Advent Talk
Issues & Concerns Category => Womens Ordination & Related Issues => Topic started by: Bob Pickle on September 06, 2012, 06:35:14 PM
-
"As the caravan entered the city the men of Judah were waiting to welcome David as the future king of Israel. Arrangements were at once made for his coronation. 'And there they anointed David king over the house of Judah.' But no effort was made to establish his authority by force over the other tribes.
"...
"David's reign was not to be free from trouble. With his coronation began the dark record of conspiracy and rebellion. David did not sit upon a traitor's throne; God had chosen him to be king of Israel, and there had been no occasion for distrust or opposition. Yet hardly had his authority been acknowledged by the men of Judah, when through the influence of Abner, Ishbosheth, the son of Saul, was proclaimed king, and set upon a rival throne in Israel." (PP 697-698)
Note that the above selection identifies as rebellion Abner's actions even though legally David was not officially king over any tribe other than Judah. The question was what the sovereign God of the universe had already decided, not what worldly lawyers considered legally so.
We may therefore conclude that what the union constitutions say cannot take precedence over what God has already declared in Acts 15 and 9T 260-261.
-
It appears there are some great leaps in the logic.
David was the Lord's anointed and he was to be the next king.
Saul didn't want David to be the next king, he wanted the kingship to go to his son. So he and his chief general, Abner, spent years chasing after David to kill him. So that "rebellion against God's decision" began long before David's coronation in Judah.
Abner, had reason to fear David being king, after all Abner had been leading armies hunting David to kill him for years. Better to stick with Saul's house and set up Ishbosheth, Saul's son, as king. That would ensure life and position for Abner. Only trouble was all the SMART and valient sons of Saul had died with Saul in battle. Ishbosheth had problems. Abner soon realized this wasn't working and he went to David with a grand offer. He would bring all of Israel to David and they would accept David as king.
Now real treachery and underhanded conspiracy took place.
Joab, David's general, was jealous and under PRETENSE and deceitful friendliness killed Abner.
Joab didn't want any competition from the famous warrior and general Abner.
Next we see some of Ishbosheth's men trying to gain favors with David by killing Ishbosheth.
Well, the "rebellion" was eliminated by a lot of traitorious, deceitful events.
So what does this have to do with Acts 15?
No one is being elected as king here.
One has to assume that the 1995 vote equates with Samuel anointing David
Not sure who the anointed "king" is. (men)
One has to assume that Ishbosheth equates with women
and that this is a RIVAL authority to the "anointed ones" (not partners in ministry)
-
I find a lot of the anti-WO people will look for Bible stories where evil arose and was punished and somehow equate that with WO.
This doesn't offer proof against WO, it merely ASSUMES that ordaining women to ministry is evil.
As far as Acts 15 goes-- one of their rules was " that they abstain from pollutions of idols" or as other translations put it "abstain from food offered to idols".
Now the question -- did Paul strictly follow that "vote"?
-
Legalese versus eternal realities... Heavy subject.
Legalese: if the GC in session decides women are inferior to men, then they are.
Eternal reality: under God, all are equal.
Legalese says that the rules of human commitees are the final say.
Eternal reality says that God places some in charge and then removes them when they don't truly represent him.
Legalese says that God's appointees are forever.
Eternal reality says God's appointees are subject to his blessing, and subject to his curse. They are temporary human vessels who are not, and never will be, perfect and above God's domain.
-
You must lay your preconceived opinions, your hereditary and cultivated ideas, at the door of investigation. If you search the Scriptures to vindicate your own opinions, you will never reach the truth. Search in order to learn what the Lord says. If conviction comes as you search, if you see that your cherished opinions are not in harmony with the truth, do not misinterpret the truth in order to suit your own belief, but accept the light given. Open mind and heart that you may behold wondrous things out of God’s word. {COL 112.3}
-
The quote below applies both ways; those biased towards WO and those biased against WO.
You must lay your preconceived opinions, your hereditary and cultivated ideas, at the door of investigation. If you search the Scriptures to vindicate your own opinions, you will never reach the truth. Search in order to learn what the Lord says. If conviction comes as you search, if you see that your cherished opinions are not in harmony with the truth, do not misinterpret the truth in order to suit your own belief, but accept the light given. Open mind and heart that you may behold wondrous things out of God’s word. {COL 112.3}
-
Of course it applies to both sides.
-
You must lay your preconceived opinions, your hereditary and cultivated ideas, at the door of investigation. If you search the Scriptures to vindicate your own opinions, you will never reach the truth. Search in order to learn what the Lord says. If conviction comes as you search, if you see that your cherished opinions are not in harmony with the truth, do not misinterpret the truth in order to suit your own belief, but accept the light given. Open mind and heart that you may behold wondrous things out of God’s word. {COL 112.3}
When I entered the ministry I had no idea that a woman could be ordained, and I was fully satisfied with the status quo. For the next twenty years I was a pastor/evangelist and Bible teacher in five different countries where only males were ordained. It was still unthinkable for me that a woman should be ordained for anything in the church.
Then one day as I stood there in the church reading from 1 Tim. 3 while ordaining a new church elder and deacons, the words leaped at me in a new dimension. I was reading from a new translation, and the words were different. As soon as I had the opportunity I read the text again and this time in my Greek New Testament.
Suddenly I saw the effects of King James ordering his theologians to make the new translation conform with the allready established doctrines of the Church of England.
For hours I kept praying and reading the Bible and the writings of Ellen White. The book Women in Ministry did not exist at that time. I wondered why we were not following Scripture and Ellen White by ordaining women, but I did not want to do something like that unilaterally, so I wrote down my findings and gave it to my Conference President, who unfortunately did not read Greek. So he sent my findings on to the Union, and they sent it on to the Division.
