.
Then Johann, by all means quote for us here where Ellen White ever said that women are called to pastor local churches.
She plainly said that male tithe-paid ministers were not as a general rule to do that work. If she said men aren't supposed to, then where are you going to find a quote that says women are?
Hint: Find a quote where she says that women are supposed to serve as local church elders. I've never read one, but that is what you need to find to support your point.
I repeat: Tithe-paid ministers are supposed to be raising up new churches, not pastoring existing churches, as a general rule.
-
I really hate that I lost this information once, but here it is in part:
Hattie Enoch (Late 1800s)Licensed to preach in Kansas. GC President G. I. Butler, said, "Elder Cook (Conference President) thinks she is a better laborer in such things than any minister in the state." She and her husband later pioneered the work in Bermuda.
Ellen S. Lane (1880s)An evangelist with her husband, Ellen Lane became the first Adventist woman to receive a ministerial license. She is said to have been a more popular preacher than her husband.
Mary Walsh (1890 - )Preacher, pastor, Bible worker, trainer of pastors.
...and here is the link: http://adventistwomensministries.org/index.php?id=58#Additional_Biographies_of_SDA_Women_7 (http://adventistwomensministries.org/index.php?id=58#Additional_Biographies_of_SDA_Women_7)
Now, the real question is what changed after the death of EGW and these women that the church no longer allows women to pastor When they obviously had no problem with it before?
Di,
You cite individuals that were allegedly given licenses to preach, and then in your final sentence switch to the topic of women pastoring. Why the switch from a license to preach, which had nothing to do with pastoring a local church, to pastoring?
Your statement sounds as if you are assuming that local Adventist churches had settled pastors in the 1880's and 1890's. What evidence do you have to support that assumption?
Regarding the names you list from that website, I checked out the first one via http://www.adventistarchives.org/search.asp?CatID=-99&CatName=Search+All+Categories&Search=%22Hattie+Enoch%22. Consistently, Hattie was given a license, but was never given credentials. So even though the church in the late 1880's utilized women in evangelism, they apparently never ever gave them credentials, because they never ordained them. So if we go back to the way things used to be, which is what the women's ordination crowd says they want, should we also today utilize but never ordain?
See http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH18850317-V62-11__B/index.djvu?djvuopts&page=13 where what Hattie was doing on one occasion is described. George Randall appears to be in charge, and Hattie is assisting in preaching and visiting. They came to Hazleton "to assist the church in an effort to get out of" "a cold and backslidden state." They were not living there serving as the pastors. The elders were supposed to be doing that.
-
“I’ve been to four of these conferences so far but this was the first time that someone from the NAD came," exclaimed Ann Roda-Hernandez, pastor for families at New Hope Seventh-day Adventist Church in Fulton, Mary. "It was absolutely amazing that the NAD leadership was there — Dan Jackson, the Ministerial Department team and some Union presidents. It was the greatest show of affirmation that I’ve ever seen from our church! It meant a lot to the women clergy and it was a positive and inspiring experience for us who have experienced opposition to our calling.”
Since God as a general rule has not called male tithe-paid Adventist ministers to pastor local churches, according to the SoP, I think Ann needs to explain why she thinks God has called females to do that.
She has simply read the writings of Ellen G White, in particular a quotation you seem to fear like the plague. Ellen White states clearly that women are called to such tasks - and should be ordained.
Then Johann, by all means quote for us here where Ellen White ever said that women are called to pastor local churches.
She plainly said that male tithe-paid ministers were not as a general rule to do that work. If she said men aren't supposed to, then where are you going to find a quote that says women are?
Hint: Find a quote where she says that women are supposed to serve as local church elders. I've never read one, but that is what you need to find to support your point.
I repeat: Tithe-paid ministers are supposed to be raising up new churches, not pastoring existing churches, as a general rule.
Bob:
You sure have a way of mixing facts and defining them to defend your own bias.
In reality there is but one kind of ordination in the New Testament which is listed not by title but by definition.
I was ordained, first as a local elder in 1959, and then as a pastor in 1962. In a way this was a mistake, because a local elder is called a bishop in the New Testament. But we will leave that subject for now.
When I was ordained by our Division Pesident it was not because I had been working as a pastor in a district containing nine local churches, but because I had presented a number of souls to be baptized by three different ordained ministers on different occasions while serving as a pastor. After I was ordained I was transferred to another district where I kept on winning souls, now baptizing them myself, until I received a call from Africa.
I think I have told you my story before, that before we sailed for Africa I visited our friends and when I got to Miss Jensen she felt sorry we were leaving. She was still a member of another denomination and had not taken her stand for the Advent Message. Now she said,
- I am afraid that since you are leaving I'll never be baptized.
Then I told her there was still one more Sabbath before we were leaving, and I was certain we could talk the deacons into filling the baptistery with water by then.
Bob, I am amazed how efficient you are at splitting the Word of God in an attempt to let it fit your bias. When I read that quote of Ellen White I find it defining the ministry I was ordained to perform as well as the ministry our female pastors are called to perform. Your bias does not permit that definition, so I wonder . . .
-
Were you there? I was, and I have earlier given my impression of the climate there. There are times when our elected leaders know more of the climate under which a vote was taken than what appears in the legal documents.
Yet we aren't talking about merely a voted action. We are talking about a previously prepared recommendation that was passed 1,173 to 377, which recommendation states matters pretty much as I described.
Whose personal opinion? Did you miss the point in the report where an officer of the conservative Michigan Conference confessed this had not been his personal opinion but the result of a thorough investigation of the Word of God? He admitted having laid his personal opinion aside to discover the will of God.
Then if it is really what the Bible mandates and not simply his personal opinion of what the Bible says, he can simply quote the Bible verse where it says, "Thou shalt ordain women," and the matter is forever settled.
But if he can't come up with a clear, inspired mandate, then he ought to set aside his personal opinion or preference, and submit to the GC Session votes of 1990 and 1995. Otherwise, he is following in the footsteps of the Judaizers who caused Paul so many problems after Acts 15.
You attack a single person for stating what a host of leaders and Bible scholars have concluded on the basis of their Bible Study without your biased application. I'm certain they have not committed themselves to following the ROMAN interpretation of Scripture.
-
In case some have misunderstood:
I am fully supporting the actions of duly elected leaders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church while refusing to support those who are finding fault with our leaders. Thereby I am in accord with warnings given by Ellen White in this matter.
Johann, please explain to all of us how your support of rebellion against properly constituted church authority is in harmony with 9T 261, which was written by Ellen White.
Please explain how the actions of a few elected leaders take precedence over the actions of an entire GC Session which is composed of far more elected leaders and delegates.
Bob, this raises the question of divine authority. If the GC in session votes for the ordination of women will you accept that as a divine mandate, or will you not accept it and thereby be in rebellion? Can you in good conscience give up your beliefs and convictions to the vote of the GC Session? Should they vote a mandate on the church that you strongly consider unbiblical would you say that Unions or Divisions that don't accept it are in rebellion, and if they are not, should they be?
Bob, I am interested to hear your response to Murcielago's questions...
-
. . that the church no longer allows women to pastor . . .
1) The SDA Church has formally approved females serving as pastors. lWe have many such and this has been done for some years.
2) Under General Conference policy, the above women are Commissioned, not Ordained. Their ministerial privliges are almost (not quite) the same as are granted to males who are ordained.
3) The SDA Church formally endorses women for Federal Chaplalincies. We have SDA females serving as military chaplains.
4) The SDA Chruch recognizes females in China as ordained SDA Clergy.
1) The report states there are 107 of them in the United States alone. The report from the recent meeting also stated that there is no longer any exegetical question that needs to be answered in connection with female ministers.
2) From what I have seen is that the commissioned ordination given now to women in ministry by their local conference - at least in some places - authorizes them to baptize. The way it works in some places is that the commission is only valid locally and not universally like the regular ordination.
4) The Review informed us recently that President Wilson visited our churches in China. I did not see anything about him disapproving the ordained female pastors there. Should he step aside because he failed to do that? I see this report as his approval of the status quo. What else?
-
In case some have misunderstood:
I am fully supporting the actions of duly elected leaders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church while refusing to support those who are finding fault with our leaders. Thereby I am in accord with warnings given by Ellen White in this matter.
Johann, please explain to all of us how your support of rebellion against properly constituted church authority is in harmony with 9T 261, which was written by Ellen White.
Please explain how the actions of a few elected leaders take precedence over the actions of an entire GC Session which is composed of far more elected leaders and delegates.
Bob, this raises the question of divine authority. If the GC in session votes for the ordination of women will you accept that as a divine mandate, or will you not accept it and thereby be in rebellion? Can you in good conscience give up your beliefs and convictions to the vote of the GC Session? Should they vote a mandate on the church that you strongly consider unbiblical would you say that Unions or Divisions that don't accept it are in rebellion, and if they are not, should they be?
Bob, I am interested to hear your response to Murcielago's questions...
"Second"
-
Kaieteur News
Diamond taxi driver’s bound body dumped in Enmore...
GTT
A new day for Adventist women
April 2, 2010 | By KNews | Filed Under News
- Third regional female becomes commissioned Pastor
Laurel Thatcher Ulrich once said, “Well behaved women rarely make history.” How accurate she was is debatable; what is fact is that Margaret Ramsarran has etched an indelible mark in the history of the Seventh-day Adventist church in Guyana.
She is the first Commissioned Pastor to the Gospel Ministry of the local church.
The bestowal of Ecclesiastical authority on Pastor Ramsarran was witnessed by a gathering of members and clergy, recently, at the Olivet Seventh-day Adventist Church, D’Urban Backlands.
The church does not approve the ordination of women to the world wide ministry as is the case with men; however, women’s functioning in leadership roles is not new to the Adventist Church.
According to President of the Guyana Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, Dr. Hilton Garnett, “…we have been ordaining female Elders for years. Our ladies have been making significant contribution to leadership.”
However, the occasion does mark a new era for local Adventist women. Commissioning is the organisation’s highest affirmation of a woman’s call to ministry, a field that is dominated by men even in the world church.
To the hundreds of ordained ministers in the Caribbean Adventist church, of which Guyana is a part, there are only three commissioned women. The other two were commissioned in Antigua.
As noted by a prominent Women’s Ministry leader of the church, Beverly Braithwaite-Chan, “What is victory for one, is victory for all.”
She described the moment as exciting and noted that “to keep women out [of leadership] is to leave more than half of the [church] population silent. They have a meaningful role to play.”
The ceremony attracted leaders from the Caribbean Union of Seventh-day Adventist Churches headquartered in Trinidad.
The union comprises churches in the English- speaking Caribbean from the U.S. Virgin Islands in the North to Guyana and Suriname in the South.
President of the Caribbean Union Conference, Dr. Eugene Daniel; and President of the Suriname Mission, Pastor Linden Gudge, were on hand to officiate in the ceremony.
Dr. Daniel expressed his pleasure at being present at the history-making event. He noted that “the call to ministry is not an ordinary call; it is a call from God.”
Pastor Margaret Ramsarran has been a member of the Adventist church for over 40 years and has served in almost every department.
Speaking about her achievement, Pastor Ramsarran admitted to feeling honoured and privileged; however, she also recognised that with privileges comes responsibility, and this is what she finds overwhelming.
“I thank God for using me to accomplish His purpose. I rededicate and recommit my life to God and trust Him to continue to lead me. Wherever He leads, I am ready to follow.”
-
Female Commissioned Ministers who pastor churches are authorized to baptize.
-
Bob, this raises the question of divine authority. If the GC in session votes for the ordination of women will you accept that as a divine mandate, or will you not accept it and thereby be in rebellion? Can you in good conscience give up your beliefs and convictions to the vote of the GC Session? Should they vote a mandate on the church that you strongly consider unbiblical would you say that Unions or Divisions that don't accept it are in rebellion, and if they are not, should they be?
Bob, I am interested to hear your response to Murcielago's questions...
See my reply at http://www.adventtalk.com/forums/index.php/topic,2300.msg36062.html#msg36062 (http://www.adventtalk.com/forums/index.php/topic,2300.msg36062.html#msg36062).
-
report from the recent meeting also stated that there is no longer any exegetical question that needs to be answered in connection with female ministers.
Johann, what evidence is there that a majority of the world church no longer have exegetical concerns about such? I heard Sunday that some or most divisions don't even allow women to be elders.
2) From what I have seen is that the commissioned ordination given now to women in ministry by their local conference - at least in some places - authorizes them to baptize.
Is it not true that the authorization "comes" from the office of local elder, not the commissioning?
-
Bob:
You sure have a way of mixing facts and defining them to defend your own bias.
...
Bob, I am amazed how efficient you are at splitting the Word of God in an attempt to let it fit your bias. When I read that quote of Ellen White I find it defining the ministry I was ordained to perform as well as the ministry our female pastors are called to perform. Your bias does not permit that definition, so I wonder . . .
What I wrote about the role of tithe-paid ministers not generally supposed to be pastoring local churches is pretty basic stuff. See Ev 382 as but one example. For the history about it all, see Damsteegt's article on it at http://www.andrews.edu/~damsteeg/Herewestand_sec_6.pdf.
But long before I read Damsteegt, I read two books on churches by non-Adventists, I think the publication dates being 1927 and 1940. I read the 2 and 10 pages those two books had on Adventists by the end of 1993, I believe. Both books said that Adventist churches didn't have pastors. Elders handled the pastoral work while the tithe-paid ministers, generally, were out in new fields raising up new churches.
And that's what we ought to go back to, if we want to see the work finished. Ethnicities that are more or less following that model are growing faster than we Caucasians who refuse to obey the counsel God has given us on this point.
-
Bob:
You sure have a way of mixing facts and defining them to defend your own bias.
...
Bob, I am amazed how efficient you are at splitting the Word of God in an attempt to let it fit your bias. When I read that quote of Ellen White I find it defining the ministry I was ordained to perform as well as the ministry our female pastors are called to perform. Your bias does not permit that definition, so I wonder . . .
What I wrote about the role of tithe-paid ministers not generally supposed to be pastoring local churches is pretty basic stuff. See Ev 382 as but one example. For the history about it all, see Damsteegt's article on it at http://www.andrews.edu/~damsteeg/Herewestand_sec_6.pdf.
But long before I read Damsteegt, I read two books on churches by non-Adventists, I think the publication dates being 1927 and 1940. I read the 2 and 10 pages those two books had on Adventists by the end of 1993, I believe. Both books said that Adventist churches didn't have pastors. Elders handled the pastoral work while the tithe-paid ministers, generally, were out in new fields raising up new churches.
And that's what we ought to go back to, if we want to see the work finished. Ethnicities that are more or less following that model are growing faster than we Caucasians who refuse to obey the counsel God has given us on this point.
Thank you, Bob. I need reminders like you to see how much I need to watch and pray and study His Word. You and Damsteegt - this Dutch super theologian - keep reminding us how far we still have to go in order to fight Papacy within our own ranks.
Here we think we have reached so far in letting the pure Christianity of the Celts reach our shores when people like you come and remind us that the Celts are not our only pattern, it is Jesus Christ Himself. The enemy in hidden Papal garb is still working among us, and we have to keep our eyes on Jesus and pray and study.
We must also fully realize that the ordination of women is not the real goal, but it is listening to the Words of Jesus when He tells us the fields are white and ready to harvest. He urges us to pray for workers to go into these fields. When He answers our prayers by sending us the great unharnessed army of females, then the enemy gets scared and scatters among us his agents telling us how unfit they are for service.
I spent much time in prayer before the Lord gave me this insight. I will be 80 at my next birthday, so I must be thankful I can still be used to preach and pray and participate as a pastor at the Lord's supper. My physical strength is not what it has been, but I am still in good health, and perhaps the Lord can still use me to stifle some of the agents of Rome among us, it that is possible.
Praise be to the Lord and His holy name!
