Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Johann]

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?

[Johann]

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]

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.)

[Bob Pickle]

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?

[Bob Pickle]

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.

[Bob Pickle]

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.

[Bob Pickle]

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?

[Murcielago]

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?

[Murcielago]

Bob, does Paul specifically forbid women from being ordained to ministry?

[Johann]

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.

[Johann]

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.

[Johann]

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?

[tinka]

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]

[tinka]

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.   

[Johann]

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