Several weeks later I was told the leadership had approved my understanding, so I told my church board and soon after that we ordained the first female deacons.
On this forum I have previously told my story, where I also quoted the texts. The twisting and turning and near ridicule I have met here have given me a suspicion that someone is groping for support which is not easy to find without some twists and turns. Therefore every post I read here only confirms for me that there is but one way to go: Forward in the Lord and His word - in prayer and humility, and in gratitude that His word is so clear and forceful, if we are willing to follow Him.
I was not looking for this, and not either starting this discussion in a forum which was established for another purpose. But who am I to be disobedient to the heavenly vision when someone starts posting something here which is contrary to what God has revealed through His messengers?
-
It appears there are some great leaps in the logic.
Have you read the chapter from which the quotation comes?
So that "rebellion against God's decision" began long before David's coronation in Judah.
That's not what the quote says.
Abner, had reason to fear David being king, after all Abner had been leading armies hunting David to kill him for years.
The chapter mentions hatred rather than fear. In particular, Abner did not appreciate David's cutting reproof to him when David took Saul's water jug and spear while Abner was sleeping.
So what does this have to do with Acts 15?
No one is being elected as king here.
One has to assume that the 1995 vote equates with Samuel anointing David
Not sure who the anointed "king" is. (men)
One has to assume that Ishbosheth equates with women
and that this is a RIVAL authority to the "anointed ones" (not partners in ministry)
My apologies if my meaning was unclear. I will explain below.
-
You must lay your preconceived opinions, your hereditary and cultivated ideas, at the door of investigation. If you search the Scriptures to vindicate your own opinions, you will never reach the truth. Search in order to learn what the Lord says. If conviction comes as you search, if you see that your cherished opinions are not in harmony with the truth, do not misinterpret the truth in order to suit your own belief, but accept the light given. Open mind and heart that you may behold wondrous things out of God’s word. {COL 112.3}
When I entered the ministry I had no idea that a woman could be ordained, and I was fully satisfied with the status quo. For the next twenty years I was a pastor/evangelist and Bible teacher in five different countries where only males were ordained. It was still unthinkable for me that a woman should be ordained for anything in the church.
Then one day as I stood there in the church reading from 1 Tim. 3 while ordaining a new church elder and deacons, the words leaped at me in a new dimension. I was reading from a new translation, and the words were different. As soon as I had the opportunity I read the text again and this time in my Greek New Testament.
Suddenly I saw the effects of King James ordering his theologians to make the new translation conform with the allready established doctrines of the Church of England.
For hours I kept praying and reading the Bible and the writings of Ellen White. The book Women in Ministry did not exist at that time. I wondered why we were not following Scripture and Ellen White by ordaining women, but I did not want to do something like that unilaterally, so I wrote down my findings and gave it to my Conference President, who unfortunately did not read Greek. So he sent my findings on to the Union, and they sent it on to the Division.
Several weeks later I was told the leadership had approved my understanding, so I told my church board and soon after that we ordained the first female deacons.
On this forum I have previously told my story, where I also quoted the texts. The twisting and turning and near ridicule I have met here have given me a suspicion that someone is groping for support which is not easy to find without some twists and turns. Therefore every post I read here only confirms for me that there is but one way to go: Forward in the Lord and His word - in prayer and humility, and in gratitude that His word is so clear and forceful, if we are willing to follow Him.
I was not looking for this, and not either starting this discussion in a forum which was established for another purpose. But who am I to be disobedient to the heavenly vision when someone starts posting something here which is contrary to what God has revealed through His messengers?
Johann,
If the cause for women's ordination is so right, so just, why do those who push it act like Jesuits? I mean this in a most serious way.
It seems as though they will stop at nothing a la Jesuits: Loading "study" committees with only pro-WO people; lying about church policy in the past (1881), trying to subvert church order and organization (see NAD E-60 votes as well as recent CUC and PUC votes); lying about ordination of women in China.... it goes on and on.
Of three churches in my local area that have split over this issue, in NOT ONE was the issue ever studied. NEVER was the Bible opened! Those against WO have always and repeatedly asked "Show us from the Bible the errors of our ways!" but as always, crickets are heard.
Johann, you make it sound so plain, so simple, so noble. You make it sound as though the word of God is so plain on this. Please, why is it that the spirit of rebellion pervades those who believe as you do? Why do they act the way they do? Why the courtroom antics at constituency meetings? Why the sudden quick vote on this (when it wasn't even on the agenda) at the Mid-America Union, without discussion, without study, without prayer?
This all is the spirit of Caiaphas. This all reeks of night trials and visits to Pilate.
-
So what does Abner's rebellion after David's coronation in Judah have to do with Acts 15 and 9T 260-261, and with legalese vs. eternal realities?
Gregory has publicly taken the position that if a union's constitution doesn't say that it can't go contrary to a GC Session, then that union has the right to go contrary to a GC Session, irregardless of Acts 15, Ellen White's comments on Acts 15, and 9T 260-261. Is his position sound?
In Acts 15 we have a contentious issue. How was that issue resolved? Representatives from all the churches came together to discuss the matter and decide the question, and their decision was expected to be followed.
"The entire body of Christians were not called to vote upon the question. The apostles and elders--men of influence and judgment--framed and issued the decree, which was thereupon generally accepted by the Christian churches. All were not pleased, however, with this decision; there was a faction of false brethren who assumed to engage in a work on their own responsibility. They indulged in murmuring and fault-finding, proposing new plans, and seeking to pull down the work of the experienced men whom God had ordained to teach the doctrine of Christ. The church has had such obstacles to meet from the first, and will ever have them to the close of time." (LP 70-71)
A union that refuses to recognize the 1990 and 1995 GC Session votes is falling into the same error as the "faction of false brethren" referred to in the above quote.