-
report from the recent meeting also stated that there is no longer any exegetical question that needs to be answered in connection with female ministers.
Johann, what evidence is there that a majority of the world church no longer have exegetical concerns about such? I heard Sunday that some or most divisions don't even allow women to be elders.
Thanks for reminding us how far we still have to go to harness the powerful workers in our churches. We do need to pray and watch and study His word to keep us humble and spiritually alive.
2) From what I have seen is that the commissioned ordination given now to women in ministry by their local conference - at least in some places - authorizes them to baptize.
Is it not true that the authorization "comes" from the office of local elder, not the commissioning?
Have it your way, Bob, Thou art the screener, we are but clay. Somehow our Church uses the commissioning to connect this with the local elder, but if you feel your way of expressing it is more correct I have no problem with that. Just keep reminding me in case I should forget the correct way of expressing it. If you keep pointing out every mistake we make then we might even reach perfection. Thank you for helping us out.
-
Thank you, Bob. I need reminders like you to see how much I need to watch and pray and study His Word. You and Damsteegt - this Dutch super theologian - keep reminding us how far we still have to go in order to fight Papacy within our own ranks.
It is true that Damsteegt connects the departure from the biblical model as being part of the development of the papal system. In the early centuries, he claims, local leadership of the church shifted from the elders to a resident pastor or bishop. That was one step in a process that led to all leadership being concentrated in a single bishop, the bishop of Rome.
-
Is it not true that the authorization "comes" from the office of local elder, not the commissioning?
I would say: No.
Perhaps this differs in some parts outside of the U.S.?
Female Commissioned Ministers who pastor congregations in the U.S. do not have to seek individual permission to baptize in the same manner that ordained male clergy do not have to seek individual permission to baptize. Their auhorization to baptize, as I understand it, continues for as long as they hold their credentials. However, it is expected of both that they will baptize within the teritory in which they were granted their credentials.
As I understand it, local Elders are only granted permission to baptize on a limtied basis. If they wish to baptize outside of that basis, they must seek permission to do so.
E.G. A local Elder could be given permission to hold a single baptism. I suppose that the Local Conference could grant a local Elder permission to baptize only within the congregation of which they were a pastor and only for as long as they were a pastor of that congregation.
-
Thank you, Bob. I need reminders like you to see how much I need to watch and pray and study His Word. You and Damsteegt - this Dutch super theologian - keep reminding us how far we still have to go in order to fight Papacy within our own ranks.
It is true that Damsteegt connects the departure from the biblical model as being part of the development of the papal system. In the early centuries, he claims, local leadership of the church shifted from the elders to a resident pastor or bishop. That was one step in a process that led to all leadership being concentrated in a single bishop, the bishop of Rome.
Thank you Bob. I suppose that is Damsteegt at his best. He certainly has produced quite a bit of good and helpful material.
I have just been studying Damsteegts presentation against the ordination of women, and I find it great. Great, because I think he might be the most powerful aid to those who support the ordination of women. You do not have to read far in his presentations before you discover his weaknesses, contradictions, and failure to produce a convincing argument for what he proposes. And yet he impresses the weak in Biblical knowledge with his Power Points and magic three point argumentation.
Just let him loose and people soon discover his leaning towards a papal interpretation of parts of Scripture, selecting texts and EGW quotations to support his bias. Did he get that inclination while attended the Catholic chapel when he was in the military and dancing was part of the service? Young females do yield a magic power on the thinking of young men. How could such tempting girls ever have an elevating spiritual influence on a man? Should they ever be ordained?
-
Johann: You can do much better than to mention Roman Catholic services and dancing women in connection with a respected religious leader.
If you have facts to back something up, give them. In the mean time your comment comes accross as very unfair.
Case in point: Would it be fair to raise the same kind of comment about you and relate it to the reputation that some have given to women of Iceland?
-
Johann: You can do much better than to mention Roman Catholic services and dancing women in connection with a respected religious leader.
If you have facts to back something up, give them. In the mean time your comment comes accross as very unfair.
Case in point: Would it be fair to raise the same kind of comment about you and relate it to the reputation that some have given to women of Iceland?
After graduating as an aeronautical engineer, he was drafted into the Dutch Air Force. Essentially a pacifist by nature, he was greatly repulsed by the movies of killing he was forced to watch--how to best inflict a mortal wound, etc. As part of the training, he was obliged to attend meetings organized by either the Protestant or Catholic chaplains. Catholics usually sponsored a dance with girls; Protestants, group discussions. He attended both but was more attracted to the discussion groups.
http://www.andrews.edu/~damsteeg/page2/page2.html
I would never have brought it up if he had not divulged it in the biography.
-
O.K. I did not know. You were justified in bringing it up.
-
Bob, this raises the question of divine authority. If the GC in session votes for the ordination of women will you accept that as a divine mandate, or will you not accept it and thereby be in rebellion? Can you in good conscience give up your beliefs and convictions to the vote of the GC Session? Should they vote a mandate on the church that you strongly consider unbiblical would you say that Unions or Divisions that don't accept it are in rebellion, and if they are not, should they be?
GC and NAD Working Policy states that the GC Session is the highest authority under God. I don't have a problem with that.
The Bible and SoP are inspired by God, and in my view thus take precedence over a GC Session.
The difficulty for the women's ordination side is that they can't provide a solid biblical reason for the practice. For example, the idea that Peter's statements on the priesthood of all believers means that we should ordain women ignores the fact that peter is quoting Ex. 19:6, and all believers were not ordained as priests in OT times.
If a GC Session were to vote that we should now keep Sunday, I would choose not to rebel against the authority of God, and thus would not obey that GC Session vote.
So you would assert that your understanding and interpretation of the Bible and SoP would outweigh the authority of the GC in session? Doesn't the SoP state that you are wrong, as per the quotes from the Church Manual regarding the authority of the church?
-
Bob, the following is a quote from page 31 of the SDA Church Manual, and come under the heading "General Conference Highest Authority"
In the Church today the General Conference in session, and the General Conference Executive Committee between sessions, is the highest ecclesias- tical authority in the administration of the Church. The General Conference Executive Committee is authorized by its Constitution to create subordinate organizations with authority to carry out their roles. Therefore all subordi- nate organizations and institutions throughout the Church will recognize the General Conference in session, and the General Conference Executive Committee between sessions, as the highest ecclesiastical authority, under God, among Seventh-day Adventists.
When differences arise in or between churches and conferences or in- stitutions, appeal to the next higher constituent level is proper until it reaches an Annual Council of the General Conference Executive Committee or the General Conference in session. Between these meetings, the General Conference Executive Committee constitutes the body of final authority on all questions. The committee’s decision may be reviewed at a General Conference session or an Annual Council. When organizations review de- cisions of other organizations, they do not assume responsibility for the lia- bilities of any other organization.
“I have often been instructed by the Lord that no man’s judgment should be surrendered to the judgment of any other one man. Never should the mind of one man or the minds of a few men be regarded as sufficient in wisdom and power to control the work and to say what plans shall be fol- lowed. But when, in a General Conference, the judgment of the brethren assembled from all parts of the field is exercised, private independence and private judgment must not be stubbornly maintained, but surrendered. Never should a laborer regard as a virtue the persistent maintenance of his position of independence, contrary to the decision of the general body.”— 9T 260.
-
As to the OT quote from Peter, would you agree that we tend to pick and choose OT laws to obey, adhering to some and rejecting others as they confirm or deny our preferences?
-
I do not have the exact quotation right at hand, but as I recall Martin Luther explained the priesthood of all believers as meaning that if a group of believers happen to be located together but far from any other group of people and they have no priest among them, then any individual among them can function as a priest and perform any duty normally assigned to an ordained priest. As far as I recall the wording as used by Martin Luther indicates no distinction here by gender.
-
O.K. I did not know. You were justified in bringing it up.
It is a fascinating story, Gregory. Here we have this Dutch boy whose mountain-climbing father is killed and his sister dies, leaving but the mother and son. Somewhere he gets hold of a book by Spicer and is taken by the new doctrines. Then he has this stint in the air force where he attends both Catholic and Protestant services. Before leaving the air force he is reminded of the Adventist doctrines.
Seems like the Jesuits knew what they were doing by sending girls with the Catholic Father to the isolated boys hungry for adventure. So Damsteeg leaves the girls at the Catholic services and starts studying theology at Newbold College. Since he mentions these girls in his biography they must have left an impact on him which influenced his understanding of Scripture. How could such depraved girls ever have any positive Spiritual influence over men in the Church? Could you think of this girl he danced with some months ago being ordained as a priest?
Unthinkable!
Lets bring our minds back a couple of thousand years. What is the most important message in the world both then and today?
Acts 4:10
Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
Who was the first preacher of the resurrection? We all know it was Mary. Mary, this woman whose integrity had been deprived by leaders and elders among God's chosen people. Mary was the female whom Jesus Christ had restored to womanhood and therefore God used her as the first preacher of the real Christian message.
How many male church leaders are depraving the Marys of today of what they should be giving them?
Unfortunately I have personal knowledge of some Seventh-day Adventist pastors and elders who have acted as if their elevated male ordination status entitled them to deprive their daughters or granddaughters of their virginity. The ordination privileges are seeping through from the Catholic Church even into the Adventists to such an extent that our church needs a great revival and reformation.
Damsteeg seems to be an honest man. Perhaps the Lord would not permit him to distribute his writings and ideas without revealing under what influences he started his studies of Scripture? Is this the key we need to understand the deceptive influences this man has had on our leaders?
His influence seems so widespread that even many of our devout men and leaders are still prostrate in their devotion to this important Roman Catholic doctrine.
If any of this applies to you then see the outstretched hands of Jesus Christ, ready to give you the restoration He gave to Mary.
This is the time we need to sing and pray:
Precious Lord take my hand. . .
-
O.K. I did not know. You were justified in bringing it up.
It is a fascinating story, Gregory. Here we have this Dutch boy whose mountain-climbing father is killed and his sister dies, leaving but the mother and son. Somewhere he gets hold of a book by Spicer and is taken by the new doctrines. Then he has this stint in the air force where he attends both Catholic and Protestant services. Before leaving the air force he is reminded of the Adventist doctrines.
Seems like the Jesuits knew what they were doing by sending girls with the Catholic Father to the isolated boys hungry for adventure. So Damsteeg leaves the girls at the Catholic services and starts studying theology at Newbold College. Since he mentions these girls in his biography they must have left an impact on him which influenced his understanding of Scripture. How could such depraved girls ever have any positive Spiritual influence over men in the Church? Could you think of this girl he danced with some months ago being ordained as a priest?
Unthinkable!
Lets bring our minds back a couple of thousand years. What is the most important message in the world both then and today?
Acts 4:10
Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
Who was the first preacher of the resurrection? We all know it was Mary. Mary, this woman whose integrity had been deprived by leaders and elders among God's chosen people. Mary was the female whom Jesus Christ had restored to womanhood and therefore God used her as the first preacher of the real Christian message.
How many male church leaders are depraving the Marys of today of what they should be giving them?
Unfortunately I have personal knowledge of some Seventh-day Adventist pastors and elders who have acted as if their elevated male ordination status entitled them to deprive their daughters or granddaughters their virginity. The ordination privileges are seeping through from the Catholic Church even into the Adventists to such an extent that our church needs a great revival and reformation.
Damsteeg seems to be an honest man. Perhaps the Lord would not permit him to distribute his writings and ideas without revealing under what influences he started his studies of Scripture? Is this the key we need to understand the deceptive influences this man has had on our leaders?
His influence seems so widespread that even many of our devout men and leaders are still prostrate in their devotion to this important Roman Catholic doctrine.
If any of this applies to you then see the outstretched hands of Jesus Christ, ready to give you the restoration He gave to Mary.
This is the time we need to sing and pray:
Precious Lord take my hand. . .
Excellent post, Johann!! :dogwag:
After watching all of this play out, I am even more thankful that I have given up on organized religion!! I serve a God of love, not the inflexible and unbending omnipotent ogre I see described by some here...
-
Hmmm, Do people really believe that God does not have His organized church and the enemy will tear it down by the course of false teachers, and preachers within. It's amazing how easy it is to see happen and watch on here!
The devil ruined creation until the flood had to happen
The devil duplicates many avenues more then human can begin to encounter and of course will devourer full fledged into SP and those who follow can surely look for the bright heavenly being that will finish them off as God's church is discarded.
Did anyone expect for this not to happen? It's here plain to see.
What I am reading comes directly how a reformer tries to dismantle the first organized church of SDA. Their main theme is The Organized church is Babylon and papal infiltrated with Jesuits. You cannot convince them otherwise and the reason I was so shocked when Bob was called a Jesuit.
Now it has all opened up greatly to know you cannot convince otherwise the corrupted separated or off shoot doctrine against the first given by "Inspiration".
I've often said --time does tell and uncovers all. All arguments come to exaggerations and untruths from story book and authors that the enemy scours and scours for points to prove. I may be ignorant to some intellects view but I have not poisoned my mind with books to confuse my "one" source of truth in order to debate. Other then EGW referring to the kind of work women should do - no where does she refer to what you think she is referring to - the "ordination of women credentials to preach" she is absolutely referring to "womanly duties that men cannot perform for women and should not". and above all to help the husband that does preach.
EGW was a chosen vessel to report her visions of which she did. Plain and simple. So the church decides she is a preacher????? She was an "inspired messenger" that she only, only only would claim and now it is made out to be something else. It takes exaggerations and surmising that complicate what really was. and that is the evil part that dismantles.
-
O.K. I did not know. You were justified in bringing it up.
It is a fascinating story, Gregory. Here we have this Dutch boy whose mountain-climbing father is killed and his sister dies, leaving but the mother and son. Somewhere he gets hold of a book by Spicer and is taken by the new doctrines. Then he has this stint in the air force where he attends both Catholic and Protestant services. Before leaving the air force he is reminded of the Adventist doctrines.
Seems like the Jesuits knew what they were doing by sending girls with the Catholic Father to the isolated boys hungry for adventure. So Damsteeg leaves the girls at the Catholic services and starts studying theology at Newbold College. Since he mentions these girls in his biography they must have left an impact on him which influenced his understanding of Scripture. How could such depraved girls ever have any positive Spiritual influence over men in the Church? Could you think of this girl he danced with some months ago being ordained as a priest?
Unthinkable!
Lets bring our minds back a couple of thousand years. What is the most important message in the world both then and today?
Acts 4:10
Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
Who was the first preacher of the resurrection? We all know it was Mary. Mary, this woman whose integrity had been deprived by leaders and elders among God's chosen people. Mary was the female whom Jesus Christ had restored to womanhood and therefore God used her as the first preacher of the real Christian message.
How many male church leaders are depraving the Marys of today of what they should be giving them?
Unfortunately I have personal knowledge of some Seventh-day Adventist pastors and elders who have acted as if their elevated male ordination status entitled them to deprive their daughters or granddaughters of their virginity. The ordination privileges are seeping through from the Catholic Church even into the Adventists to such an extent that our church needs a great revival and reformation.
Damsteeg seems to be an honest man. Perhaps the Lord would not permit him to distribute his writings and ideas without revealing under what influences he started his studies of Scripture? Is this the key we need to understand the deceptive influences this man has had on our leaders?
His influence seems so widespread that even many of our devout men and leaders are still prostrate in their devotion to this important Roman Catholic doctrine.
If any of this applies to you then see the outstretched hands of Jesus Christ, ready to give you the restoration He gave to Mary.
This is the time we need to sing and pray:
Precious Lord take my hand. . .
PS I had to leave suddenly so I posted this before making some corrections. This is why I made a few corrections now - also in the copy by Snoopy.
-
About 30 years ago I stood before the new deacons and an elder in my church. During their ordination I was reading to them the usual texts from 1 Timothy 3. As I stood there reading those verses it was like a light appeared in my Bible and I saw that these verses were really saying that female officers in the church should be treated exactly the same way as the males.
