Print

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

[Gregory]

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.

[Johann]

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.

[Bob Pickle]

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.

[Johann]

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".

[Alex L. Walker]

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.

[Johann]

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!

[Bob Pickle]

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 Pickle]

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.

[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 "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!

[tinka]

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]

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]

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.

[Snoopy]

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]

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?

[Johann]

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?