"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.
"... God has ordained that the representatives of His church from all parts of the earth, when assembled in a General Conference, shall have authority." (9T 260-261)
Before David was crowned king of all of Israel, there was no legal reason why 11 of the tribes couldn't have a different king, and a particular union may have no legal obstacle in their constitution against going contrary to a GC Session. But if Abner was engaging in rebellion as PP states, then unions can still be in rebellion even if their constitution doesn't prevent them from doing what they want to do.
The key question is whether God has made the issue plain. Regarding who should be the next king, even Saul admitted that David would be king, and Jonathan knew it too and didn't mind. Regarding whether a union can go contrary to a GC Session vote without a Scriptural mandate to do so, God has similarly made the issue plain in Acts 15 and 9T 260-261. Therefore, for a union to go contrary to a GC Session vote is rebellion just like Abner's actions were rebellion, irregardless of what that union's constitution allegedly permits.
-
Bob, if you firmly believed that the GC in Session was going against the Bible and SOP, as you choose to interpret them, would you abide by their vote? If, in 2015, the GC in session votes to approve WO, will you then approve of rebellion against the GC? Or do you believe that there is a higher power on earth than the GC in session? At this time, your primary argument seems to be that there is no circumstance under which one should go against the vote of the GC in session.
-
Johann,
If the cause for women's ordination is so right, so just, why do those who push it act like Jesuits? I mean this in a most serious way.
It seems as though they will stop at nothing a la Jesuits: Loading "study" committees with only pro-WO people; lying about church policy in the past (1881), trying to subvert church order and organization (see NAD E-60 votes as well as recent CUC and PUC votes); lying about ordination of women in China.... it goes on and on.
Of three churches in my local area that have split over this issue, in NOT ONE was the issue ever studied. NEVER was the Bible opened! Those against WO have always and repeatedly asked "Show us from the Bible the errors of our ways!" but as always, crickets are heard.
Johann, you make it sound so plain, so simple, so noble. You make it sound as though the word of God is so plain on this. Please, why is it that the spirit of rebellion pervades those who believe as you do? Why do they act the way they do? Why the courtroom antics at constituency meetings? Why the sudden quick vote on this (when it wasn't even on the agenda) at the Mid-America Union, without discussion, without study, without prayer?
This all is the spirit of Caiaphas. This all reeks of night trials and visits to Pilate.
I've been thinking about this seriously.
I'm not sure who is "acting like Jesuits" -- after all the Catholic church is very strong on the MALE only ordination issue. Also I see some pretty heavy handed (and sometimes rather strange) arguments to try to defeat any idea that God just might want women as ordained ministers.
If someone is searching for truth -- should they stop just because LEGALLY the vote was taken.
Legaleses-- yes?
Caiaphas -- wasn't he all about maintaining the status quo at all cost, even if it meant killing the Son of God!!
Are you so sure the anti-WO isn't following the spirit of Caiaphas?
Don't you find it strange that LOADED anti-WO studies have been published and shipped to members FAR MORE, but when a book that was written expressing the opposing side there is a big outcry that it is "one sided".
And as far as 1881 goes.
The deception has been on the antiWO side.
Just ask any Adventist -- "Did you know that in 1881 the General Conference in session considered ordaining women? Did you know that in 1881 Adventist pioneers actually wrote out a resolution to ordain qualified women to the ministry? No, it wasn't voted on, just passed on to the General Conference Committee where it "disappeared". But did you know this fact in Adventist history."
NO! It was not known, nor was it ever talked about. After all these decades in the Adventist Church THIS LAST MONTH is the very first time I found out about that information. WHY WAS IT HIDDEN all these years -- I mean the present ordination issues have been around now for more than twenty years.
And the fact that in EGW's day 32 women were given ministerial licenses--
WHY wasn't that told ?
To me it's absolutely astounding the information that has been HIDDEN, in order to maintain the status quo.
We've been deluged with Bacchiocchi, Pipim type arguments, -- and suddenly all this hidden, suppressed information comes to light!
There is just too much to hide under the old arguments. It's coming out --
whether legaleses tries to shut it down or not -- it's coming out.
-
Bob, if you firmly believed that the GC in Session was going against the Bible and SOP, as you choose to interpret them, would you abide by their vote? If, in 2015, the GC in session votes to approve WO, will you then approve of rebellion against the GC? Or do you believe that there is a higher power on earth than the GC in session? At this time, your primary argument seems to be that there is no circumstance under which one should go against the vote of the GC in session.
The higher authority on earth is God Himself, who reveals His will in the Bible and SoP. GC and NAD Working Policy recognize this when they say that the GC Session is the highest authority on earth under God.
If a GC Session voted to switch from Sabbath to Sunday, then it would be rebellion against God to obey that vote, since the Bible explicitly tells us that we must keep the Sabbath. Similarly, if the Bible or SoP said, "Thou shalt ordain women to the gospel ministry," it would be rebellion against God to obey a vote by the GC Session to the contrary. The fact of the matter is that there is no such clear cut, explicit mandate.
The question remains as to whether there is a clear cut, explicit Bible or SoP mandate against women serving as head of the family or the leader of a local church, etc. There certainly appears to be.
I would have difficulty with any vote that was unfairly influenced by political maneuvering.
-
Don't you find it strange that LOADED anti-WO studies have been published and shipped to members FAR MORE, but when a book that was written expressing the opposing side there is a big outcry that it is "one sided".
Do we have any examples of anti-WO studies being sent out from official denominational entities?
NO! It was not known, nor was it ever talked about. After all these decades in the Adventist Church THIS LAST MONTH is the very first time I found out about that information. WHY WAS IT HIDDEN all these years -- I mean the present ordination issues have been around now for more than twenty years.