When I got home I kept studying these verses, wondering. Why had I not seen this before, or was I deceived? I had to pray. So I got out my Greek New Testament to check out what Paul was really writing. I came to the same conclusion. I tried to check out our Bible Commentary, all of what Ellen White had to say, and I found nothing contrary to my new discovery, and yet I did not want to venture out on something on my own.
So I wrote to my Conference President about it. He took it to the Conference committee and they decided to send the question to the Union. I found out the Union sent my request on to the Division of the General Conference.
Some weeks later I received the message my question had been considered on all of these levels and the conclusion was that my interpretation of Paul was correct, and therefore I could ordain at least the female deacons in my church. The question of elders was still under consideration. In reality the New Testament has only one ordination for males and females which is so different from the Roman Catholic ordination, and yet our Church has for years accepted the Roman Catholic pattern. This is one of the reasons for our disunity.
Ellen White tells us what I did is the way to go if we discover something new in Scripture. I followed the pattern and got my answers.
This is the reason why I have wondered why Gerhard Damsteegt is officially proclaiming something so different.
I got the clue by reading his biography.
-
Here is my letter:
Dear Dr. Damsteegt,
- - -
About 30 years ago I stood before the new deacons and an elder in my church. During their ordination I was reading to them the usual texts from 1 Timothy 3. As I stood there reading those verses it was like a light appeared in my Bible and I saw that these verses were really saying that female officers in the church should be treated exactly the same way as the males.
When I got home I kept studying these verses, wondering. Why had I not seen this before, or was I deceived? I had to pray. So I got out my Greek New Testament to check out what Paul was really writing. I came to the same conclusion. I tried to check out our Bible Commentary, all of what Ellen White had to say, and I found nothing contrary to my new discovery, and yet I did not want to venture out on something on my own.
So I wrote to my Conference President about it. He took it to the Conference committee and they decided to send the question to the Union. I found out the Union sent my request on to the Division of the General Conference.
Some weeks later I received the message my question had been considered on all of these levels and the conclusion was that my interpretation of Paul was correct, and therefore I could ordain at least the female deacons in my church. The question of elders was still under consideration. In reality the New Testament has only one ordination for males and females which is so different from the Roman Catholic ordination, and yet our Church has for years accepted the Roman Catholic pattern. This is one of the reasons for our disunity.
Ellen White tells us what I did is the way to go if we discover something new in Scripture. I followed the pattern and got my answers.
This is the reason why I have wondered why Gerhard Damsteegt is officially proclaiming something so different.
I got the clue by reading his biography.
Blessings,
Johann Thorvaldsson
PS. I would love to receive your comments.
-
Is it not true that the authorization "comes" from the office of local elder, not the commissioning?
I would say: No.
Perhaps this differs in some parts outside of the U.S.?
Female Commissioned Ministers who pastor congregations in the U.S. do not have to seek individual permission to baptize in the same manner that ordained male clergy do not have to seek individual permission to baptize. Their auhorization to baptize, as I understand it, continues for as long as they hold their credentials. However, it is expected of both that they will baptize within the teritory in which they were granted their credentials.
As I understand it, local Elders are only granted permission to baptize on a limtied basis. If they wish to baptize outside of that basis, they must seek permission to do so.
E.G. A local Elder could be given permission to hold a single baptism. I suppose that the Local Conference could grant a local Elder permission to baptize only within the congregation of which they were a pastor and only for as long as they were a pastor of that congregation.
On what basis are "commissioned ministers" authorized to baptize if it is not by virtue of being a local elder? An unordained minister can only baptize if they are elected and currently serving as a local church elder. I don't see how a commissioned minister can be any different, especially since they can only baptize within their own district.
For those who are unfamiliar with some of the history, the IRS grants a special tax break to ministers. Amounts spent for their homes can be excluded from income for income tax purposes, but not for self-employment tax purposes. Thus, amounts spent for the mortgage, utilities, furniture, rent, and the like can be excluded from income.
But this is only true as long as the minister can perform all the functions of an ordained minister. It used to be that unordained ministers could not baptize. And so in order to be able to get this tax break, unordained ministers were subsequently allowed to baptize as long as they were elected and currently serving as local church elders.
Later, when this issue about women pastors came along, they were allowed to baptize using the same reasoning.
I personally think that wanting a tax break was poor motivation for changing how we do things.
-
O.K. I did not know. You were justified in bringing it up.
I would disagree. Snatching a line from someone's conversion story that shows how shallow the Catholic meetings were, in order to damage the reputation of a minister and scholar, rather than presenting something of substance to counter that minister or scholar's ideas, is wrong.
-
So you would assert that your understanding and interpretation of the Bible and SoP would outweigh the authority of the GC in session? Doesn't the SoP state that you are wrong, as per the quotes from the Church Manual regarding the authority of the church?
Bob, the following is a quote from page 31 of the SDA Church Manual, and come under the heading "General Conference Highest Authority"
In the Church today the General Conference in session, and the General Conference Executive Committee between sessions, is the highest ecclesias- tical authority in the administration of the Church. The General Conference Executive Committee is authorized by its Constitution to create subordinate organizations with authority to carry out their roles. Therefore all subordi- nate organizations and institutions throughout the Church will recognize the General Conference in session, and the General Conference Executive Committee between sessions, as the highest ecclesiastical authority, under God, among Seventh-day Adventists.
When differences arise in or between churches and conferences or in- stitutions, appeal to the next higher constituent level is proper until it reaches an Annual Council of the General Conference Executive Committee or the General Conference in session. Between these meetings, the General Conference Executive Committee constitutes the body of final authority on all questions. The committee’s decision may be reviewed at a General Conference session or an Annual Council. When organizations review de- cisions of other organizations, they do not assume responsibility for the lia- bilities of any other organization.
“I have often been instructed by the Lord that no man’s judgment should be surrendered to the judgment of any other one man. Never should the mind of one man or the minds of a few men be regarded as sufficient in wisdom and power to control the work and to say what plans shall be fol- lowed. But when, in a General Conference, the judgment of the brethren assembled from all parts of the field is exercised, private independence and private judgment must not be stubbornly maintained, but surrendered. Never should a laborer regard as a virtue the persistent maintenance of his position of independence, contrary to the decision of the general body.”— 9T 260.
"... highest ecclesiastical authority, under God, among Seventh-day Adventists." Therefore, the Bible and SoP remain above the authority of a GC Session.
And that's the way it must always be. If church councils are a higher authority, then what would prevent the formation of another Catholic Church?
As to the OT quote from Peter, would you agree that we tend to pick and choose OT laws to obey, adhering to some and rejecting others as they confirm or deny our preferences?
That would be a different subject, but no, I tend to think that we can provide a logical basis for accepting some precepts and not accepting others as valid today, without resorting to arbitrariness.
-
Who was the first preacher of the resurrection? We all know it was Mary. Mary, this woman whose integrity had been deprived by leaders and elders among God's chosen people. Mary was the female whom Jesus Christ had restored to womanhood and therefore God used her as the first preacher of the real Christian message.
How many male church leaders are depraving the Marys of today of what they should be giving them?
And Mary was never ordained, made one of the 12, sent to pastor a local church. She didn't even chair the council of Acts 15.
Similarly, not ordaining women today or sending them to pastor local churches does not hinder them from declaring the news of the resurrection.
As far as your derogatory comments based on half a sentence is Damsteegt's conversion story go, how is that not evil surmising?
-
The laying on of hands for deaconesses and Bible workers were what she was referring to as acceptable and that is still done in the church.
Ordaining women elders was frowned on also. But that is what some women were pushing buttons to get the movement going and into the front door way back when I witnessed that pushing until they did it and most did not accept it and left church, Just the word "Elder" was given to men preachers. Elder meaning masculine in this sense.
Maybe the light that came on was to beware! The light that comes to individuals is an understanding of exact words stating something new that was missed or has been overlooked. But those words are not there.
Where does 1 Tim 3 ever give an impression of "ordaining women preachers"?
Dreams are a funny thing and from whence they come from.
I've had them and was positive that would come to be but realize many years later how when Devil has hard time to physically make you move he also causes in dreams to confuse.
I had a dream once with believing all was so real where another farm was to be purchased to enhance a business. The realness was signing papers and shown the land was rich in business as we were in. In the dream I walked the property and saw things that I could not have seen because I never actually walked the property that was there. I felt for sometime that was going to happen but later with the turn of events it would have been disastrous. For some time I could not understand something that was so real that did not happen. This has happened a couple of time in other situations, but 3 times the dreams were correct and an up lifting did happen when I knew it really was for real and not false.
Discernment from right source is a thing to not be deceived on.
to me your dream is a stance for the "movement of which is not important other then great controversy to direct attention to a very soon coming to prepare for". These "New Age" "New Directions" were made plain long ago by the chosen "Inspired one" EGW. I do not think there will be another to confuse what already had been written.
I ventured into another church yesterday that had not been in for 15 years for an old time get together and "wondered how in the world did this happen"? Proof of progression of liberalism and everything against SP.
It gives a sick sick feeling right into the pits. and I anger at the devil taking em out for what they were once privileged to know of God's will. At first look it seems impossible to ever get it back. Can that happen?? Guess it could as all things possible through God.
I wonder how many churches are in this state. So with this question in mind -can there be any doubt of such movements happening and for what stupid reasons as "women wanting Credentials". when the Lord is about to appear other then cause of controversy and confusion."Women preaching Credentials" lol. God holds the book of Credentials for works. Don't they know what causes "vanity" If they want Preaching Credentials that bad (other then teaching from their heart) send and get one out of a magazine cause that is what their"movement" is worth.
-
Ok?!!! That is just about right, Snoopy.
Now, the real question is what changed after the death of EGW and these women that the church no longer allows women to pastor When they obviously had no problem with it before?
Increasing numbers of egotistical men??
-
Ok?!!! That is just about right, Snoopy.
Now, the real question is what changed after the death of EGW and these women that the church no longer allows women to pastor When they obviously had no problem with it before?
Increasing numbers of egotistical men??
Nothing changed, your just following instead of reading the whole thing in right context for your self.
-
Bob said:
On what basis are "commissioned ministers" authorized to baptize if it is not by virtue of being a local elder? An unordained minister can only baptize if they are elected and currently serving as a local church elder. I don't see how a commissioned minister can be any different, especially since they can only baptize within their own district.
I am not 100% certain. However, it appears to me that Bob may be correct. Well, I have never claimed to be 100% correct. :)
-
Dear Friends,
Ida and I just got home from a trip where we had been offered a stay at a mountain resort near Mt. Hekla, the most active volcano in Iceland. I did not realize that some of my own ancestors lived on this farm and also Snorri Sturluson, the most famous writer and historian of Northern Europe during the Middle Ages.
Our first stop on the way home was at the local country school, way out in the country with no town in the vicinity. In find the librarian is a young mother from Switzerland. She and her Icelandic husband are sheep farmers. The door was open and she did not mind me coming in although the library should have closed 45 minutes ago. As soon as I had told her of my interests, just at the snap of a finger she had found a list of my ancestors in that community during the past 4 centuries. Learning how to count their sheep teaches them other things as well!
We drive on taking pictures of mountains, glaciers, volcanoes, water falls and the spring foliage when suddenly snow whitens the ground for a moment. We are in the arctic region. Soon we get to our own local library. Today there is a librarian I have never seen before. Not our neighbor but an oriental lady. I was amazed how interested and helpful she was. As soon as she sees me writing "Celtic Christianity" on the library computer she exhibits the greatest smile.
- I have just attended a course in that area, she exclaims. And there is no end to the information she is able to supply, starting out by giving me the name of her teacher, a historian, and an archaeologist, and a writer.
To begin with it has now been established that 63% of the initial female inhabitants of Iceland were Celtic women. This new discovery is generating a new interest in studying the life and religion of the early Celts, people who accepted the basic Christianity of the Apostles, migrating through southern Europe to the north penetrating Ireland and probably northern Scotland.
Now that I have links to much material I will be doing quite a bit of research.
What interests certain scholars in particular now is how the Celts were forced to abandon keeping the Sabbath by the Roman Catholics who got to Ireland later on.
There are also strong indications the Celts still believed the words of the Apostle that there is no distinction between male and female and made this real in their Christianity, permitting women to preach. At least one Ph. D. scholar, who is a frequent speaker at the most conservative gatherings of Adventist in Northern Europe, believes they ordained women for the ministry until the Roman Catholics prevented this along with introducing Sunday worship.
More on this later.
-
Ok?!!! That is just about right, Snoopy.
Now, the real question is what changed after the death of EGW and these women that the church no longer allows women to pastor When they obviously had no problem with it before?
Increasing numbers of egotistical men??
Recent historic research is reaching a similar conclusion.
-
O.K. I did not know. You were justified in bringing it up.
I would disagree. Snatching a line from someone's conversion story that shows how shallow the Catholic meetings were, in order to damage the reputation of a minister and scholar, rather than presenting something of substance to counter that minister or scholar's ideas, is wrong.
Unfortunately much worse things are happening. I have just been informed that one of our active Bible teachers has written a doctoral dissertation where he has given him, as well as some others on both sides an "F" for their handling of Scripture. I'd say this could terminate the basis of the votes taken by the General Conference.
I am getting more information on this and I will study this book.
-
Bob said:
On what basis are "commissioned ministers" authorized to baptize if it is not by virtue of being a local elder? An unordained minister can only baptize if they are elected and currently serving as a local church elder. I don't see how a commissioned minister can be any different, especially since they can only baptize within their own district.
I am not 100% certain. However, it appears to me that Bob may be correct. Well, I have never claimed to be 100% correct. :)
This might seem very important, just like knowing which is more important, the horse or the buggy
-
Who was the first preacher of the resurrection? We all know it was Mary. Mary, this woman whose integrity had been deprived by leaders and elders among God's chosen people. Mary was the female whom Jesus Christ had restored to womanhood and therefore God used her as the first preacher of the real Christian message.
How many male church leaders are depraving the Marys of today of what they should be giving them?
And Mary was never ordained,
I'd like to see you document this.
-
Who was the first preacher of the resurrection? We all know it was Mary. Mary, this woman whose integrity had been deprived by leaders and elders among God's chosen people. Mary was the female whom Jesus Christ had restored to womanhood and therefore God used her as the first preacher of the real Christian message.
How many male church leaders are depraving the Marys of today of what they should be giving them?
As far as your derogatory comments based on half a sentence is Damsteegt's conversion story go, how is that not evil surmising?
In which way did I make it any worse than what he told himself? I faulted the Catholics for how they were getting the young soldiers to attend their services, and what influences this might have on their minds. What is it you are defending with your reaction?
-
Who was the first preacher of the resurrection? We all know it was Mary. Mary, this woman whose integrity had been deprived by leaders and elders among God's chosen people. Mary was the female whom Jesus Christ had restored to womanhood and therefore God used her as the first preacher of the real Christian message.
How many male church leaders are depraving the Marys of today of what they should be giving them?
As far as your derogatory comments based on half a sentence is Damsteegt's conversion story go, how is that not evil surmising?
In which way did I make it any worse than what he told himself?
Did he get that inclination while attended the Catholic chapel when he was in the military and dancing was part of the service? Young females do yield a magic power on the thinking of young men.
After graduating as an aeronautical engineer, he was drafted into the Dutch Air Force. Essentially a pacifist by nature, he was greatly repulsed by the movies of killing he was forced to watch--how to best inflict a mortal wound, etc. As part of the training, he was obliged to attend meetings organized by either the Protestant or Catholic chaplains. Catholics usually sponsored a dance with girls; Protestants, group discussions. He attended both but was more attracted to the discussion groups.
