Print

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

[Bob Pickle]

"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.

[Dedication]

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)

[Dedication]

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"?

[Murcielago]

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.

[Johann]

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}

[Daryl Fawcett]

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}

[Gregory]

Of course it applies to both sides.

[Johann]

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?

[Bob Pickle]

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.

[SDAminister]

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.

[Bob Pickle]

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.

[Murcielago]

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.

[Dedication]

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 Pickle]

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.

[Bob Pickle]

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.