Both The Welcome Table (1995) and Women in Ministry (1998) refer to it, the former saying it wasn't adopted and the latter saying it was adopted.
Which came out first? The pro-WO Welcome Table or Adventist Affirm's anti-WO book? Can anyone demonstrate that the anti-WO really was the first position being pushed in modern times?
Bert Haloviak has written about 1881 more than once. I can't right now find out how early.
-
Which came out first? The pro-WO Welcome Table or Adventist Affirm's anti-WO book? Can anyone demonstrate that the anti-WO really was the first position being pushed in modern times?
I don't know --
Never heard of the "Welcome Table" before this. Was it advertised? Was it in ABC stores?
But I do know I've seen lots of Anti-WO information over the last 20 years.
Spring 1995 Adventists Affirm Magazine was totally dedicated to ANTI WO articles.
Another one Spring 1996, again almost totally dedicated to ANTI WO articles.
-
It really isn't an issue "who was first".
The all male church leadership, complete with considerably higher wages for men, even in positions women could occupy (like teaching school) -- all that was well established during the 1930-1950's.
Advances for women in ministry made during EGW's life time, were largely eradicated.
So of course as long as no one protested too loudly, the defenders of the status quo didn't speak too loudly either.
-
...EGW speaking
When in my youth God opened the Scriptures to my mind, giving me light upon the truths of his word, I went forth to proclaim to others the precious news of salvation. My brother wrote to me, and said, “I beg of you do not disgrace the family. I will do anything for you if you will not go out as a preacher.” “Disgrace the family!” I replied, “can it disgrace the family for me to preach Christ and him crucified! If you would give me all the gold your house could hold, I would not cease giving my testimony for God. I have respect unto the recompense of the reward. I will not keep silent, for when God imparts his light to me, he means that I shall diffuse it to others, according to my ability.” {ST June 24, 1889, par. 9}
-
The higher authority on earth is God Himself, who reveals His will in the Bible and SoP. GC and NAD Working Policy recognize this when they say that the GC Session is the highest authority on earth under God.
- - -
I would have difficulty with any vote that was unfairly influenced by political maneuvering.
We agree that the GC session is the highest authority. But do we have any statement that it has the same perfect infallibility as the pope when he speaks ex cathedra? Did EGW agree with every decision the GC ever made?
Do you prefer not to answer that question?
-
You must lay your preconceived opinions, your hereditary and cultivated ideas, at the door of investigation. If you search the Scriptures to vindicate your own opinions, you will never reach the truth. Search in order to learn what the Lord says. If conviction comes as you search, if you see that your cherished opinions are not in harmony with the truth, do not misinterpret the truth in order to suit your own belief, but accept the light given. Open mind and heart that you may behold wondrous things out of God’s word. {COL 112.3}
When I entered the ministry I had no idea that a woman could be ordained, and I was fully satisfied with the status quo. For the next twenty years I was a pastor/evangelist and Bible teacher in five different countries where only males were ordained. It was still unthinkable for me that a woman should be ordained for anything in the church.
Then one day as I stood there in the church reading from 1 Tim. 3 while ordaining a new church elder and deacons, the words leaped at me in a new dimension. I was reading from a new translation, and the words were different. As soon as I had the opportunity I read the text again and this time in my Greek New Testament.
Suddenly I saw the effects of King James ordering his theologians to make the new translation conform with the allready established doctrines of the Church of England.
For hours I kept praying and reading the Bible and the writings of Ellen White. The book Women in Ministry did not exist at that time. I wondered why we were not following Scripture and Ellen White by ordaining women, but I did not want to do something like that unilaterally, so I wrote down my findings and gave it to my Conference President, who unfortunately did not read Greek. So he sent my findings on to the Union, and they sent it on to the Division.
Several weeks later I was told the leadership had approved my understanding, so I told my church board and soon after that we ordained the first female deacons.
On this forum I have previously told my story, where I also quoted the texts. The twisting and turning and near ridicule I have met here have given me a suspicion that someone is groping for support which is not easy to find without some twists and turns. Therefore every post I read here only confirms for me that there is but one way to go: Forward in the Lord and His word - in prayer and humility, and in gratitude that His word is so clear and forceful, if we are willing to follow Him.
I was not looking for this, and not either starting this discussion in a forum which was established for another purpose. But who am I to be disobedient to the heavenly vision when someone starts posting something here which is contrary to what God has revealed through His messengers?
Johann, you make it sound so plain, so simple, so noble. You make it sound as though the word of God is so plain on this.
Do we need to make it complicated?
-
I am endebted to Raj Attiken for the following comments which were published in an ADVENTIST TODAY artiacle entitled "Unity and Authority in the Chruch," September-October 2012 edition.
1) In 1875, EGW stated to a specific person that the General Conference in session was the highest authority that God had on earth and private judgement should be surrended. 3T492
2) In 1876 EGW wrote that the General Conference was no longer the voice of God. See in Manuscript Releases, vol. 17, page 216.
3) On April 1, 1901, EGW wrote that the voice of the General Conference was not the voice of God. MS 37, cited in "Sermons & Talks, Vol 2, Page 159. NOTE: This was published by the EGW Estate in 1994.
4) In 1909 EGW Srote that the General Converence, meeting in session had authority. This was a change from a previous statement that such was the highest authority and the voice of God.
On a slightly different aspect of this subject. It has been stated that females ordained in China are not recognized as ordained. This is false.
In article published in ADVENTIST WORLD, entitled, "Finding Faith in China,: August 1, 2009, page 19, Jan Paulsen said: "The fact is we have at least half a dozen women pastors who are ordained as ministers in China. We recognize them as ordained ministers."