There is nothing in the above quote from Damsteegt's personal testimony about his conversion that calls into question his character. Your comment does, in my opinion.
And Mary was never ordained,
I'd like to see you document this.
I agree that my statement is an argument from silence. On the other hand, I'd like to see you document that Mary was ordained.
-
There are also strong indications the Celts still believed the words of the Apostle that there is no distinction between male and female and made this real in their Christianity, permitting women to preach.
At what point does it become deceptive to cite Gal. 3 in support of women's ordination while ignoring the other statements about the role of women made by the same author in the NT?
At least one Ph. D. scholar, who is a frequent speaker at the most conservative gatherings of Adventist in Northern Europe, believes they ordained women for the ministry until the Roman Catholics prevented this along with introducing Sunday worship.
More on this later.
I am interested in the identity of the PhD scholar you refer to.
"For the pagan Celt, the essence of the universe and all its creativity was female and they left permanent traces of a culture in which women were the spiritual and moral pivot" (http://www.pabay.org/skyeviews.html).
It will be interesting to see if any traces of what you suggest can be solidly linked to NT Christianity, rather than to an absorption of pagan Celtic culture.
-
On what basis are "commissioned ministers" authorized to baptize if it is not by virtue of being a local elder? An unordained minister can only baptize if they are elected and currently serving as a local church elder. I don't see how a commissioned minister can be any different, especially since they can only baptize within their own district.
Does the Bible make a case for the geo-political aspect of baptism, and does it specify election as a prerequisite to unordained ministers baptizing, or are these points that were invented later and accepted as tradition?
-
It will be interesting to see if any traces of what you suggest can be solidly linked to NT Christianity, rather than to an absorption of pagan Celtic culture.
The role of culture that has evolved into dogma is quite interesting. Food, for example. There are many Adventists who teach and enforce vegetarianism as Christian dogma. Some do the same with clothing styles, the use of makeup... And worship style is a highly divisive issue in which cultures and sub-cultures attempt to demonize styles other than their own as offensive to God. Music is another example. Drums, electric guitars, and styles of music that offend based on personal culture and taste are put forth as evil and unfit for use in church or in praise to God when there is absolutely no Biblical basis for their stance. The Catholic Church is honest enough to admit that they hold tradition as having God's mandate when it suits their purpose. But much of Protestantism (including many Adventists) has fully embraced the concept, but refuses to to be honest about it.
-
Who was the first preacher of the resurrection? We all know it was Mary. Mary, this woman whose integrity had been deprived by leaders and elders among God's chosen people. Mary was the female whom Jesus Christ had restored to womanhood and therefore God used her as the first preacher of the real Christian message.
How many male church leaders are depraving the Marys of today of what they should be giving them?
As far as your derogatory comments based on half a sentence is Damsteegt's conversion story go, how is that not evil surmising?
In which way did I make it any worse than what he told himself?
Did he get that inclination while attended the Catholic chapel when he was in the military and dancing was part of the service? Young females do yield a magic power on the thinking of young men.
After graduating as an aeronautical engineer, he was drafted into the Dutch Air Force. Essentially a pacifist by nature, he was greatly repulsed by the movies of killing he was forced to watch--how to best inflict a mortal wound, etc. As part of the training, he was obliged to attend meetings organized by either the Protestant or Catholic chaplains. Catholics usually sponsored a dance with girls; Protestants, group discussions. He attended both but was more attracted to the discussion groups.
There is nothing in the above quote from Damsteegt's personal testimony about his conversion that calls into question his character. Your comment does, in my opinion.
How do you create an opinion, Bob? Just because this questions your desperate defense of Roman Catholicism within the Seventh-day Adventist Church you blame me for questioning the character of the person who seems to be one of your sources? I question personal opinions which does not mean questioning the character of a person even though his opinions might be weird. To me this kind of reasoning seems to be a desperate way of grabbing some withered straws to prevent certain ideas from plunging into the abyss below.
And Mary was never ordained,
I'd like to see you document this.
I agree that my statement is an argument from silence. On the other hand, I'd like to see you document that Mary was ordained.
You made a claim, Bob, so I requested a documentation. I have not made the claim she was ordained, so what am I to document? Silence does not document she was ordained nor that she wasn't. Neither does an opinion.
-
There are also strong indications the Celts still believed the words of the Apostle that there is no distinction between male and female and made this real in their Christianity, permitting women to preach.
At what point does it become deceptive to cite Gal. 3 in support of women's ordination while ignoring the other statements about the role of women made by the same author in the NT?
At least one Ph. D. scholar, who is a frequent speaker at the most conservative gatherings of Adventist in Northern Europe, believes they ordained women for the ministry until the Roman Catholics prevented this along with introducing Sunday worship.
More on this later.
I am interested in the identity of the PhD scholar you refer to.
"For the pagan Celt, the essence of the universe and all its creativity was female and they left permanent traces of a culture in which women were the spiritual and moral pivot" (http://www.pabay.org/skyeviews.html).
It will be interesting to see if any traces of what you suggest can be solidly linked to NT Christianity, rather than to an absorption of pagan Celtic culture.
I agree with you that this is interesting. Does the source you quote also link their Sabbath observance with pagan culture?
I'll give you a few more clues on the identity of the scholar: Former Bible teacher and college/academy principal. Regarded by many conservatives as a great Bible scholar.
-
On what basis are "commissioned ministers" authorized to baptize if it is not by virtue of being a local elder? An unordained minister can only baptize if they are elected and currently serving as a local church elder. I don't see how a commissioned minister can be any different, especially since they can only baptize within their own district.
Does the Bible make a case for the geo-political aspect of baptism, and does it specify election as a prerequisite to unordained ministers baptizing, or are these points that were invented later and accepted as tradition?
Good question.
"Both Paul and Barnabas had been laboring as ministers of Christ, and God had abundantly blessed their efforts; but neither of them had previously been formally ordained to the gospel ministry by prayer and the laying on of hands. They were now authorized by the church, not only to teach the truth, but to baptize, and to organize churches, being invested with full ecclesiastical authority" (LP 42).
There isn't a whole lot in the Bible to go on.
"This form was a significant one to the Jews. When a Jewish father blessed his children, he laid his hands reverently upon their heads. When an animal was devoted to sacrifice, the hand of the one invested with priestly authority was laid upon the head of the victim. Therefore, when the ministers of Antioch laid their hands upon the apostles, they, by that action, asked God to bestow his blessing upon them, in their devotion to the specific work which God had chosen them to do" (LP 44).
Here is something that may be helpful:
Acts 6:3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.
Thus the 7 deacons were elected by the congregation at Jerusalem. They weren't simply placed in charge by the 12 apostles. Thus, local elder(s) should also be elected.
Can the elder who served last year still function as an elder this year, even though not elected this year? That wouldn't make sense, would it?
Unordained ministers are supposed to be on trial. They have to prove themselves. Thus there has to be a difference between what they can do and what an ordained minister can do. Paul and Barnabas also engaged for a time in ministry before they were ordained. The question remains as to what that difference should be. I think the old way is best, regardless of tax consequences.
Are there any biblical reasons why a local elder should or should not be able to baptize? I think that may be what the question boils down to.
-
How do you create an opinion, Bob? Just because this questions your desperate defense of Roman Catholicism within the Seventh-day Adventist Church you blame me for questioning the character of the person who seems to be one of your sources? I question personal opinions which does not mean questioning the character of a person even though his opinions might be weird.
Did I not cite Damsteegt regarding Adventism historically not having settled pastors? Did I not say that I arrived at the conclusion that that was how it was supposed to be, and how it was, before I ever read Damsteegt's essay on it?
Yes, that is what I wrote: http://www.adventtalk.com/forums/index.php/topic,2300.msg36089.html#msg36089. Why then are you claiming that he "seems to be one of your sources"?
If you want to quibble about my timeline, I plainly stated that I had read those 1927 and 1940 books by 1993, and Damsteegt's essay was not published until 2005!
And you dare call Damsteegt's SoP-based "opinion" on the role of tithe-paid ministers "weird"?
"As a general rule, the conference laborers should go out from the churches into new fields, using their God-given ability to a purpose in seeking and saving the lost.--Letter 136, 1902" (Ev 382).
My citation of Damsteegt that resulted in your uncalled for comment about dancing girls concerned the role of tithe-paid ministers, not women's ordination. And thus the opinion your words suggest as weird concerns the role of tithe-paid ministers, which "opinion" is clearly laid out in the SoP. And thus your words that clear counsel in the SoP is weird.
Or, did you change the subject in midstream without clearly telling us, from Damsteegt's essay on the role of tithe-paid ministers to his thoughts on women's ordination, even though I did not cite Damsteegt's essay for that purpose, and his essay is not about that topic?
-
How do you create an opinion, Bob? Just because this questions your desperate defense of Roman Catholicism within the Seventh-day Adventist Church you blame me for questioning the character of the person who seems to be one of your sources? I question personal opinions which does not mean questioning the character of a person even though his opinions might be weird.
Did I not cite Damsteegt regarding Adventism historically not having settled pastors? Did I not say that I arrived at the conclusion that that was how it was supposed to be, and how it was, before I ever read Damsteegt's essay on it?
Yes, that is what I wrote: http://www.adventtalk.com/forums/index.php/topic,2300.msg36089.html#msg36089. Why then are you claiming that he "seems to be one of your sources"?
If you want to quibble about my timeline, I plainly stated that I had read those 1927 and 1940 books by 1993, and Damsteegt's essay was not published until 2005!
And you dare call Damsteegt's SoP-based "opinion" on the role of tithe-paid ministers "weird"?
"As a general rule, the conference laborers should go out from the churches into new fields, using their God-given ability to a purpose in seeking and saving the lost.--Letter 136, 1902" (Ev 382).
My citation of Damsteegt that resulted in your uncalled for comment about dancing girls concerned the role of tithe-paid ministers, not women's ordination. And thus the opinion your words suggest as weird concerns the role of tithe-paid ministers, which "opinion" is clearly laid out in the SoP. And thus your words that clear counsel in the SoP is weird.
Or, did you change the subject in midstream without clearly telling us, from Damsteegt's essay on the role of tithe-paid ministers to his thoughts on women's ordination, even though I did not cite Damsteegt's essay for that purpose, and his essay is not about that topic?
Bob, I do not understand why you can say I changed the subject since I have never objected to your nor Damsteegt's essay on the role of tithe-paid ministries. It is a lot easier to follow you if you manage to stay with the subject.
-
The Official NAD Report
5-2-12 North American Division Affirms Women Clergy
.
Report of the first organized conference for women clergy
Darius Jankiewicz, associate professor of historical theology at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary on the campus of Andrews University shared his recent study of scripture where he concluded that ordination was not part of the New Testament Church. Furthermore, his historical study revealed that ordination began in the pagan world and developed over the centuries into a theology that puts the priests in a position of authority over the laity and limits the dispensation of God’s grace to the priesthood.
Today I was able to spend some time at the University National Library which contains quite a bit material on Celtic Christianity. Research, in particular by Einar Palsson, reveals that Celtic Christians seem to have arrived in a fairly large number from the Hebrides to Iceland where they lived from 870 to 1000 AD together with the Pagan Norwegian Vikings. He discovered that these Christian Celts did not accept the Pope, but had their own leader (Conference President)
Roman Catholicism united the Celtic Christians and the Norwegian pagans 1000 AD, but even then the Christian Church accepted some of the Celtic traditions and they did not fully accept the pope, as far as I understand.
-
Nevertheless, Johann, Catholicism integrated the Judaic, Roman, Greek, and generally human practice of raising cultural tradition to the level of Divine authority into Christendom, in perpetuam. Today the practice and acceptance of cultural tradition as holding the weight of Biblical authority is as strong in almost every hold of Christian belief as it was 800 years ago in Rome. The wheel of time may turn, but the nature of human need, drive, and desire does not. It remains constant.
-
Nevertheless, Johann, Catholicism integrated the Judaic, Roman, Greek, and generally human practice of raising cultural tradition to the level of Divine authority into Christendom, in perpetuam. Today the practice and acceptance of cultural tradition as holding the weight of Biblical authority is as strong in almost every hold of Christian belief as it was 800 years ago in Rome. The wheel of time may turn, but the nature of human need, drive, and desire does not. It remains constant.
And people find a way of fulfilling their needs. A family with more desires than needs had a hard time living within their budget with their 5 children. So towards the end of the month they'd gather the whole herd just before supper-time each evening and go visit a hospitable family. That decision was made by the father, the head of the household, because he had been taught that women should not make the important decisions in the family.
I got this story from a 50 year old woman who was a small girl in the hospitable family which had 6 children.
-
Bob, I do not understand why you can say I changed the subject since I have never objected to your nor Damsteegt's essay on the role of tithe-paid ministries. It is a lot easier to follow you if you manage to stay with the subject.
I did not change the subject, Johann. Here is the post after which you started talking about dancing girls.
Bob:
You sure have a way of mixing facts and defining them to defend your own bias.
...
Bob, I am amazed how efficient you are at splitting the Word of God in an attempt to let it fit your bias. When I read that quote of Ellen White I find it defining the ministry I was ordained to perform as well as the ministry our female pastors are called to perform. Your bias does not permit that definition, so I wonder . . .
What I wrote about the role of tithe-paid ministers not generally supposed to be pastoring local churches is pretty basic stuff. See Ev 382 as but one example. For the history about it all, see Damsteegt's article on it at http://www.andrews.edu/~damsteeg/Herewestand_sec_6.pdf.
But long before I read Damsteegt, I read two books on churches by non-Adventists, I think the publication dates being 1927 and 1940. I read the 2 and 10 pages those two books had on Adventists by the end of 1993, I believe. Both books said that Adventist churches didn't have pastors. Elders handled the pastoral work while the tithe-paid ministers, generally, were out in new fields raising up new churches.
And that's what we ought to go back to, if we want to see the work finished. Ethnicities that are more or less following that model are growing faster than we Caucasians who refuse to obey the counsel God has given us on this point.
Women's ordination advocates sometimes try to cite the way things used to be in Adventism, but I have yet to see where they pointed out that tithe-paid ministers generally did not pastor local churches. If they really want to go back to the way things used to be, they will be pushing for all ministers, men and women, generally to engage in evangelism in new fields, leaving the local elders to carry on the church services.
But nowhere have I ever heard that that is what they are doing, and thus they don't really want to go back to the way things used to be.
-
Manfred Lemke came originally from Switzerland and he was a university lecturer in electronic communication for teachers when he became a Seventh-day Adventist. A few years later he intended to audit some Bible classes at Newbold College to learn more about the teachings of our church, but he was soon encouraged to satisfy the requirements for a Masters degree in theology. Today he is a pastor and director of communications in the Iceland Conference. He sent me this recent Sabbath sermon and gave me permission to abbreviate it and translate it into English.
Clearing unexploded bombs in Scripture
1 Tim 2:8 Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing.
Each year more than 5000 unexploded bombs are found in Germany. Most of them are uncovered in connection with new constructions. They are underneath schools, hospitals, by highways or in the open countryside. It is estimated that 100,000 bombs are still in the ground waiting to be uncovered.
In recent years teams of specialists take care of these bombs, but they do not always succeed. There are increased discoveries in metropolitan areas. Complications increase with age as the powder becomes unpredictable.
Germany is not the only explosive area in the world; there are many infected areas which cannot be entered without risking life or limbs. The Bible was written before such bombs were invented, and yet some of its contents is as explosive as the unexploded bombs in Berlin.
One of these areas deals with men and women. Here is the verse again in context:
1 Timothy 2:8-15 8 Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing. 9 I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.
11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
This text has often been used to explain why women are neither to be ministers nor bishops. How are we to understand this text? Haven‘t we already discovered its final meaning ?
