Don’t make me do all the work here! Let me be clear. I have stated it before and I will state it again. I believe that Women’s Ordination certainly is in the Spirit of God’s Character. But you should come to that conclusion by your own study and prayer. Do not “trust” my values. You have not broken bread with me… yet. I look forward to the day when we can break bread together!
The TOSC report presented 3 Position Summaries and 3 Way Forward suggestions. After 126 pages, this is what is on the 127th page:
VOTED, TO AFFIRM THAT IN SPITE OF THE DIFFERENCES OF OPINION ON THE SUBJECT OF WOMEN’S ORDINATION, THE MEMBERS OF THE THEOLOGY OF ORDINATION STUDY COMMITTEE ARE COMMITTED TO THE MESSAGE AND THE MISSION OF THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH, AS EXPRESSED THROUGH THE 28 FUNDAMENTAL BELIEFS.
So, I take this as their conclusion. I agree that the MESSAGE and the MISSION is what we need to commit to.
If all these scholars can not come to a consensus and that their diligent and extensive study on the subject of Women’s ordination has not produced a defining answer, it is OK that you and I have a differing opinion. (We match the TOSC results and we didn’t cost the church a widow’s mite!)
And it does not change the policy that “decisions regarding the ordination of ministers is entrusted to the union conference/mission;”. So if in your geographical area, the constituency of the Union Conference chooses not to ordain women, that is not out of policy. If in my geographical area, the Union constituency chooses to ordain women, that is not out of policy.
No wonder Ted Wilson quickly got rid of the $1 mil+ TOSC report!!! It didn’t meet his needs. He needed something else that would allow him to impose his personal beliefs on the Church, aka “we the bozos”… He finally got something at the AC18, so now he can “lead” and Make The SDAC Great Again…
(1) …Give me your text first …
So you are admitting that there is no such text, eh.
(2)… since you say “me” and my “camp” are discriminators…
So now you are placing me in a ‘camp’ and bearing false witness against me? I (worker4X)NEVER mentioned the word ‘discrimination’ or ‘discriminator’ in any of my posts. So unfortunate for an SDA brother!!
Thank you @BroDenny for outlining a classic case of discrimination. Yes, there are certain criteria that the Unions must work within deciding who can and can’t be ordained. Let us consider this example - two candidates for ordination, both went to seminary, graduated the same year. Both have done internships at local churches, both effective preachers. Both meet the criteria for ministry. One meets the criteria for ordination, one does not (and never can). This is discrimination - where criteria is written against intrinsic properties.
In society, it is technically possible for a female minister to be the “husband” of one wife, but the church discriminates in that area also.
Perhaps @GeorgeTichy, the question should be more specific… @BroDenny a biblical text that says/affirms/proves that ordination has a lifetime warranty, not just for a specific task.
There are plenty of examples of “laying on of hands” which our brother will equate to ordination but they were not life time appointments as the Adventist church, the Catholic church and most other christian churchs affirm today. Perhaps we should take a leaf from the buddhist book on “ordination”. Their monks come and go from the “clergy” as the “spirit” moves them.
This is clearly a “red herring” fallacy. Another issue introduced to distract from the actual question about adults–men and women–being ordained to the Gospel ministry. To throw children and babies into the mix is a red herring.
Tony, Based on analysis of this commentators style of discourse he will not answer direct questions. I also don’t recall a case where a request for factual information such as a text is every provide by him. Unfortunately his opinion and level of thinking is the only one that matters and is above reproof.
This type of statement is of course an common characteristic of a troll which this and other commentators we have observed engage in an effort to distract and dilute the issue under discussion.
Troll? Perhaps this can be handled constructively without going to motive?
It seems to me that it is likely a misunderstanding of what a logical argument looks like (not that I’m an expert), and when the going gets tough, desperate flailing around ensues.
Indeed, I am by profession a specialist in such matters and am frequently consulted by companies with forums to construct rules of conduct, use profiling and auditing for several major international companies. While I resist the temptation to engage in being a nanny, there are and have been some very rare cases where I point this out.
Constructive dialog is a two way street and merely pointing, out based on analysis of behaviors in extreme cases such as this one, can be constructive as a reminder that behavior modification is necessary.
You can PM me and I can elaborate further on this particular case.
What an interesting profession and opportunity to serve—great to have you here!
I try to stay out of these personalities issues, so as not to fan the flames, and I’d feel bad if someone thought I was talking behind their back, so I’ll be quiet now, belatedly…
Well in my case you would certainly lose your job… Because i am not a troll. If i was in support of your views would you still regard me as a troll… The general society of Spectrum has a certain way or line of thinking but here comes someone with an independant opinion and you label them trolls. Thats a fanciful diversion tactic which shows you have failed to attack the topic and discussion at hand. You then go for pesonalities. Shame.
Look…lets use common sense… There is no verse that says DON NOT ordain Women to the gospel ministry. Thats a straightforward issue…That is why i brought in the cross reference that there is also no verse that talks about DO NOT ordain babies for example to the same. To which logic will agree. I therefore came with the side of saying what is the affirmative or positve teaching of the Word… What is the precedent set up… If women were supposed to be in gospel ministry, why was not Lydia, Priscilla etc ordained to the same? They certainly qualified? Why in Acts did the apostles not appoint women to assit in the ministry when they appointed the 7 deacons to carry out the work of “serving tables” and they would remain ministering the Word?
This forum limits us in that we cannot engage in a full bible discussion so one can only post nuances and points.
Since i am a troll i will answer you honestly lol.
Yes i have…I stopped following a bit because just didnt have time for some of the flimsy arguments posted…Couldn’t log in back with my old account because i forgot my password. When i reset it i realized I WAS BLOCKED for having free thought so created a new one…though i see those who diss us here dont get blocked so i guess the rules have relaxed a lot. kkkk
My instincts were right (again…). Thanks for answering honestly. I had the impression that I saw (here) someone before with the same frame of thinking and arguing style.
No further questions, though I am curious what was your “prior name” (before reincarnation …)
What kind of limitation are you talking about? I haven’t seen ANY limitation other than against inappropriate words, personal attacks (ad hominem), and denigrating language. Ah, long texts are also discouraged, I guess because almost nobody actually reads them.
Aha! You truly are telling the truth that you are a troll.
Yes, your rhetoric is familiar. Yes. Yes.
Where is the verse that says to ordain men to the ministry?
Phoebe WAS a deacon and/or apostle. She was entrusted by Paul to introduce Romans to all the churches in Rome. She was. Go to Romans 16. Read some scholars. Paul authorized her and she was already an “ordained” deacon.
Uh, well, no one was ordained into the ministry in the bible. Ordination is an invention of the church, centuries after the last book in the canon was written.