-
Johann said:
We agree that the GC session is the highest authority.
No there is not agreement on that.
Bob has clearly stated that the General conference is the highest authority that must be obeyed only as long as it is in compliance wiht the clear teaching of the Bible. He mentioned Sunday observance as an example and informed us that if the GC in session were to advocate Sunday observance it would be wrong and should not be obeyed.
Bob is correct in that.
All of us must follow our conscience and the leading of the HolySlpirit.
As I have posted earlier, the GC was not always considered to be correct by eGW.
Bob may come back and say that my post here is a public advocacy of rebellion. O.K. Then Bob potentially advocates rebelllion.
-
“People long to do something to cleanse the church… But it is the spirit of Satan not the Spirit of Christ, that inspires such acts.” EGW in COL
-
Divide and conquer --
I agree that is something we need to be concerned about.
I hope and pray the church will not be split over this issue.
In Acts 15 we have a contentious issue. How was that issue resolved? Representatives from all the churches came together to discuss the matter and decide the question, and their decision was expected to be followed.
"The entire body of Christians were not called to vote upon the question. The apostles and elders--men of influence and judgment--framed and issued the decree, which was thereupon generally accepted by the Christian churches. All were not pleased, however, with this decision; there was a faction of false brethren who assumed to engage in a work on their own responsibility. They indulged in murmuring and fault-finding, proposing new plans, and seeking to pull down the work of the experienced men whom God had ordained to teach the doctrine of Christ. The church has had such obstacles to meet from the first, and will ever have them to the close of time." (LP 70-71)
A union that refuses to recognize the 1990 and 1995 GC Session votes is falling into the same error as the "faction of false brethren" referred to in the above quote.
There are a few interesting points here:
1) "the decree, which was thereupon generally accepted"
Generally ...
Now I realize there were "false brethren" who followed Paul around and brough contention into the churches he raised. Paul would tell the people their salvation was in Christ, and these Judizers would come along and say "before you are accepted by God you must preform certain rituals and ceremonies." The thing to remember however, is that these "false brethren" felt they had the authority of the scriptures and long established Mosaic policies on their side.
The meeting in Acts 15, in their minds, was only a small group, when compared to the whole Jewish Biblical heritage and authority.
On the other hand, even Paul wasn't that strict on the "decree" which included "refrain from things offered to idols and from blood."
He didn't seem too worried about people eating meat sacrificed to idols as long as they didn't think of it as paying homage to the idol. And the meat bought in the markets-- was the blood drained from it? Yet Paul didn't seem too worried about people eating meat from the market.
The church was basically split over THAT issue, and it probably played a role in Gentile Christians moving away from Jewish Christians in many ways.
The key question is whether God has made the issue plain. Regarding who should be the next king, even Saul admitted that David would be king, and Jonathan knew it too and didn't mind. Regarding whether a union can go contrary to a GC Session vote without a Scriptural mandate to do so, God has similarly made the issue plain in Acts 15 and 9T 260-261. Therefore, for a union to go contrary to a GC Session vote is rebellion just like Abner's actions were rebellion, irregardless of what that union's constitution allegedly permits.
Now it's true there is no explicit mandate in scripture that specifically comes out and says, "Ordain women to the ministry".
But let's think of it in another (probably not the best) illustration.
Slavery in the USA
The Southern states could make a pretty good case from scripture supporting their supposed right to own slaves.
The is no explicit mandate in scripture that specifically comes out and says, "Holding another person in subjection as your slave is an abomination"
The Bible outlines rules for how to treat ones slave, but fails to say anything definite against it.
Even Paul, with his wonderful passages on everyone being of equal value to God through Christ, does not do or say anything that changes society which has slaves, to one that doesn't.
Philemon is the most troubling account of Paul's social conservatism, for here he had the opportunity to tell his friend Philemon that slavery was inconsistent with the gospel and that his Christian duty obligated him to liberate Onesimus and any other slaves he might have. Unfortunately, Paul doesn't do that, he just tells Philemon to treat Onesimus kindly.
So -- there was no explicit command in scripture that slaves should be liberated, and slavery stopped.
Yet, in America, when war broke out between the North and the South, and the focus of the war was mainly about unity, the north was losing many of their battles. Ellen White wrote strong articles that as long as there was no decided objective to free the slaves, the war would only bring much needless disaster to America. God could not help the North.
True, abolitionists were lobbying for the freedom of the slaves as well, but they were considered more as trouble makers.
While this state of affairs was going on, many needless soldiers died as neither side was really making any headway.
EGW makes it plain -- It wasn't until Lincoln made the public statement that the slaves would be free when the North won the war, that suddenly the North began to win, and it wasn't long before the war was over. (See 1T 255...264...365...)
So obviously we know it was God's will that the slaves be freed.
Even though there was no explicit Biblical command. However, "all are one" there is no Greek or Jew, slave or master, male or female before God. Each and everyone is of equal value to the Lord.
-
The higher authority on earth is God Himself, who reveals His will in the Bible and SoP. GC and NAD Working Policy recognize this when they say that the GC Session is the highest authority on earth under God.
- - -
I would have difficulty with any vote that was unfairly influenced by political maneuvering.
We agree that the GC session is the highest authority. But do we have any statement that it has the same perfect infallibility as the pope when he speaks ex cathedra? Did EGW agree with every decision the GC ever made?
No, GC Sessions do not have infallibility.
And neither do I, nor any parent. But when my kids didn't want to do something they were asked to do, I asked them, "Is there anything in the Bible or the SoP that says you shouldn't do it?" and they would say, "No," I'd say, "Then you have to do it."
Our government certainly isn't infallible either, but I think that the same principle applies.