Considering how often I see a new light when I read a Bible text again, this could also apply to First Timothy. The letters to Timothy and Titus are usually called the Pastoral Epistles. They are all addressed to individuals rather than churches. Timothy was then working in Ephesus. His father was Greek but his mother a Jew. Timothy was a timid person and weak, and yet a good teacher and minister.
In his letter Paul is helping his friend and coworker in his difficult task of being a leader. This is a private letter between two men of God written more than 1900 years ago. Timothy was the leader of a small church in a town and country where other gods were worshipped. Ephesus was known for its Artemis temple. And we will meet Artemis later in again.
Now I want to tell you of something quite different. Last time I attended a media session in our church I was seated at a table with an Egyptian, an Israeli, and a Syrian. These were all Adventists and one is a former fellow student at Newbold College. It was a supper I will never forget. All three neighbors were defaming each other constantly. With great gestures they would call each other „infidels“and much more with their eyes wide open and sweat pouring from their brows.
I sat there like a convict. I tried to participate with smiles and a few unsuccessful remarks, but it really seemed like a storm was passing by with nothing I could do. I left the table confused, yet my friend Salom seemed to sense it and followed me. He convinced me this was their natural way of conversation. They are the best of friends and this way of conversing is just a sign of their friendship.
To me this was a cultural chock. How are Paul, Timothy, and all of the other men talking to each other? Could it be that in his conversation with a personal friend about a strange behavior, he might express himself in a way that is quite different from what we know and are used to?
All of this is but some preliminary remarks. Now let’s get to the task at hand. Verse 8 is easy: 8 Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing.
The word translated “disputing” is an interesting word. Dialogismos refers here to disputing and questioning if the other person is telling the truth. Disputing and anger was what I thought I experienced at the supper table. Here it was between friends. How would it be among enemies?
To me it appears like Paul is here asking men to leave off their male chauvinism, machismo, and quarrels and rather pray in humility.
Then Paul talks about women: He is continuing the same subject. He wants women to correct their old habits and rather have their minds set on what is important: 9 I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.
Rather than having their minds set on outer appearance [margaritas] Paul speaks of good deeds. Back in those days there was no social security or insurance, so the wealthy people were responsible for those who were facing financial worries. Time and means provided to help the poor was called “good deeds”.
Paul is here reminding both men and women not to remain in their usual state of mind. Males should not amuse themselves with argumentation nor should females mess around with their ornaments. They should rather consider what is important for God.
Now we have the next sentence: 11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.
Notice it says a woman should learn, but she should not just learn to achieve power and control. Now let us consider Artemis again. She was a female who ruled over all and everyone among the pagans in Ephesus. This was what should not take place among the Christian women. They were to learn and get an education in humility.
I have considered every word in the Greek text. This gives me the understanding that Paul states the women are to be educated undisturbed and in submission to the Lord.
Now we reach verse 12: I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.
Some find in this text a culmination in humiliation of women. Females are not even permitted to use nice clothing. They are nothing but the daughters of Eve with whom all the misfortunes of the world started. They’d rather be quiet and be satisfied with having children. Is this the purpose of this letter?
Could it be that God intended one half of humanity to only serve this purpose? That could never be true. Who were the first witnesses of the Resurrection? Women – they were the first „apostolos“.
What does Paul state in Romans 16:
Romans 16:1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae.
Romans 16:7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.
Here we have deacons and apostles. And there is even more explosive powder in 1 Corinthians where we just quote half a sentence:
1 Corinthians 11:5 But every woman who prays or prophesies. . .
So, what is the woman to do? Keep quiet? Then we have
Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Where is the distinction? Is the woman second rate under the male? One of the strongest examples in found in Luke 10.
Martha was busy in the kitchen where people would say she was doing the work of a woman. She was sullen towards Mary. Why?
Luke 10:39 She had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet listening to what he said
Along with the other disciples Mary from Bethany is sitting at the feet of the Master teacher. She is learning what she will be teaching others later. Her sister Martha was angry because Mary was breaking all the rules which governed what she was supposed to do as a woman. Rather than doing her duties in the kitchen she was performing the duties of an apostle.
What did Jesus say about this? Did he tell Mary to follow the rules in agreement which all the proper authorities? 41 “Martha, Martha,” the Lord answered, “You are worried and upset about many things, 42 but few things are needed—or indeed only one. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her.”
Now back to verse 12: I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.
What is Paul dealing with? Considering the situation in Ephesus, where all the pagan priests were women, I‘d suggest the following translation:
„I do not think women should now display a new authority over men which is similar to the way men have been ruling over women.“ Paul wants to make sure Christians do not follow the pagans. Christianity was to be entirely different than the worship of Artemis. Just like Jesus teaches in Luke 10 women should have the opportunity to learn what they need, without displaying a superiority in the spirit of the Artemis worshipers. The purpose is much rather that both men and women have the possibilities to develop their own Spiritual gifts to learn and teach.
The final question is why Paul refers to Adam and Eve here? Who was it that had received a full explanation the purpose of the trees in the garden of Eden? That was Adam. Therefore Adam sinned fully knowing what he was doing. Eve was not as well informed. Paul is emphasizing the importance of women being better informed. He is using this as an example of the results of ignorance.
Why does Paul mention births? It is clear that he does not regard them to be a punishment. Birth is probably the most difficult, the most painful and most dangerous moment in the life of a woman. But it is not to replace a punishment. A new child is born adding to the creation of God in this world.
In the beginning I mentioned bombs that have not exploded. They are dangerous and unpredictable. There is still much in the Bible which is difficult to understand, but one thing is certain: God will never increase injustice among those who believe in Him.
Let‘s join hands and disconnect those bombs that prevent us from understanding the justice of God as revealed in His Word.
Amen
-
Paul write, "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."
Why?
"For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."
Yet the sermon said that Paul was only saying that women should be better informed. What indication do we have in the text that that is how we should interpret it?
What is Paul dealing with? Considering the situation in Ephesus, where all the pagan priests were women, I‘d suggest the following translation:
I just Googled for "ephesus artemis priests", and a number of websites state that there were both male and female priests in Ephesus involved in the worship of Artemis.
-
Paul write, "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."
Why?
"For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."
Yet the sermon said that Paul was only saying that women should be better informed. What indication do we have in the text that that is how we should interpret it?
What is Paul dealing with? Considering the situation in Ephesus, where all the pagan priests were women, I‘d suggest the following translation:
I just Googled for "ephesus artemis priests", and a number of websites state that there were both male and female priests in Ephesus involved in the worship of Artemis.
Thank you for pointing out these things Bob. Thereby we counter some of the problems that arise. The native language of Manfred is Switz German (somewhat different from regular German) and he comes from a country which has four different official languages. Therefore Switzerland is a Tower of Babel, or a melting pot of languages in Europe. But now Manfred has lived for many years in Iceland and speaks this language fluently.
Then I, whose mother tongue is Danish, translated his sermon from Icelandic to English. Your note, Bob, shows how difficult it can be to translate a text by just using a dictionary type of translation like many people are satisfied with.
If I had had your note I should have taken history and many other things into consideration. A better translation would therefore be: "Considering the situation in Ephesus, in particular with all the female pagan priests there, I'd suggest the following translation: . . ."
Again, Bob, thank you again for pointing out to all of us how important it is to take the culture, history, and local situation into consideration when we translate a text about something that has happened in the past and far away from us. Now we all see how valuable that is.
-
Johann,
One challenge is identifying what the history and culture really were.
One thing that illustrated this for me was when a college professor explained away Deut. 22:5 stating that cross-dressing was part of pagan worship back then. The I read in Encyclopedia Britannica that an ancient people prohibited an immoral practice except with horses, since that immorality was part of the horse sacrifice. The professor's logic would conclude that that immorality is fine today since it is no longer associated with pagan worship.
This is a very real problem, since advocates of homosexual behavior claim that the reason the Bible forbids such is because it was part of pagan worship back then, but since it isn't today, it's fine today.
Thus I think the only safe course when considering divine commands or counsel in Scripture is to use what the Bible itself says about the history and culture of those times, not what some non-biblical source asserts about it.
Therefore, since the Bible does not say that Paul told the women to keep silent because of all the female pagan priests, I think we should be hesitant to go down that road.
-
As reported by ADventist Today, in reference to the recent action of the Pacific Union Conference related to female ordination:
“You may not like the idea of ordaining women,” stated another retired denominational leader, “but you cannot honestly adhere to the principles that have always guided the Seventh-day Adventist Church and not allow a union conference to do this.” This will be a test case, he noted, of the principles that Ellen White presented to the 1901 GC Session when the concept of union conferences was first introduced.
To call this "rebelion" is not necesarly evident.
-
lol while women are looking for credentials (oil) It will be of no worth as there was no oil to be found or (credentials that promises eternity). they really need to learn to be women first and know just what being a women means. Some do not have a clue. A family thrives around a goodly women.
But what do they do?? They want to go to war, they want outside the home and leave their families. They want competition, They want men's wear, They want men's strength and finally they want "women" wives.and even worse they want to flaunt their desires in the pulpit with successful "credentials" while they show they can degrade men's virtues and boast in it that they are strong enough to protect the president of the United State lol I about fell off my chair laughing on that bit of news casting from the left.
SHOW ME ONE OF THESE WOMEN STATED ABOVE WHO HAVE A HUSBAND, AND I CAN TELL YOU HE IS A MAN WITH LOST VIRTUES IN ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. WHAT REAL WOMAN WOULD WANT THEM !!
My self, a man is extraordinary wonderful how God made him to be a strong caretaker of his family and a "lover of woman" so women can be happy in what they like being a women for. You will not see me give any attention to a woman that wants "credentials to do her work for God", although I respect women that have credentials to "help people" in general in what fields (doctors, teachers, lawyers, or even a head of a country if placed in that position) they have been educated in or placed according to the laws of the land.
I liked Diana of England as her care for title meant nothing in the end but her work and sons did follow after her, hopefully so far it appears as she loved the people and suffered much. (from the witch Camille.) but who knows all as it appears.
EGW pointed that out for different men in need of goodly women for help in their work with the passing of first wives in that period of spreading 3 angels messages. Of course she spoke of just a small group that had the whole burden of the world to get this new message across to a dying world. They all sacrificed much for this message to restore the finished church that belongs to God.
Those looking for every justification against SP will Satan show them in between lines to insert their agendas for confusion and diversion of the truth as presented in simple terms. Just think about it for a moment on why EGW insisted over and over she was just a messenger and doing as she was shown and relating with writing and speech!
But it was the people, the church , the organization and to this day do we believe and state she was a Prophetess. Even the article that Bob put the link on here to read is the first I knew of this book. I am so glad to have read it as it shows without doubt the progression of "Omega". But even the writer claimed EGW as Prophetess. Which I truly believe also that is right, but in all her Intelligence and carefullness and vanity "rules for herself" she knew what was coming in this late day and now here it is. She never ever proclaimed to be ordained from what ever the church gave or tried to instill. Her claim is that she was "ordained" or trusted from God for her to give "inspired message". Its clear as a bell her intentions and not this flapping gappy mess of contortions accepting that she or anyone was a "woman ordained preacher". Ordaining simply means laying on of hands of someone sanctified in the truth and promises to give the truth and nothing but the truth as a great responsibility for a doctrine or Word of God of the Bible to the will of God and his last day message.
So why in the world would EGW want or even need "earthly credentials to do what God requested?? This is a most common sense question that evidently ignorance or self agenda against SP cannot fathom. She claimed this herself....Her ordaining came from God. Her vanity would not except what the church or man did to top what already was given to her by highest authority.
corrections for added thoughts
-
As reported by ADventist Today, in reference to the recent action of the Pacific Union Conference related to female ordination:
“You may not like the idea of ordaining women,” stated another retired denominational leader, “but you cannot honestly adhere to the principles that have always guided the Seventh-day Adventist Church and not allow a union conference to do this.” This will be a test case, he noted, of the principles that Ellen White presented to the 1901 GC Session when the concept of union conferences was first introduced.
To call this "rebelion" is not necesarly evident.
"The principles that have always guided the Seventh-day Adventist Church" include the principle that a GC Session has authority. Where does the PUC press release or the AToday article ever acknowledge that point, applying it to what the 1990 and 1995 GC Sessions actually voted? It seems to me that their failure to so cite reveals that there very much is a spirit of rebellion in the air.
-
For years after his death in 1962 M.L. Andreasen was by many regarded as the main solid conservative SDA theologian. I find these words from his autobiography quite interesting:
Then it dawned upon me that I had to use good sense, and I thanked God for a little good sense, at least. I was honest and wanted to do right. But I hadn't what you would do well to to learn, that when you find any statement, first of all, believe it. But remember that in many cases there are balancing statements. You may read, You must not eat this, or that, or the other. Believe it, but also look for those balancing statements, not to do away with the word, no, but to strengthen. Then you will find that you stand on good solid ground.
Quoted in Without Fear Or Favor, p. 54.
-
On the Northern German Union Vote for Women's Ordination
While the decision is in contradiction to global regulation, it should be noted that it was emphasized more than once that this is not to be considered as an act of disloyalty towards the world church, but as an act of conscience toward the gospel, albeit with a flavor of civil disobedience.
However, it must be noted that this is not just civil disobedience. It is rebellion. God has told us that GC Session votes have authority. The words above indicate that the Northern German Union has rejected that authority.
The Role of NAD
President Jackson . . . described the conferences and unions as doing what they feel God is calling them to do, and the NAD did not see its role as one of trying to stop them. “We are not going to chastise them…we are not going to affirm them.” Instead, President Jackson sees the role of the NAD as one of educating the North American constituencies. He noted that it was clear at the 2011 year-end meeting that this question is not going away for NAD, and that its role, in addition to education, is to find more pathways for women in leadership.
Spectrum
If Jackson isn't going to do his job, he should resign. He is not the man for the job.
For one thing, he has himself admitted that the NAD is but part of the GC. What you quote above indicates that he has decided not to urge conferences and unions in the NAD to follow the policies of the very organization of which he is a part. If he can't support his own organization's policies, he shouldn't be NAD president.
Just to remind you what has been said.
-
ONE IN CHRIST
Check this site and sign the petition - if you agree that we are ONE IN CHRIST
http://www.one-in-christ.com/petition/
-
Johann,
This is another example, Johann, in my opinion, of the lack of a sound biblical or SoP basis for ignoring the 1990 and 1995 GC Session votes. What does being one in Christ have to do with the abolition of the distinction between the roles of men and women in the church and home? Since we are all one in Christ, can men now have babies? If not, then the roles God Himself established at the foundations of the earth are still in place.
-
Johann,
This is another example, Johann, in my opinion, of the lack of a sound biblical or SoP basis for ignoring the 1990 and 1995 GC Session votes. What does being one in Christ have to do with the abolition of the distinction between the roles of men and women in the church and home? Since we are all one in Christ, can men now have babies? If not, then the roles God Himself established at the foundations of the earth are still in place.
I think we also need to take te following into consideration:
http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/husbandof%20one%20wife.pdf
Here, in my opinion, the General Conference Biblical Research Institute has made it clear that the main arguments against the ordination of women are not Biblical.
So it seems to me that some of the officers have dealt politically with the issue by granting such important men to our church as Doug Batchelor, Pipim, Damsteegt, and even Bob Pickle, respite until they grasp the importance of that document.
Can you really blame the people who are eager to do the right thing, according to the findings of the General Conference Biblical Research Institute? Is it your honest belief that any statement by Ellen White can be rightfully used to prevent people from doing what is right?
-
Johann,
This is another example, Johann, in my opinion, of the lack of a sound biblical or SoP basis for ignoring the 1990 and 1995 GC Session votes. What does being one in Christ have to do with the abolition of the distinction between the roles of men and women in the church and home? Since we are all one in Christ, can men now have babies? If not, then the roles God Himself established at the foundations of the earth are still in place.
