Feminism and Adventism

(George Tichy) #21

Voce fala Portugues fluente?


Easy to Google…


(dale) #23

For one making a point about not having any theological training is absolutely irrelevant. Theological training has nothing to do with how the Holy Spirit reveals truth to peoples hearts. Having all the theological training in the world means nothing without the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Let us remember Jesus had no theological training, neither did most of the bible writers.

As for the headship the bible clearly states that the father is the head of Christ. 1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

It also speaks of headship again here
Ephesians 5:22-33 KJV
[22] Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. [23] For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. [24] Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. [25] Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; [26] That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, [27] That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. [28] So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. [29] For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: [30] For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. [31] For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. [32] This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. [33] Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence m her husband. …

The thing is when people bash headship they look at every negative example but they don’t look at the divine plan. What does the divine plan look like? The relationship between Christ and his father. His father has the ultimate authority because of the voluntary submission of Christ to the will of his father. Does the father lord over the son? No, they are in perfect harmony. Are they equal? Yes. To they all have the same role? No we see a chain of command in the heavenly family, Father, Son, Spirit. Now say what you want but that is a hierarchy not on the way that man sees it, but as the way it is to operate under the divine plan. The father has the highest authority, then the son then the spirit. It is based on a love that is beyond our comprehension. The model that the family of heaven would work on earth if people would die to self.

The war in heaven was waged over headship. Lucifer felt that he deserved a position equal for that of Christ. We all know how that worked out. There are things in The bible that are vastly superior to anything that feminism could offer. A husband is to treat his wife like Christ loved the church. Let that verse really sink in. That is the responsibility charged to the husband. That can only be fulfilled by a connection to Christ. Don’t get me wrong there has been many abuses to women done by men, and women need to be treated better and respected as equals. Just like the father and Christ have different roles yet they are equal. If we had followed the divine plan there would be no place for feminism.

As far as I am concerned feminism is far inferior to the model that God has given us. I’d rather go to the divine plan than a man made idea. Man made ideas are imperfect, God’s ideas are perfect.

I’m not say that feminism hasn’t done anything good. Because it has, it also has done some things that are bad as well. If I love people as God loves me with the love he places in me I have something that gives me no need for feminism because I can act and judge situations according to God’s will.

As for women being in ministry no one is contesting that. The issue is the ordination is the question. To put it simply even though everyone was a in Israel was a priest in a sense because each was to serve doing God’s work, the priests in the temple were all men. When Jesus called the 12 they too were all men, the apostles were all men. That was all done by God himself. The point I see is that God as our creator has every right to dictate what we can or can’t do.

In the the biblical times things were passed from father to son, it wasn’t necessary to give women the inheritance because under the biblical model they were to share in everything that their husband had because they were one flesh, and provision was made for inheritance to go to women if there were no sons. Either way the only way we can be restored to the way things were is to follow the divine plan,

At the end of the day this whole business of women’s ordination is greatly hindering the work of the church. If the effort put into women’s ordination was put into mission the world would be a better place. Often times left out of the question is God’s rights. Doesn’t God have a right to have as many of his lost children found? I Believe that is a far more worthy cause to invest in. What do you think matters mire to God? The ordination of women or the saving of souls?

(George Tichy) #24

What are your thoughts about the GC spending over $1 mi on the TOSC, and then suddenly just ignoring the results completely?

(Kim Green) #25

Nope…didn’t miss a thing:

"It is true that Doug B. has no theological training…and it shows. I do hope that you aren’t trying to say that Doug is equal to one of the Apostles. The fact that he spent “years in the wilderness reading his Bible” doesn’t mean any more than me reading my Bible (or you)."

We are just going to disagree about his “qualifications”…formal or not…and whether or not his “message” is Spirit-filled. I am speaking not in general terms but specific to Batchelor.

(Kim Green) #26

I don’t believe that he was completely alone the entire time. :slight_smile:

(Kim Green) #27

Thanks for the links but both are “opinion pieces”…in other words, they are written by those who have a certain “slant” (anti) on Feminism. Try finding more credible sources to bolster your claim that are more serious historians, etc.


And who here doesn’t have a pro-feminism slant, opinion piece?

(dale) #29

No not saying that Doug Batchelor is equal to the apostles. I’m saying theological training doesn’t mean you understand the bible. Saying that Doug batchelor isn’t a theologian was a pointless argument. I have seen that some “uneducated” people present better understanding of biblical truth than theologians. George Knight who the author of the post spoke highly about is a man that I disagree with much of what he says because I can’t substantiate it when I read the bible for myself.

What I am saying is that each person needs to be diligent bible student for themselves to test everything every person says to the biblical standard.

(Kim Green) #30

Please note that I am looking for more scholarly work…not everyone here is “pro-feminism”, such as yourself. Unless, of course, you have been hiding it well. :smile:

(Kim Green) #31

"What I am saying is that each person needs to be diligent bible student for themselves to test everything every person says to the biblical standard."

Absolutely, Dale. And I would add to this…with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Without It, you might as well not study.


I posted the bible verses above , one of which was troublesome for a former Dean of Andrews university who had a PHD in theology.