As far as Ellen White and GC Sessions, can you think of any GC Session decisions that she opposed?
-
I am endebted to Raj Attiken for the following comments which were published in an ADVENTIST TODAY artiacle entitled "Unity and Authority in the Chruch," September-October 2012 edition.
Raj Attiken is the gentleman that reportedly falsely stated at the CUC constituency session that the 1881 resolution was adopted, and you are citing an article from the same organization that keeps publicly promoting evolution, as if it is some sort of hobby horse for them. Have you personally verified the references he gave to make sure they were accurate, since he got it wrong before, and since it is known that AToday promotes heresy?
1) In 1875, EGW stated to a specific person that the General Conference in session was the highest authority that God had on earth and private judgement should be surrended. 3T492
2) In 1876 EGW wrote that the General Conference was no longer the voice of God. See in Manuscript Releases, vol. 17, page 216.
Why cite an 1898 letter and then claim that it was written in 1876?
3) On April 1, 1901, EGW wrote that the voice of the General Conference was not the voice of God. MS 37, cited in "Sermons & Talks, Vol 2, Page 159. NOTE: This was published by the EGW Estate in 1994.
Did Ellen White mean "General Conference" when she said "conference"? Maybe she did. But if she is, let's be clear: She's not talking about a GC Session.
"Yet we hear that the voice of the conference is the voice of God. Every time I have heard this, I have thought that it was almost blasphemy. The voice of the conference ought to be the voice of God, but it is not, because some in connection with it are not men of ... elevated principle" (2SAT 159-160).
Certainly then, we cannot consider CUC leadership to be the voice of God if they are going to not be men of principle and are instead going to violate the 1990 and 1995 GC Session votes.
4) In 1909 EGW Srote that the General Converence, meeting in session had authority. This was a change from a previous statement that such was the highest authority and the voice of God.
I don't understand this. How in the world is 3T 492 supposed to be talking about GC Sessions? "After you had taken your own time, and after the work had been much hindered by your delay, you came to Battle Creek in answer to the repeated and urgent calls of the General Conference." GC Sessions rather than the GC made repeated calls? I don't think so.
On a slightly different aspect of this subject. It has been stated that females ordained in China are not recognized as ordained. This is false.
In article published in ADVENTIST WORLD, entitled, "Finding Faith in China,: August 1, 2009, page 19, Jan Paulsen said: "The fact is we have at least half a dozen women pastors who are ordained as ministers in China. We recognize them as ordained ministers."
Not sure why you are claiming that it is false:
"While the worldwide Seventh-day Adventist Church acknowledges the fact of women’s ordination in China, it neither recognizes it nor endorses it" (http://www.adventistworld.org/article/598/resources/english/issue-2009-1008/finding-faith-in-china).
-
Johann said:
We agree that the GC session is the highest authority.
No there is not agreement on that.
...
All of us must follow our conscience and the leading of the HolySlpirit.
What you mean to say us that all of us must follow the Bible and SoP, correct?
Or are you instead jettisoning our fundamental beliefs about the authority of the Bible and SoP, and are instead advocating that we follow some sort of inner enlightenment similar to the Zwickau prophets?
-
No, I did not mean to imply that we could throw out any inspired writings.
-
I am endebted to Raj Attiken for the following comments which were published in an ADVENTIST TODAY artiacle entitled "Unity and Authority in the Chruch," September-October 2012 edition.
Raj Attiken is the gentleman that reportedly falsely stated at the CUC constituency session that the 1881 resolution was adopted, and you are citing an article from the same organization that keeps publicly promoting evolution, as if it is some sort of hobby horse for them. Have you personally verified the references he gave to make sure they were accurate, since he got it wrong before, and since it is known that AToday promotes heresy?
1) In 1875, EGW stated to a specific person that the General Conference in session was the highest authority that God had on earth and private judgement should be surrended. 3T492
2) In 1876 EGW wrote that the General Conference was no longer the voice of God. See in Manuscript Releases, vol. 17, page 216.
Why cite an 1898 letter and then claim that it was written in 1876?
3) On April 1, 1901, EGW wrote that the voice of the General Conference was not the voice of God. MS 37, cited in "Sermons & Talks, Vol 2, Page 159. NOTE: This was published by the EGW Estate in 1994.
Did Ellen White mean "General Conference" when she said "conference"? Maybe she did. But if she is, let's be clear: She's not talking about a GC Session.
"Yet we hear that the voice of the conference is the voice of God. Every time I have heard this, I have thought that it was almost blasphemy. The voice of the conference ought to be the voice of God, but it is not, because some in connection with it are not men of ... elevated principle" (2SAT 159-160).
Certainly then, we cannot consider CUC leadership to be the voice of God if they are going to not be men of principle and are instead going to violate the 1990 and 1995 GC Session votes.
4) In 1909 EGW Srote that the General Converence, meeting in session had authority. This was a change from a previous statement that such was the highest authority and the voice of God.
I don't understand this. How in the world is 3T 492 supposed to be talking about GC Sessions? "After you had taken your own time, and after the work had been much hindered by your delay, you came to Battle Creek in answer to the repeated and urgent calls of the General Conference." GC Sessions rather than the GC made repeated calls? I don't think so.
On a slightly different aspect of this subject. It has been stated that females ordained in China are not recognized as ordained. This is false.
In article published in ADVENTIST WORLD, entitled, "Finding Faith in China,: August 1, 2009, page 19, Jan Paulsen said: "The fact is we have at least half a dozen women pastors who are ordained as ministers in China. We recognize them as ordained ministers."
Not sure why you are claiming that it is false:
"While the worldwide Seventh-day Adventist Church acknowledges the fact of women’s ordination in China, it neither recognizes it nor endorses it" (http://www.adventistworld.org/article/598/resources/english/issue-2009-1008/finding-faith-in-china).