I think we also need to take te following into consideration:
http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/husbandof%20one%20wife.pdf
Here, in my opinion, the General Conference Biblical Research Institute has made it clear that the main arguments against the ordination of women are not Biblical.
How many individuals approved the document in question's conclusions?
"The hotly debated question whether or not a woman can be an elder does not seem to be addressed."
So says the paper. Could you please explain for us how, as the paper concludes, elders being "husband of one wife" does not refer to men being elders?
-
Johann,
This is another example, Johann, in my opinion, of the lack of a sound biblical or SoP basis for ignoring the 1990 and 1995 GC Session votes. What does being one in Christ have to do with the abolition of the distinction between the roles of men and women in the church and home? Since we are all one in Christ, can men now have babies? If not, then the roles God Himself established at the foundations of the earth are still in place.
I think we also need to take te following into consideration:
http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/husbandof%20one%20wife.pdf
Here, in my opinion, the General Conference Biblical Research Institute has made it clear that the main arguments against the ordination of women are not Biblical.
How many individuals approved the document in question's conclusions?
"The hotly debated question whether or not a woman can be an elder does not seem to be addressed."
So says the paper. Could you please explain for us how, as the paper concludes, elders being "husband of one wife" does not refer to men being elders?
I have a pretty good notion the committee agreed to publish this paper, and those papers are generally regarded as expressing the views of our church. Are you dissatisfied a certain person was not a member?
From what context did you make your quotation?
If you need an answer to that question I refer you back to the paper, which, in my opinion, answers that question quite adequately.
-
ONE IN CHRIST
Check this site and sign the petition - if you agree that we are ONE IN CHRIST
http://www.one-in-christ.com/petition/
It is such an encouragement to read some of the comments a number of those signing have written. Expressions of love and faith and gratitude - and HOPE. That is what we experience when we know we are following the Lord.
Close to 2.000 have signed this petition by now. In comparison less than 500 have signed the petition against the ordination of women.
Seventh-day Adventists understand the importance of following the Lord's will and honor the example of the Lord's appointed witness, Ellen G White.
-
I have a pretty good notion the committee agreed to publish this paper, and those papers are generally regarded as expressing the views of our church.
If no survey was done, and no discussion was had at a GC Session on the matter, I fail to see how we can say that the church as a whole believes that elders being the husband of one wife does not refer to elders being men.
If you need an answer to that question I refer you back to the paper, which, in my opinion, answers that question quite adequately.
I want to hear you articulate the explanation given. I want to hear you repeat the argument and say that you agree with it. If the explanation cannot be repeated easily and confidently by those who read it, then that raises questions about the argument.
-
I have a pretty good notion the committee agreed to publish this paper, and those papers are generally regarded as expressing the views of our church.
If no survey was done, and no discussion was had at a GC Session on the matter, I fail to see how we can say that the church as a whole believes that elders being the husband of one wife does not refer to elders being men.
If you need an answer to that question I refer you back to the paper, which, in my opinion, answers that question quite adequately.
I want to hear you articulate the explanation given. I want to hear you repeat the argument and say that you agree with it. If the explanation cannot be repeated easily and confidently by those who read it, then that raises questions about the argument.
What can I do about your failures, Bob? Since it is impossible for you to read and understand what the General Conference Biblical Research Institute has written in response to the teachings of Pipim and Damsteegt, do you need the assistance of a good female who has gone to school and learned how to read?
You seem unwilling to read it unless some kind of a survey be done. Are the teachings of the Seventh-day Adventist church based on surveys rather than Bible study? If this is the case it is new to me. And then you also want a vote on it. But you expect everyone else to follow some claims made by certain people who were not members of the Adventist Biblical Research Institute, nor has any vote been taken on the claims of these documents.
With all of your predisposed animosity against the truth of this document you expect anyone to give you a short gist of a six page document as a response to the animosity you already show against it?
I have my serious doubt that the Creator of mankind, who has stated, "Come now, and let us reason together", works like that. Go back to the history of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and see how they reasoned together at the early Sabbath Conferences.
-
°Just to make it clear: The SDA church has never voted against ordaining women, or this paper, which you are so reluctant to read, Bob, would have disappeared from the material provided by the General Conference, if this had been the case.
The votes taken until now have only been delaying tactics because of the tremendous pressure and propaganda of certain individuals like Pipim. The General Conference still provides their material that justifies the ordination of women.
-
What can I do about your failures, Bob? Since it is impossible for you to read and understand what the General Conference Biblical Research Institute has written in response to the teachings of Pipim and Damsteegt, do you need the assistance of a good female who has gone to school and learned how to read?
You're being unreasonable. I read and understood the paper before I made that post. My point is that if you can't clearly and confidently articulate the short explanation given in that paper, it is likely that the explanation is unsound.
You seem unwilling to read it unless some kind of a survey be done. Are the teachings of the Seventh-day Adventist church based on surveys rather than Bible study?
You're the one who made the claim that the ideas in the document represent the views of the church, not me. If no one has done a survey of the church, or no GC Session vote has been taken, then your claim is unsupportable.
I again ask you to give here the short explanation in that paper regarding why "husband of one wife" does not refer to male elders being the husband of one wife.
-
°Just to make it clear: The SDA church has never voted against ordaining women ....
Hate to say it, Johann, but your statement above is either false or a lie. In 1990 and 1995, the GC Session voted against women's ordination. It's clearly so stated in the minutes of those sessions.
And that right there is one of the reasons I oppose women's ordination, because its proponents repeatedly resort to promoting falsehoods in order to win their case. A righteous cause need not rely upon falsehood.
-
Manfred Lemke came originally from Switzerland and he was a university lecturer in electronic communication for teachers when he became a Seventh-day Adventist. A few years later he intended to audit some Bible classes at Newbold College to learn more about the teachings of our church, but he was soon encouraged to satisfy the requirements for a Masters degree in theology. Today he is a pastor and director of communications in the Iceland Conference. He sent me this recent Sabbath sermon and gave me permission to abbreviate it and translate it into English.
Clearing unexploded bombs in Scripture
1 Tim 2:8 Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing.
Each year more than 5000 unexploded bombs are found in Germany. Most of them are uncovered in connection with new constructions. They are underneath schools, hospitals, by highways or in the open countryside. It is estimated that 100,000 bombs are still in the ground waiting to be uncovered.
In recent years teams of specialists take care of these bombs, but they do not always succeed. There are increased discoveries in metropolitan areas. Complications increase with age as the powder becomes unpredictable.
Germany is not the only explosive area in the world; there are many infected areas which cannot be entered without risking life or limbs. The Bible was written before such bombs were invented, and yet some of its contents is as explosive as the unexploded bombs in Berlin.
One of these areas deals with men and women. Here is the verse again in context:
1 Timothy 2:8-15 8 Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing. 9 I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.
11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.
This text has often been used to explain why women are neither to be ministers nor bishops. How are we to understand this text? Haven‘t we already discovered its final meaning ?
Considering how often I see a new light when I read a Bible text again, this could also apply to First Timothy. The letters to Timothy and Titus are usually called the Pastoral Epistles. They are all addressed to individuals rather than churches. Timothy was then working in Ephesus. His father was Greek but his mother a Jew. Timothy was a timid person and weak, and yet a good teacher and minister.
In his letter Paul is helping his friend and coworker in his difficult task of being a leader. This is a private letter between two men of God written more than 1900 years ago. Timothy was the leader of a small church in a town and country where other gods were worshipped. Ephesus was known for its Artemis temple. And we will meet Artemis later in again.
Now I want to tell you of something quite different. Last time I attended a media session in our church I was seated at a table with an Egyptian, an Israeli, and a Syrian. These were all Adventists and one is a former fellow student at Newbold College. It was a supper I will never forget. All three neighbors were defaming each other constantly. With great gestures they would call each other „infidels“and much more with their eyes wide open and sweat pouring from their brows.
I sat there like a convict. I tried to participate with smiles and a few unsuccessful remarks, but it really seemed like a storm was passing by with nothing I could do. I left the table confused, yet my friend Salom seemed to sense it and followed me. He convinced me this was their natural way of conversation. They are the best of friends and this way of conversing is just a sign of their friendship.
To me this was a cultural chock. How are Paul, Timothy, and all of the other men talking to each other? Could it be that in his conversation with a personal friend about a strange behavior, he might express himself in a way that is quite different from what we know and are used to?
All of this is but some preliminary remarks. Now let’s get to the task at hand. Verse 8 is easy: 8 Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing.
The word translated “disputing” is an interesting word. Dialogismos refers here to disputing and questioning if the other person is telling the truth. Disputing and anger was what I thought I experienced at the supper table. Here it was between friends. How would it be among enemies?
To me it appears like Paul is here asking men to leave off their male chauvinism, machismo, and quarrels and rather pray in humility.
Then Paul talks about women: He is continuing the same subject. He wants women to correct their old habits and rather have their minds set on what is important: 9 I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.
Rather than having their minds set on outer appearance [margaritas] Paul speaks of good deeds. Back in those days there was no social security or insurance, so the wealthy people were responsible for those who were facing financial worries. Time and means provided to help the poor was called “good deeds”.
Paul is here reminding both men and women not to remain in their usual state of mind. Males should not amuse themselves with argumentation nor should females mess around with their ornaments. They should rather consider what is important for God.
Now we have the next sentence: 11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.
Notice it says a woman should learn, but she should not just learn to achieve power and control. Now let us consider Artemis again. She was a female who ruled over all and everyone among the pagans in Ephesus. This was what should not take place among the Christian women. They were to learn and get an education in humility.
I have considered every word in the Greek text. This gives me the understanding that Paul states the women are to be educated undisturbed and in submission to the Lord.
Now we reach verse 12: I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.
Some find in this text a culmination in humiliation of women. Females are not even permitted to use nice clothing. They are nothing but the daughters of Eve with whom all the misfortunes of the world started. They’d rather be quiet and be satisfied with having children. Is this the purpose of this letter?
Could it be that God intended one half of humanity to only serve this purpose? That could never be true. Who were the first witnesses of the Resurrection? Women – they were the first „apostolos“.
What does Paul state in Romans 16:
Romans 16:1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae.
Romans 16:7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.
Here we have deacons and apostles. And there is even more explosive powder in 1 Corinthians where we just quote half a sentence:
1 Corinthians 11:5 But every woman who prays or prophesies. . .
So, what is the woman to do? Keep quiet? Then we have
Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Where is the distinction? Is the woman second rate under the male? One of the strongest examples in found in Luke 10.
Martha was busy in the kitchen where people would say she was doing the work of a woman. She was sullen towards Mary. Why?
Luke 10:39 She had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet listening to what he said
Along with the other disciples Mary from Bethany is sitting at the feet of the Master teacher. She is learning what she will be teaching others later. Her sister Martha was angry because Mary was breaking all the rules which governed what she was supposed to do as a woman. Rather than doing her duties in the kitchen she was performing the duties of an apostle.
What did Jesus say about this? Did he tell Mary to follow the rules in agreement which all the proper authorities? 41 “Martha, Martha,” the Lord answered, “You are worried and upset about many things, 42 but few things are needed—or indeed only one. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her.”
Now back to verse 12: I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.
What is Paul dealing with? Considering the situation in Ephesus, where all the pagan priests were women, I‘d suggest the following translation:
„I do not think women should now display a new authority over men which is similar to the way men have been ruling over women.“ Paul wants to make sure Christians do not follow the pagans. Christianity was to be entirely different than the worship of Artemis. Just like Jesus teaches in Luke 10 women should have the opportunity to learn what they need, without displaying a superiority in the spirit of the Artemis worshipers. The purpose is much rather that both men and women have the possibilities to develop their own Spiritual gifts to learn and teach.
The final question is why Paul refers to Adam and Eve here? Who was it that had received a full explanation the purpose of the trees in the garden of Eden? That was Adam. Therefore Adam sinned fully knowing what he was doing. Eve was not as well informed. Paul is emphasizing the importance of women being better informed. He is using this as an example of the results of ignorance.
Why does Paul mention births? It is clear that he does not regard them to be a punishment. Birth is probably the most difficult, the most painful and most dangerous moment in the life of a woman. But it is not to replace a punishment. A new child is born adding to the creation of God in this world.
In the beginning I mentioned bombs that have not exploded. They are dangerous and unpredictable. There is still much in the Bible which is difficult to understand, but one thing is certain: God will never increase injustice among those who believe in Him.
Let‘s join hands and disconnect those bombs that prevent us from understanding the justice of God as revealed in His Word.
Amen
Johann, you are obviously smoking something. What is you big issue with women ordination? Because women aren't ordain they are somehow below men? Why did Jesus only pick men diciples? Man I have never seen someone misinterpret the scriptures as much as you after quoting them.
-
Oh for the sake of pete! I think I've heard it all now!! Johann is smoking something because he has an opinion!!
-
°Just to make it clear: The SDA church has never voted against ordaining women ....
Hate to say it, Johann, but your statement above is either false or a lie. In 1990 and 1995, the GC Session voted against women's ordination. It's clearly so stated in the minutes of those sessions.
And that right there is one of the reasons I oppose women's ordination, because its proponents repeatedly resort to promoting falsehoods in order to win their case. A righteous cause need not rely upon falsehood.
We each have the right to have an opinion, right?
Here is the 1995 resolution: 1995 General Conference Action on Woman's Ordination
Summary: The recommendation to give each division the right to authorize the ordination of individuals within its territory came from the North American Division through the 1994 Annual Council. It was rejected by a margin of 66 percent to 34 percent.
Official Church Language Follows:
North American Division Request — Ordination
56th General Conference Session, Utrecht, Netherlands — July 5, 1995, 2:00 p.m.
Voted: To refer to the 1995 General Conference Session the North American Division request that the General Conference in Session adopt provisions on ordination as outlined below:
"The General Conference vests in each division the right to authorize the ordination of individuals within its territory in harmony with established policies. In addition, where circumstances do not render it inadvisable, a division may authorize the ordination of qualified individuals without regard to gender. In divisions where the division executive committees take specific actions approving the ordination of women to the gospel ministry, women may be ordained to serve in those divisions."
In favor of the recommendation: 673
In opposition to the recommendation: 1,481
(Source: Adventist Review, July 11, 1995, p. 30)
I was there when this happened. The opinion several of us had of this wording then was that the session voted against permitting each division already now - before the rest of the world was ready for it - to go ahead and ordain women within their own area.
You will recall that the 1990 vote stated that it did not reject the opinion of many that it was fully Scriptural and in accordance with Ellen White with these words:
While the commission does not have a consensus as to whether or not the Scriptures and the writings of Ellen G. White explicitly advocate or deny the ordination of women to pastoral ministry. . .
In my opinion this wording does not finally close the door for the ordination of women in the future. And it recognizes that, at that time, both opinions exist within the church.
-
Oh for the sake of pete! I think I've heard it all now!! Johann is smoking something because he has an opinion!!
Somebody else must have been smoking too, because I was not the one who wrote the talk that was quoted.
-
It is my honest opinion that the votes of the GC sessions recognize that some SDA believe that women should be ordained, and it has never been declared that this is wrong.
-
It is my honest opinion that the votes of the GC sessions recognize that some SDA believe that women should be ordained, and it has never been declared that this is wrong.
Johann, I hope you are nominated as a deaconess. I am sure you will be honored since we are all the same. Why did Jesus just pick men as his Disciples? And I wonder why Jesus came as a man instead of a sheman? And I guess it does not matter if a man marry a man since they are all equal? And why does it matter if a woman marries a woman since they are all the same? It matter because men and women are not the same and God has given them both different but equal responsibility. The man is the head of the house as God designed it to be. And the man was design by God to be the head of the church, and play the roll the Lord has design for him.
-
°Just to make it clear: The SDA church has never voted against ordaining women ....
Hate to say it, Johann, but your statement above is either false or a lie. In 1990 and 1995, the GC Session voted against women's ordination. It's clearly so stated in the minutes of those sessions.