One of the 2 sites I posted was input from a seminary president & top graduate of a well know evangelical seminary. He was named #5 out of the top 25 preachers in a poll by Christianity Today magazine. He has a mega church and a daily Christian radio program.

So if Jesus dressed as a bum or a Jesuit… you would reject anything He says that counters your preconceived opinions.

(Elenga) #33

In Galatians 1:11, Paul specified that he received the Gospel from Christ. So he was not preaching or solving the problems in 1 congregation only, but setting the norms(by the Holy Spirit :2 Timothy 3:16-17),in all assemblies of believers of the truth. Currently, most of the believers are no longer relying on the Holy Ghost for Guidance, but to their degrees or theologians. They trust in themselves and their abilities to analyze (Jeremiah 17:9), but they forget 1corinthians 1:18-31). The Bible does interpret itself as in 1 Corinthians 2:12-15. It does not need any source else be it from theologians or a famous scholar. People always find the reasons of rejecting God’s Word but a small number will hold the truth. It everyone 's choice to follow The word or human heresies. I leave you with Galatians 1:8,9


One can tell who is the authority by the reading/study habits of SDA…

POLL:Who has ever read the whole bible…new testament, SS lesson? How much bible gets exposure during average sermons?

Much denominational Christianity= culture cake with bible frosting.

(Cfowler) #35

Seriously? He was part of the Godhead, so I’m sure he didn’t need it! He was at the head of the class, so to speak. :grinning:

(dale) #36

When he was on earth he learned things he didn’t have omniscience. Luke 2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

So he had to learn. He was taught by the spirit not in theological schools.

(Kim Green) #37

“I am looking for more scholarly work”- Kim

“So if Jesus dressed as a bum or a Jesuit… you would reject anything He says that counters your preconceived opinions.”- gideonjrn

"One of these things are not like the other…one of these things doesn’t belong." -Sesame Street

(Cfowler) #38

He did go through the steps of childhood to manhood. He followed all the Torah and teachings. But, I’m still thinking that he would be way beyond any human to ever walk the earth, even as a 12 year old, which the Scripture says that He was.

(Tim Teichman) #39

The fact he has no theological training may explain why his ideas are so “out there”. The entire quote seems very fair to me:

“Doug Batchelor, a man with no theological training, president of Amazing Facts Ministries, and something of a rockstar in more conservative, fundamentalist circles of Adventism, believes that one of the reasons women shouldn’t be allowed to be ministers is the fact that the word seminary shares the same root as the word semen.”

Anyone who thinks this is a valid point is simply uneducated.

And they were illiterate, which is probably why they never wrote anything or shared their ideas with us.

Yes, he was likely a Pharisee or a Sadducee, a very pious Jew well trained in the Torah. And then he rejected the Law, the only scripture he knew, for something new. That is something that many SDA’s seem to miss. Among his other missives regarding the old Law, are that it is shallow and no longer to be followed:

16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ. 18 Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you. Such a person also goes into great detail about what they have seen; they are puffed up with idle notions by their unspiritual mind. 19 They have lost connection with the head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.

20 Since you died with Christ to the elemental spiritual forces of this world, why, as though you still belonged to the world, do you submit to its rules: 21 “Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!”? 22 These rules, which have to do with things that are all destined to perish with use, are based on merely human commands and teachings. 23 Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.- Colossians 2

Well, you make a point. If they don’t believe what you believe then, despite their years of training on the subject, they must be wrong. Have you listened to all or many of them - heard them preach? And how is it they are wrong?

Name one. Find me one role that culture cannot change and show how it has not changed since bible times and how the bible says it will not and should not ever change. That’s a rhetorical challenge, of course, because there is no such role.

(dale) #40

The truth in the bible transcends time. If you live in a culture that commits murder that doesn’t make it right. There are some things that stand the test of time, that transcends cultures. Also because cultures change to do something, that doesn’t mean that it should be done.

As for Paul rejecting the law I can say that he has done no such thing. Also the scripture that you used in your support of that says no such thing. If you look at everything that Paul mentions is in relation to the feast days. Which were also called “sabbaths” which were a shadow of things to come. They foreshadowed the work that Christ was going to do on our behalf. The sabbath doesn’t foreshadow anything. It points us to God’s atttributes. In exodus the sabbath commandment point to God as our creator. In Deuteronomy the commandment point to God as redeemer. I don’t see how the cross could abolish God being creator or redeemer. Those are the reasons for the sabbath commandment still valid today. If anything the cross amplifies that Christ is our redeemer and our creator.

Contextually speaking that text has no application to the 7th day sabbath of the commandments. I marvel at how many theologians read that text and overlook the obvious contextual associations. It’s blatantly obvious that is a reference to the ceremonial sabbaths, not the one contained in the Decalogue.

In Romans 3:31 Paul says this about the law: 31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

That doesn’t sound like a man that rejects the law.
Romans 8:3-4 KJV
[3] For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: [4] That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. …

The word fulfilled in the Greek is the word pleroo which means “to cause God’s will to be obeyed as it should be”which is the same word that Jesus used in Matthew 5:17 when he said he came to fulfill the law. Those are not the words of a man who rejected the law.