How would we interpret the following from the above link?
The fact is we have at least half a dozen women pastors who are ordained as ministers in China. We recognize them as ordained ministers; they are in our records in the statistics in the Yearbook.
-
Divide and conquer --
I agree that is something we need to be concerned about.
I hope and pray the church will not be split over this issue.
It's too late. The Pacific Union and the Loma Linda University Church are already trying to split off from the church.
The thing to remember however, is that these "false brethren" felt they had the authority of the scriptures and long established Mosaic policies on their side.
While this may be the common opinion of what was going on, it does not stand up to scrutiny. The false brethren were trying to say that no Gentile could be saved unless he first became a Jew by being circumcised. And yet you can read the entire Mosaic code and you won't find any such requirement or sentiment. Descendants of Abraham had to be circumcised, but Gentile strangers never had to be unless they wanted to observe the Passover.
On the other hand, even Paul wasn't that strict on the "decree" which included "refrain from things offered to idols and from blood."
He didn't seem too worried about people eating meat sacrificed to idols as long as they didn't think of it as paying homage to the idol. And the meat bought in the markets-- was the blood drained from it? Yet Paul didn't seem too worried about people eating meat from the market.
Could it not be that Paul was instead acknowledging the arguments some of the Corinthians were making, that the idol was nothing really, and then telling them that they still weren't supposed to eat it? Do you have some references where you think Paul was not taking seriously the decision of Acts 15?
But let's think of it in another (probably not the best) illustration.
Slavery in the USA
The Southern states could make a pretty good case from scripture supporting their supposed right to own slaves.
The is no explicit mandate in scripture that specifically comes out and says, "Holding another person in subjection as your slave is an abomination"
The Bible outlines rules for how to treat ones slave, but fails to say anything definite against it.
In the case of the Dred Scott decision re: the Fugitive Slave Law, we do have an explicit example of the U.S. Supreme Court directly contradicting the Bible, and thus we had a moral obligation of disobeying a law of the land in order to be true to God's law.
Even Paul, with his wonderful passages on everyone being of equal value to God through Christ, does not do or say anything that changes society which has slaves, to one that doesn't.
Philemon is the most troubling account of Paul's social conservatism, for here he had the opportunity to tell his friend Philemon that slavery was inconsistent with the gospel and that his Christian duty obligated him to liberate Onesimus and any other slaves he might have. Unfortunately, Paul doesn't do that, he just tells Philemon to treat Onesimus kindly.
So -- there was no explicit command in scripture that slaves should be liberated, and slavery stopped.
Yet, in America, when war broke out between the North and the South, and the focus of the war was mainly about unity, the north was losing many of their battles. Ellen White wrote strong articles that as long as there was no decided objective to free the slaves, the war would only bring much needless disaster to America. God could not help the North.
True, abolitionists were lobbying for the freedom of the slaves as well, but they were considered more as trouble makers.
While this state of affairs was going on, many needless soldiers died as neither side was really making any headway.
EGW makes it plain -- It wasn't until Lincoln made the public statement that the slaves would be free when the North won the war, that suddenly the North began to win, and it wasn't long before the war was over. (See 1T 255...264...365...)
So obviously we know it was God's will that the slaves be freed.
Even though there was no explicit Biblical command. However, "all are one" there is no Greek or Jew, slave or master, male or female before God. Each and everyone is of equal value to the Lord.
EGW also wrote extensively about the South being in "rebellion" against the principles of the republic. So it would be interesting to see just how closely the current entities in rebellion parallel the Southern slave states.
Another parallel would be, I think, the type of church government those in rebellion are advocating. They want more of a pro-state's rights confederacy than a unified republic, where each "state" can do as it pleases. We know which side of that issue EGW was on.
We also know which side of the issue of the roles of men and women in the home EGW was on.
-
It's too late. The Pacific Union and the Loma Linda University Church are already trying to split off from the church.
Can you cite your sources for that information? Because it is entirely inaccurate. Whoever told you that should consider being a bit more honest, and a bit less tabloid.
-
Divide and conquer --
I agree that is something we need to be concerned about.
I hope and pray the church will not be split over this issue.
It's too late. The Pacific Union and the Loma Linda University Church are already trying to split off from the church.
I don't think they want to split off from the church. That's not their intention.
They want to push their convictions unto the church.
The thing to remember however, is that these "false brethren" felt they had the authority of the scriptures and long established Mosaic policies on their side.
While this may be the common opinion of what was going on, it does not stand up to scrutiny. The false brethren were trying to say that no Gentile could be saved unless he first became a Jew by being circumcised. And yet you can read the entire Mosaic code and you won't find any such requirement or sentiment. Descendants of Abraham had to be circumcised, but Gentile strangers never had to be unless they wanted to observe the Passover.
Scripture is pretty plain that circumsion was the sign of being within the covenant community.
Gen.17:11 " it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you."
Not only for descendants of Abraham but also for people brought into the camp. (Gen. 17:13)
It was difficult for some of these Jewish brethren to comprehend that someone could be part of the covenant community without bearing the sign.
They didn't understand the gospel, but they were zealously standing up for what they thought was scriptural law.
On the other hand, even Paul wasn't that strict on the "decree" which included "refrain from things offered to idols and from blood."
He didn't seem too worried about people eating meat sacrificed to idols as long as they didn't think of it as paying homage to the idol. And the meat bought in the markets-- was the blood drained from it? Yet Paul didn't seem too worried about people eating meat from the market.
Could it not be that Paul was instead acknowledging the arguments some of the Corinthians were making, that the idol was nothing really, and then telling them that they still weren't supposed to eat it? Do you have some references where you think Paul was not taking seriously the decision of Acts 15?