And that right there is one of the reasons I oppose women's ordination, because its proponents repeatedly resort to promoting falsehoods in order to win their case. A righteous cause need not rely upon falsehood.
...
Here is the 1995 resolution: 1995 General Conference Action on Woman's Ordination
...
Voted: To refer to the 1995 General Conference Session the North American Division request that the General Conference in Session adopt provisions on ordination as outlined below:
"The General Conference vests in each division the right to authorize the ordination of individuals within its territory in harmony with established policies. In addition, where circumstances do not render it inadvisable, a division may authorize the ordination of qualified individuals without regard to gender. In divisions where the division executive committees take specific actions approving the ordination of women to the gospel ministry, women may be ordained to serve in those divisions."
In favor of the recommendation: 673
In opposition to the recommendation: 1,481
[/quote]
So let's break it down, Johann. The motion had three parts:
- "The General Conference vests in each division the right to authorize the ordination of individuals within its territory in harmony with established policies."
- "In addition, where circumstances do not render it inadvisable, a division may authorize the ordination of qualified individuals without regard to gender."
- "In divisions where the division executive committees take specific actions approving the ordination of women to the gospel ministry, women may be ordained to serve in those divisions."
So what did the vote mean, based on the wording of what was voted?
- Divisions may not authorize the ordination of individuals within their territories.
- Divisions may not authorize the ordination of individuals irregardless of gender.
- Women may not be ordained to the gospel ministry within any division, even if a division executive committee approves the ordination of women within that division.
It's #3 that proves your position to be incorrect. Clearly, in 1995 as well as in 1990, the ordination of women was voted down.
The opinion several of us had of this wording then was that the session voted against permitting each division already now - before the rest of the world was ready for it - to go ahead and ordain women within their own area.
And how is that not a vote against the ordination of women? A vote that you can't ordain women is not a vote that you can't ordain women?
You will recall that the 1990 vote stated that it did not reject the opinion of many that it was fully Scriptural and in accordance with Ellen White with these words:
While the commission does not have a consensus as to whether or not the Scriptures and the writings of Ellen G. White explicitly advocate or deny the ordination of women to pastoral ministry. . .
In my opinion this wording does not finally close the door for the ordination of women in the future. And it recognizes that, at that time, both opinions exist within the church.
Sure, it recognizes that there was a difference of opinion and did not close the door. But your initial sentence is misleading. Not only did the 1990 vote not reject the opinion of some or many that the practice was fully Scriptural, but the 1990 vote also did not reject the opinion of some or many that the practice was contrary to Scripture.
Yet while the 1990 vote did not close the door to any and all future consideration, it still was a vote against the ordination of women.
-
You will recall that the 1990 vote stated that it did not reject the opinion of many that it was fully Scriptural and in accordance with Ellen White with these words:
While the commission does not have a consensus as to whether or not the Scriptures and the writings of Ellen G. White explicitly advocate or deny the ordination of women to pastoral ministry. . .
In my opinion this wording does not finally close the door for the ordination of women in the future. And it recognizes that, at that time, both opinions exist within the church.
Sure, it recognizes that there was a difference of opinion and did not close the door. But your initial sentence is misleading. Not only did the 1990 vote not reject the opinion of some or many that the practice was fully Scriptural, but the 1990 vote also did not reject the opinion of some or many that the practice was contrary to Scripture.
Yet while the 1990 vote did not close the door to any and all future consideration, it still was a vote against the ordination of women.
That is exactly what I am saying, although I did not use exactly the same words as you do, nor did I state it in the same order as you do. How much difference is it stating that the door is open - or saying the door is not closed? I suppose some people could keep arguing the difference till doomsday.
-
You will recall that the 1990 vote stated that it did not reject the opinion of many that it was fully Scriptural and in accordance with Ellen White with these words:
While the commission does not have a consensus as to whether or not the Scriptures and the writings of Ellen G. White explicitly advocate or deny the ordination of women to pastoral ministry. . .
In my opinion this wording does not finally close the door for the ordination of women in the future. And it recognizes that, at that time, both opinions exist within the church.
Sure, it recognizes that there was a difference of opinion and did not close the door. But your initial sentence is misleading. Not only did the 1990 vote not reject the opinion of some or many that the practice was fully Scriptural, but the 1990 vote also did not reject the opinion of some or many that the practice was contrary to Scripture.
Yet while the 1990 vote did not close the door to any and all future consideration, it still was a vote against the ordination of women.
That is exactly what I am saying, although I did not use exactly the same words as you do, nor did I state it in the same order as you do. How much difference is it stating that the door is open - or saying the door is not closed? I suppose some people could keep arguing the difference till doomsday.
But you stated that there was never a vote against the ordination of women, which readers here would naturally take to mean that no GC Session vote currently stands in the way of ordaining women now, which is false.
-
By that I mean that - in my opinion -there has never been taken a vote that makes the ordination of women unBiblical. In spite of what some think, no official publication that I know of, such as
1. The Adventist Review
2. Ministry
3. Publications of the Adventist Biblical Research Institute
has ever declared the ordination of female ministers against the teachings of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
As far as I know no such publication has ever been published with the official sanction of our church. It is possible that some reports have appeared of what certain individuals have said, but that is not the same as an official declaration, no matter who said it.
I have noticed a number of books on the subject written ny men like Pipim and Bacchiocchi, but all of the books I have seen were published privately.
If you know of any such publication, then please let us know.
-
For more information on the subject, you can see Shane Hilde's new website "Christ or culture".
http://christorculture.com
For those of you not acquainted with Shane's "ADvindicate" website or Dr. Sean Pittman's site "EducateTruth", Shane is a young man graduated from La Sierra University who, along with Dr. Pittman, has been combatting the evolution problem at La Sierra.
Shane's website also weighs in on the feminist agenda with women's ordination.
His petition to the leadership of the Pacific Union Conference to limit ordination to men has about a 1,000 signatures so far.
-
Oh for the sake of pete! I think I've heard it all now!! Johann is smoking something because he has an opinion!!
Snoopy, that kind of sentiment toward the holding or sharing of a differing opinion is not dissimilar to the sentiment displayed by Pol Pot, Mao, Hitler, Stalin, a long string of popes, etc.
-
Johann, there are those who speak of the Great Reformation in the past tense, but in my opinion it is still ongoing, and this issue is a part of it. 1,500 years of Catholic tradition, structure, and interpretation are not entirely undone in a few short centuries. Despite the empty, yet heart-felt protests to the contrary, the Protestant denominations, including ours, hold tradition to be as sacredly binding as does the Roman Catholic church, in my opinion.
-
Murcielago, before you attempt to give arguments which equate the Seventh-day Adventist church with the rest of the Protestant denominations, I think you should clarify for readers on this site your affiliation or non-affiliation with the SDA church.
-
For more information on the subject, you can see Shane Hilde's new website "Christ or culture".
http://christorculture.com
For those of you not acquainted with Shane's "ADvindicate" website or Dr. Sean Pittman's site "EducateTruth", Shane is a young man graduated from La Sierra University who, along with Dr. Pittman, has been combatting the evolution problem at La Sierra.
Shane's website also weighs in on the feminist agenda with women's ordination.
His petition to the leadership of the Pacific Union Conference to limit ordination to men has about a 1,000 signatures so far.
I'm glad someone is combating evolution. That does not mean that what the person is saying about females is any official documentation of the teachings of the church. It just makes a false impression that whatever he is combating is right.
-
Murcielago, before you attempt to give arguments which equate the Seventh-day Adventist church with the rest of the Protestant denominations, I think you should clarify for readers on this site your affiliation or non-affiliation with the SDA church.
Were I making arguments I would be citing examples, sources, and otherwise making a case. At this point I am simply stating an opinion, as I noted in the post I believe you are referring to.
-
For more information on the subject, you can see Shane Hilde's new website "Christ or culture".
http://christorculture.com
His petition to the leadership of the Pacific Union Conference to limit ordination to men has about a 1,000 signatures so far.
Last time I looked at a website asking people to sign in support of the Pacific Union Conference in ordaining pastors without regard to gender, had about 2,000 signatures.
-
From yesterday to today, Shane Hilde's petition against women's ordination in the Pacific Union Conference increased from about 800 to about 1,000 signatures.
-
For more information on the subject, you can see Shane Hilde's new website "Christ or culture".
http://christorculture.com
His petition to the leadership of the Pacific Union Conference to limit ordination to men has about a 1,000 signatures so far.
Last time I looked at a website asking people to sign in support of the Pacific Union Conference in ordaining pastors without regard to gender, had about 2,000 signatures.
In most Protestant churches, the gender-neutral ordination of women has progressed or is progressing to gender-neutral ordination in favor of gays in the ministry.
-
For more information on the subject, you can see Shane Hilde's new website "Christ or culture".
http://christorculture.com
His petition to the leadership of the Pacific Union Conference to limit ordination to men has about a 1,000 signatures so far.
Last time I looked at a website asking people to sign in support of the Pacific Union Conference in ordaining pastors without regard to gender, had about 2,000 signatures.
In most Protestant churches, the gender-neutral ordination of women has progressed or is progressing to gender-neutral ordination in favor of gays in the ministry.
I suppose this is an argument you have gained from a person who is not prepared to follow Scripture nor the Spirit of Prophecy.
The reason I rejected Pipim many years ago is that he does not follow the Ellen G White method of Interpreting Scripture of comparing Scripture with Scripture, but rather a literalistic fundamentalist method which brings him more in line with the Roman Catholic tradition.
The Adventist Biblical Research Institute is in line with the Ellen White method as they interpret 1 Tim 3 where they compare Scripture with Scripture and thereby come to the conclusion that you cannot use the writings of Paul to condemn the ordination of women.
Pipim and his disciples follow the traditional method, as Murchielago points out, and fight for it that we should follow Rome in this question.
The right method of interpretation would never lead to gay marriages, beating spouses, nor illicit sex.
-
Johann, there are those who speak of the Great Reformation in the past tense, but in my opinion it is still ongoing, and this issue is a part of it. 1,500 years of Catholic tradition, structure, and interpretation are not entirely undone in a few short centuries. Despite the empty, yet heart-felt protests to the contrary, the Protestant denominations, including ours, hold tradition to be as sacredly binding as does the Roman Catholic church, in my opinion.
Maybe you can answer this question since Johann refuses too. Why did Jesus pick only men as his disciples? And why would we ordain women to be Pastors, General Conference leader, and Elders against the wishes of the General Conference?
-
Here are some samples of entries from the publicly-posted petition:
903
Elizabeth Barnes
I believe there are many important and vital roles to be fulfilled by women in church capacity. However, I believe that the role of ordained pastor is one that God entrusted to godly, consecrated, qualified men.
880
Leonor Shirkey
Women can still serve the Lord without becoming ordained.
857
Susan Ngalande
We are known as "the people of the word" can we stay that way please. This is not a time for compromise. God's word is clear so why do we want to conform to the world?
856
Anonymous
I believe the women's ordination issue should be decided by the total constituency of the Adventist church, not by local conferences or unions.
-
Another entry:
941
Olga
Please do not rebel against God's order of leadership in His church. GC has voted NO to womens ordination and we need to stand up behind that decision. If we are nor we are rebelling against the GC decision which is as the prophet of God said "when in session, GC is the voice of God". So, we are basically REBELLING AGAINST GOD. Can we see that or are we blinded by wordly practices in other protestan churches. Satan wants to divide our church, in God's name lets be united AND FOLLOW GOD'S ORDER OF LEADERSHIP. mAN IS STILL THE HEAD OF THE HOME, PRIEST OF THE HOME AND LEADER IN THE CHURCH. Bible reads that " elder is the MAN of one wife". It is so clear and simple but we are making it so complicated. Can't we see we are following women's liberation
-
Johann, there are those who speak of the Great Reformation in the past tense, but in my opinion it is still ongoing, and this issue is a part of it. 1,500 years of Catholic tradition, structure, and interpretation are not entirely undone in a few short centuries. Despite the empty, yet heart-felt protests to the contrary, the Protestant denominations, including ours, hold tradition to be as sacredly binding as does the Roman Catholic church, in my opinion.
Maybe you can answer this question since Johann refuses too. Why did Jesus pick only men as his disciples? And why would we ordain women to be Pastors, General Conference leader, and Elders against the wishes of the General Conference?
Christian, do you believe the SDA church should follow the example of Jesus and the disciples?
-
So, Mary and Martha were not disciples of Christ? Are you using a Bible where their story is omitted? How about all the females mentioned in the epistles of Paul? Have you forgotten Priscilla and Aquila and why should both names be there if only the males count?
-
Statement included in a paper prepared by William Johnson, Editor, Adventist Review,... July 1989:
Wherever we erect barriers against women in the church we are not walking straight according to the truth of the gospel. If God calls a Gentile, a slave, or a woman, who are we to resist?
-
Commenting on the Mohaven conference in 1973, which concluded that the Seventh-day Adventist Church sees no theological reason that women should not be ordained, Charles Bradford, President of the North American Division, stated 15 years later:
I myself believe that we are in the time when the Holy Spirit wants to empower all of the people of God for ministry.
R&H, Sept. 1, 1988.
What had Ellen White said already in 1901:
It is the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit of God that prepares workers, both men and women, to become pastors to the flock of God.
R&H, Jan 15, 1901
Why are we so slow in following the clear instructions that have come to our church through the Spirit of Prophecy?
-
The reason I rejected Pipim many years ago is that he does not follow the Ellen G White method of Interpreting Scripture of comparing Scripture with Scripture, but rather a literalistic fundamentalist method which brings him more in line with the Roman Catholic tradition.
The Adventist Biblical Research Institute is in line with the Ellen White method as they interpret 1 Tim 3 where they compare Scripture with Scripture and thereby come to the conclusion that you cannot use the writings of Paul to condemn the ordination of women.
Remarkable, Johann, absolutely remarkable. You take a paper that concludes that "husband of one wife" in 1 Tim. 3:2 cannot be used to say that elders must be males, and you turn that simple conclusion into "the conclusion that you cannot use the writings of Paul to condemn the ordination of women."
Since when did that paper say anything about the totality of Paul's writings?
And, since you have thus far been unwilling to discuss the actual reasons given for the simple conclusion I refer to, cannot we conclude that you did not find the arguments so convincing or understandable yourself?
The right method of interpretation would never lead to gay marriages, beating spouses, nor illicit sex.
Can you please elaborate? If we can discount what Scripture says about women not being in authority over men in church life on the basis of culture, why can't we also discount what Scripture says about sodomites?
Statement included in a paper prepared by William Johnson, Editor, Adventist Review,... July 1989:
Is that an official pronouncement by the church, or the personal opinion of an editor?
It is the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit of God that prepares workers, both men and women, to become pastors to the flock of God.
R&H, Jan 15, 1901
Haven't we already discussed this one? That by "pastors" she wasn't referring to gospel ministers serving as local pastors of local churches?
Remember, it was the same year, 1901, that she wrote the members in Iowa that as a general rule the conference laborers should go out from the churches into new fields.
Since the quote you cite speaks of canvassing preparing men and women to be pastors, do you advocate that anyone who wants to become a minister should engage in canvassing today?
Is it possible to be a minister assigned to a church, a minister who doesn't pastor? Apparently yes. According to 9MR 343-344, Elder H was not a shepherd, and did not do "pastoral work" among the "flock," even though he lived among them and preached to them. "Pastoral work" is described as "visit[ing]," and "personal labor."
And thus, when we read "pastors to the flock of God," should we understand this to mean individuals who are engaging in personal labor, in visiting, rather a person assigned by a conference to be a local pastor, who may or may not pastor, depending on whether or not he likes to do the type of visitation Ellen White was referring to?