Romans 14, 1 Cor. 8 -- they were at liberty to eat if it wasn't OBVIOUS that it was offere to idols, but they weren't to eat it if it caused a stumbling block to someone "weak" in faith. Thus it was better not to eat it and offend a weaker brother.
"Whatsoever is sold in the market, eat, don't ask question for conscience sake:
For the earth [is] the Lord's, and the fulness thereof.
If any unbelievers invite you to a feast, and you decide to go; what ever is set before you, eat, don't ask questions for conscience sake.
But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, don't eat it for his sake that showed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth [is] the Lord's, and the fulness thereof:
Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience? 1 Cor. 10:25-29
Slavery in the USA
The Southern states could make a pretty good case from scripture supporting their supposed right to own slaves.
There is no explicit mandate in scripture that specifically comes out and says, "Holding another person in subjection as your slave is an abomination"
The Bible outlines rules for how to treat ones slave, but fails to say anything definite against it.
In the case of the Dred Scott decision re: the Fugitive Slave Law, we do have an explicit example of the U.S. Supreme Court directly contradicting the Bible, and thus we had a moral obligation of disobeying a law of the land in order to be true to God's law.
So are you saying if the south were a little kinder to the slaves they would have been in harmony with scripture and no one would have had the right to interfer?
EGW also wrote extensively about the South being in "rebellion" against the principles of the republic. So it would be interesting to see just how closely the current entities in rebellion parallel the Southern slave states.
Another parallel would be, I think, the type of church government those in rebellion are advocating. They want more of a pro-state's rights confederacy than a unified republic, where each "state" can do as it pleases. We know which side of that issue EGW was on.
I think you missed the point.
As long as the North was fighting only for unity, God couldn't bless them. It was only after the declaration to free the slaves was made that God blessed them and they won the war.
The North, was not in unity, they all wanted to get the South back in, but they were divided over the slavery issue, they had to unify on their objective for fighting the war. The North had to unify on their commitment to free the slaves.
The republican principles state that all men are created equal. Slavery was in direct defiance to that claim. But until the North itself unified on that principle they could not win the war.
There are people now who feel denying women ordination is in rebellion to the republican principle of "all people are created equal." It shouldn't be just "all men" are equal.
They are working on getting unified in their unions to fight against what they see as a wrong position in the church.
-
I don't see this as an equality issue, but as a function issue in which the female is subordinate to the male in function in both the home and the church, and who knows where else this is supposed to apply in accordance to the Scriptures.
The Godhead are equal but each have their function with the Son's function, for example, being subordinate to the Father's function.
-
It's too late. The Pacific Union and the Loma Linda University Church are already trying to split off from the church.
Can you cite your sources for that information? Because it is entirely inaccurate. Whoever told you that should consider being a bit more honest, and a bit less tabloid.
GC Working Policy, Acts 15, and 9T 260-261 all show that a GC Session vote is the highest authority on earth under God. The Pacific Union and the LLU Church are thumbing their noses at the GC, and GC Sessions. If that's not trying to split off from the church, what is?
-
Scripture is pretty plain that circumsion was the sign of being within the covenant community.
Gen.17:11 " it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you."
Not only for descendants of Abraham but also for people brought into the camp. (Gen. 17:13)
Abraham's slaves, his personal property, his household were naturally required to be circumcised. Nowhere are out and out strangers required to be circumcised. But they still had to abstain from eating blood. So there were some precepts that had to keep, and some they didn't. And circumcision and the feasts were not precepts that Gentiles had to keep.
Could not the uncircumcised come under the covenant with Noah? I believe Jews in the time of Christ taught that they could. Such Gentiles had to obey certain precepts, but didn't have to be circumcised, and were called "proselytes of the gate."
Romans 14, 1 Cor. 8 -- they were at liberty to eat if it wasn't OBVIOUS that it was offere to idols, but they weren't to eat it if it caused a stumbling block to someone "weak" in faith. Thus it was better not to eat it and offend a weaker brother.
"Whatsoever is sold in the market, eat, don't ask question for conscience sake:
For the earth [is] the Lord's, and the fulness thereof.
If any unbelievers invite you to a feast, and you decide to go; what ever is set before you, eat, don't ask questions for conscience sake.
But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, don't eat it for his sake that showed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth [is] the Lord's, and the fulness thereof:
Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience? 1 Cor. 10:25-29
I see Paul here trying to convince certain Corinthian believers to obey the decision of the council of Acts 15, rather than Paul being lax about that decision.
In the case of the Dred Scott decision re: the Fugitive Slave Law, we do have an explicit example of the U.S. Supreme Court directly contradicting the Bible, and thus we had a moral obligation of disobeying a law of the land in order to be true to God's law.
So are you saying if the south were a little kinder to the slaves they would have been in harmony with scripture and no one would have had the right to interfer?
I was not saying that. Does the Bible approve of involuntary servitude because of the profit slaver traders get? I don't think so. Does the Bible approve of perpetual involuntary servitude? Certainly Israel was not allowed to do that with their fellow countrymen.
There are people now who feel denying women ordination is in rebellion to the republican principle of "all people are created equal." It shouldn't be just "all men" are equal.
They are working on getting unified in their unions to fight against what they see as a wrong position in the church.
And so because of the alleged republican principle that men and women were created to fill the same roles, these folks are are gearing up "to fight" against the republic itself, just like the Southern rebels did in the 1860's. They are so determined to fight that they aren't willing to wait for the GC commissioned study a president in the Columbia Union requested, and they aren't even willing to wait until the GC Exec. Committee meets in October. It's just wrong.
But the premise is flawed. Men and women were never created to fill the exact same roles, and everyone agrees.