-
Thank you Bob for this. I see no reason to respond, so we will just agree that we disagree - for now. I'll be praying for you that you may see the light that shines from HIM. And that it will bless you and your family. And I trust you have a good time together.
-
Another entry from Shane Hilde"s petition:
976
Barbara Crawford
If God likens His church unto a delicate and comely woman (Jer 6:2), doesn't a woman as a pastor, bishop, elder equate to a same sex union, spiritual lesbianism, which God condemns (1 Corin 6:9-10; Rom 1:26, 27)? Women are to preach, of course. We are all (children and adults) to carry this gospel message forth. However, the function of shepherding a flock (church), God has left to those of the male gender. The male is a "type" of Christ--in the home as priest of the home--in the church as shepherd of the flock. Christ is a "husband" to the church, again a male specific function. The same spirit that sees nothing wrong with same sex unions is the same spirit that embraces female pastors and elders. Could it be that the spirit of homosexuality has been t
-
Johann, there are those who speak of the Great Reformation in the past tense, but in my opinion it is still ongoing, and this issue is a part of it. 1,500 years of Catholic tradition, structure, and interpretation are not entirely undone in a few short centuries. Despite the empty, yet heart-felt protests to the contrary, the Protestant denominations, including ours, hold tradition to be as sacredly binding as does the Roman Catholic church, in my opinion.
Maybe you can answer this question since Johann refuses too. Why did Jesus pick only men as his disciples? And why would we ordain women to be Pastors, General Conference leader, and Elders against the wishes of the General Conference?
Christian, do you believe the SDA church should follow the example of Jesus and the disciples?
Absolutely not, we should follow the example of Jesus only. Jesus could have easily picked women as disciples but that was and is not the desired order of Heaven for the salvation of men. God could have as easily made Adam with the ability to carry children but he made the man and women's task different. What I see here is an attempt to add greater responsibility to the roll of men while diminishing the equally important roll of women. Jesus gave women nipples and breast so that they could nurse their babies. I see these guys pushing for women's ordination like if they don't get it the work will be hindered as a smoke screen to the base and diabolical attempt to destroy the family and thus the image of God.
-
So, Mary and Martha were not disciples of Christ? Are you using a Bible where their story is omitted? How about all the females mentioned in the epistles of Paul? Have you forgotten Priscilla and Aquila and why should both names be there if only the males count?
Yep Mary and Martha were not disciples, thank goodness you can understand that, at least I think you can understand that. He did not send them out as he did the disciples either. Women did function in areas of ministry but there function was design to enhance their important roll as women. Why do you continue to say things to belittle the roll of women *no one ever said that women did not count* ordination is not the elixir to make women count.
-
Regarding http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/husbandof%20one%20wife.pdf (http://www.adventistbiblicalresearch.org/documents/husbandof%20one%20wife.pdf), of 8 possible interpretations of 1 Tim. 3:2 regarding elders being "husband
of one wife," # 7 is:
(7) The elder/bishop must be a man. Women are excluded from that office, because the Greek term for husband found in the phrase “husband of one wife” (literally: “a man of one woman”) clearly refers to a male (an?r) only and is not as broad as the term anthropos which denotes human being whether male or female.
Of the less than eight pages of the document, footnotes appear on the last quarter of page 6 and onward. The discussion of the 8 views begins at the bottom of col. 1 of page 2. Thus we have about 4 1/4 pages discussing the various views, excluding footnotes and including the conclusion.
Of these 4 1/4 pages, over two pages are devoted to #7. This suggests to me that the paper's primary purpose is to address #7. In the conclusion, the discussion of #7 is summarized thusly:
The hotly debated question whether or not a woman can be an elder does not seem to be addressed. Apparently 1 Timothy 3:2 cannot be used to exclude women from the ministry of church leadership (bishop/elder)
What I think would be profitable is if we discuss the reasons given for the conclusion.
-
Apparently 1 Timothy 3:2 cannot be used to exclude women from the ministry of church leadership (bishop/elder)
What I think would be profitable is if we discuss the reasons given for the conclusion.
The quote by Ekkehardt Mueller is exactly what I have been saying. Is it invalid until we come to an agreement about the reason?
-
Apparently 1 Timothy 3:2 cannot be used to exclude women from the ministry of church leadership (bishop/elder)
What I think would be profitable is if we discuss the reasons given for the conclusion.
The quote by Ekkehardt Mueller is exactly what I have been saying. Is it invalid until we come to an agreement about the reason?
You will recall that I invited you to discuss the reasons, but you refused, which suggests that the reasons were either unconvincing or less than simple enough to follow. Without a discussion of the reasons, it is impossible to determine whether Mueller's conclusion is valid or not.
-
For one thing, Mueller's conclusion appears to contradict what was published in the Jan. 24, 1895 issue of Signs of the Times by presumably the editor, M. C. Wilcox:
QUESTION CORNER
No. 176. Who Should be Church Officers?
Should women be elected to offices in the church when there are enough brethren?
If by this is meant the office of elder, we should say at once, No. But there are offices in the church which women can fill acceptably, and oftentimes there are found sisters in the church who are better qualified for this than brethren, such offices, for instance as church clerk, treasurer, librarian of the tract society, etc., as well as the office of deaconess, assisting the deacons in looking after the poor, and in doing such other duties as would naturally fall to their lot. The qualifications for church elder are set forth in 1 Tim. 3:1-7 and in Titus 1:7-9. We do not believe that it is in God’s plan to give to women the ordained offices of the church. By this we do not mean to depreciate their labors, service, or devotion. The sphere of woman is equal to that of man. She was made a help meet, or fit, for man, but that does not mean that her sphere is identical to that of man’s. The interests of the church and the world generally would be better served if the distinctions given in God’s word were regarded.
That issue isn't on the GC's archive site, but the above is a non-EGW snippet found in the EGW ST articles. I copied the above from the "other site" which has gone mostly dead since Tommy's sentencing. What appears to be the last two posts included the above on March 31, and a comment to the March 31 post on June 2. I checked to verify that the above quote is in the EGW ST articles, but did not check the accuracy of every word.
I'm not saying that Wilcox was right in his assessment of 1 Tim. 3:1-7. But given the conflict between Wilcox and Mueller, we should go through the reasons Mueller gives and check them out, rather than just take Mueller's word for it.
-
Apparently 1 Timothy 3:2 cannot be used to exclude women from the ministry of church leadership (bishop/elder)
What I think would be profitable is if we discuss the reasons given for the conclusion.
The quote by Ekkehardt Mueller is exactly what I have been saying. Is it invalid until we come to an agreement about the reason?
You will recall that I invited you to discuss the reasons, but you refused, which suggests that the reasons were either unconvincing or less than simple enough to follow. Without a discussion of the reasons, it is impossible to determine whether Mueller's conclusion is valid or not.
I apologize to you, I presumed you would understand his arguments, and that is why I just gave you the link. If you cannot comprehend Mueller without someone else discussing all the details with you, we'll have to see how we can help you, Bob.
-
Apparently 1 Timothy 3:2 cannot be used to exclude women from the ministry of church leadership (bishop/elder)
What I think would be profitable is if we discuss the reasons given for the conclusion.
The quote by Ekkehardt Mueller is exactly what I have been saying. Is it invalid until we come to an agreement about the reason?
You will recall that I invited you to discuss the reasons, but you refused, which suggests that the reasons were either unconvincing or less than simple enough to follow. Without a discussion of the reasons, it is impossible to determine whether Mueller's conclusion is valid or not.
I apologize to you, I presumed you would understand his arguments, and that is why I just gave you the link. If you cannot comprehend Mueller without someone else discussing all the details with you, we'll have to see how we can help you, Bob.
Again you refuse to even try to summarize here Mueller's arguments, a failure that has nothing to do with whether or not I understand his arguments. I would suggest that in the future if you don't want to discuss a topic, don't bring it up.
To repeat, if Mueller's arguments are simple and conclusive, you ought to be able to summarize them here and discuss them. If you can't, then that right there inconclusively calls his arguments into question.
-
The Seventh-day Adventist denomination accepts the ordination of women in China as most people who are aware of the situation there believe that God has clearly led in that direction.
Gregory, before you make such a dogmatic statement as to what the SDA denomination accepts, you might want to check out some of the matrilineal societies of China.
The women of the Mosuo's agricultural villages head the households, make business decisions, and own property, which they pass on to their matrilineal heirs.
In the unique Mosuo tradition called the walking marriage, women invite men to visit their rooms at night—and to leave in the morning.
Women may also change partners as often as they like, and promiscuity carries no social stigma.
"If you [father] a child with another woman, you can never be absolutely sure that the child really shares your genes," he said. "But if your sister has a child, you can be 100 percent sure that the kid shares some of your genes."
-
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/06/090619-fathers-day-2009-no-fathers.html
-
The women of the Mosuo's agricultural villages head the households, make business decisions, and own property, which they pass on to their matrilineal heirs.
I wonder if these women act as the pastors in their villages, also.
-
Gregory, before you make such a dogmatic statement as to what the SDA denomination accepts, you might want to check out some of the matrilineal societies of China.
1) Yes, I was dogmatic and because I was correct. I have provided the source of my statement. You may argue with that source if you wish, but you will be wrong. Officially, the SDA denominaiton accepts females in China as ordained SDA ministers. Yes, some SDAs do not. But, the denomination officially does.
2) You reference to matrilineal societies in China has nothing to do with my statement as I did not reference such.
-
Well, we are thankful that you have all knowledge, Gregory.
-
Gregory, of course you will ignore what are very likely cultural influences in China, since it would impinge on your liberal, progressive Adventist viewpoint.
Again, such viewpoints are more acceptable over at Spectrum or Atoday.
-
Ariste said:
Well, we are thankful that you have all knowledge, Gregory.
I acknowledge your sarcasm.
You have been provided references to official SDA statements that the denomination recognizes females ordained in China. You have every right to argue against those if you wish. Instead of dealing with facts you chose to attack me with sarcasm and more. That is not the way to win an argument. If that is the best you can do you show to the world the weakenss of your position.
-
Again, Gregory, you are tiptoeing carefully around the situation in which you are proclaiming your adherence, with Johann, to the liberal, progressive minority of Adventism.
-
Ariste said:
Well, we are thankful that you have all knowledge, Gregory.
I acknowledge your sarcasm.
You have been provided references to official SDA statements that the denomination recognizes females ordained in China. You have every right to argue against those if you wish. Instead of dealing with facts you chose to attack me with sarcasm and more. That is not the way to win an argument. If that is the best you can do you show to the world the weakenss of your position.
:goodpost:
Gregory, you are not the only one she attacks.
-
Ariste said:
Well, we are thankful that you have all knowledge, Gregory.
I acknowledge your sarcasm.
You have been provided references to official SDA statements that the denomination recognizes females ordained in China. You have every right to argue against those if you wish. Instead of dealing with facts you chose to attack me with sarcasm and more. That is not the way to win an argument. If that is the best you can do you show to the world the weakenss of your position.
:goodpost:
Gregory, you are not the only one she attacks.
The whole concept of China beliefs is wrong as most Americans have learned through history and gov, trial and consumers, their antics and its also wrong for Adventist condoning 3abn antics. They are industrious almost for free to gain a penny in determination to gain a quarter out of a child or trickery bad consumer products as a majority. Some of it good and some of it bad. and your telling us they are right? This is a joke of course. They have no right to change or defile what God gave in inspiration and to a new country of freedom. They Gregory are not a free country. Gregory you just have not read where not many Adventist in the end will stand firm or enter the gates as they give up their foundation. Trouble is you do not display foundations but a tight rope walker and Ive hinted from the very beginning your slip sliding back and forth justifications. You yourself admitted at one time you were not sure of things and I can tell you ..you still are not or you would not show your "wares" in this manner. You as Johann look for any tidbit of off the wall writers of every wind to prove a point and therefore the devils advocate. Its the tool of the devil and plain enough to read the applications you use against the Scripture and SP. Satan argued back to Jesus in same manner using twisted disbelief and presumption of scriptures and if you are the G. Mathews that was on the talk show that 3abn run for a while I would just shut it off as I watched the same "trained " way of dealing with audience to please both sides. I may be wrong on who you are or got the name wrong but it's still the same ole tactic used on here... The old countries of firsthand knowledge gave up their firsthand beliefs to Buddha and other Gods and now will have to get it back in troublesome times using their mixed unscriptural cultural beliefs and the message is now given loud and clear to a new free country. It's just that simple. and now you condone their cultural beliefs trying to get what America leads in because they chose to be one nation under God????. That is one thing most races in America are in unity on "One God in Heaven" although the progresses of Satan are gaining their foothold even on these posts. HO Hum. :ROFL: I already know what your comeback of justifications will be so save it.
-
For more information on the subject, you can see Shane Hilde's new website "Christ or culture".
http://christorculture.com
His petition to the leadership of the Pacific Union Conference to limit ordination to men has about a 1,000 signatures so far.
Last time I looked at a website asking people to sign in support of the Pacific Union Conference in ordaining pastors without regard to gender, had about 2,000 signatures.
The signatures on the petition to oppose women's ordination in the Pacific Union Conference are now above 4,000.
-
ONE IN CHRIST
Check this site and sign the petition - if you agree that we are ONE IN CHRIST
http://www.one-in-christ.com/petition/
It is such an encouragement to read some of the comments a number of those signing have written. Expressions of love and faith and gratitude - and HOPE. That is what we experience when we know we are following the Lord.
Close to 2.000 have signed this petition by now. In comparison less than 500 have signed the petition against the ordination of women.
Seventh-day Adventists understand the importance of following the Lord's will and honor the example of the Lord's appointed witness, Ellen G White.
There are only 1,900+ signatures on the "One in Christ" site petition in favor of women's ordination versus the over 4,000 signatures against it on the christorculture.com, a large percentage of them being women.
-
To set the record straight, I have never been on a 3-ABN program.
-
http://christorculture.com/petition/ (http://christorculture.com/petition/)
-
OFFICIAL STATEMENT
For Immediate Release
July 23, 2012
Columbia Union Leaders Call for Day of Prayer
On Sunday, July 29, the Columbia Union Conference will convene a special constituency meeting to consider a request from the union executive committee to approve ministerial ordination without regard to gender.
In anticipation of that meeting, union president Dave Weigley is asking church members unionwide to set aside Sabbath, July 28, as a day of prayer.
“Since our announcement about the session, many people have been talking and praying about it, emailing me, commenting on our website and calling our office,” Weigley says. “The officers and I have been praying throughout this process, and before we convene this special meeting, we want to solicit the prayers of our unionwide family. Please pray with us for God's Spirit to guide, His will to prevail, and that we as His people will heed His voice.”
-
The Christ or Culture petition against women's ordination now has almost 4,500 signatures.
-
The Christ or Culture petition against women's ordination now has almost 4,500 signatures.
Just noticed this.
Where did you obtain this information, and is there an update?
-
The Christ or Culture petition against women's ordination now has almost 4,500 signatures.
Just noticed this.
Where did you obtain this information, and is there an update?
8000+ signatures. http://christorculture.com/petition/
-
Does not matter if it was 50,000...they are NOT LISTENING.
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
-
Does not matter if it was 50,000...they are NOT LISTENING.
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
Nor will they. "His watchmen are blind: they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber... they are shepherds that cannot understand: they all look to their own way." Is 56:10
We know that entire conferences will go out in darkness. We are on the verge of seeing that fulfilled.
-
I believe that we have moved WELL PAST THE VERGE!!! We are there and history is clearly calling us to Repent and Be Baptized in preparation for the final events in earth's history!!!
This should be our message.
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
Does not matter if it was 50,000...they are NOT LISTENING.
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
Nor will they. "His watchmen are blind: they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber... they are shepherds that cannot understand: they all look to their own way." Is 56:10
We know that entire conferences will go out in darkness. We are on the verge of seeing that fulfilled.