Is the Church Already Unified on the Issue of Women’s Ordination?


(Kevin Seidel) #281

They were wealthy in AD 33


(George Tichy) #282

Is the Church actually being pushed in the direction of developing a pre-abiogenetic brain???


(Tim Teichman) #283

It makes the masses easier to control.

Now drink your juice and take your pills and be a good boy.
image


(Kade Wilkinson) #284

umm… did you forget that I pray to women?

659


(Tim Teichman) #285

Awesome! (You do know I was kidding before, right?)


(Kade Wilkinson) #286

I suspected as much, but the opportunity to post icons of the Theotokos and Elizabeth the New Martyr (who I have a special devotion to) on a SDA forum was too good to pass up.


#287

And you, too, are making my point that the G.C. “resolved” that with “perfect propriety” women could be set apart by ordination to the work of the Christian ministry.

We know from the Adventist Review research on this topic (“Let the Marys Preach”) that the overwhelming Biblical support for this was from the Pioneers’ study of Scripture. They indicated that the Gifts of the Spirit held priority over the other writings of Paul that seemed to contradict. They studied this backwards and forwards and published their findings in the Adventist Review, even to the point of telling women that if they were called to preach by te Holy Spirit and refused or turned it down especially because others’ opposed their preaching, they, the women, would grieve the Holy Spirit by refusing their calling and by refusing to act as called.

This is plain and clear in their articles in the Adventist Review and Sabbath Herald. I am not surprised that the 1881 G.C. “resolved” that women should be ordained.

What is amazing to me is the Adventists who bought wholesale into Bacchiocchi’s Vatican Catholic-oriented views on the impossibility of women to be ordained to the Gospel Ministry. AND, the Adventists who are buying wholesale into the Protestant, Calvinistic Neosubordinationism of Jesus to the Father in the Trinity as a doctrine to prevent women from their calling to spiritual leadership. Talk about the fulfillment of prophecy of the hands reaching across the gulf of Protestantism and Catholicism to bring heresy into Adventism. Who would have thought it would be about the role of women and their gifts from the Holy Spirit?

I believe that you already know this, @Nymous, and have bought into the heresy.

But Peter is clear that the Priesthood refers to both men and women. Galatians 3:28 underlies this as a New Testament principle of equality.

Perhaps there is more information in the White Estate to clarify the 1881 General Conference Session. In my Adventist History classes, required in college, I was never taught that Ellen G. White held ordination credentials, six years’ worth, and was listed in the SDA Yearbook as an ordained pastor and paid those wages. That was hidden. Finally, we know the truth even though anti-ordination White Estate employees have tried to downplay the significance of this. What other truths are waiting to be discovered in the White Estate? Perhaps related to the 1881 GC?


(Frankmer7) #288

This is so far off the map that it leaves me incredulous. As long as humans live together, there is culture. Genesis was written in the context of culture, and competing cultures. One just cannot divorce the document from this, as if the writer lived, or the events described happened, in some sort of cultural vacuum.

You mistake what is written in Genesis as prescriptive. It is descriptive. God is describing the results of the curse, one of which would be men ruling over and dominating women. This is a far cry from the co-regency they enjoyed as caretakers of God’s good creation in the beginning. God wasn’t responsible for such a twisting of that equality. It was the product of the human desire for power and control that created what God described would happen, not what God ordained to happen.

Frank


#289

Harrpa,

“Resolved” doesn’t mean approved. In parliamentary procedure, a resolution is another name for a motion. It means that it has to be voted on and approved. When you read the minutes of the meeting, you can see that the approved resolutions have the term “Approved” attached to them.

So, it means that it is possible to have a resolution concerning a particular topic and that the resolution, after being voted on, is rejected. In the case of the ordination of women as pastors, we an see that, yes, there was a resolution (or a motion) but it doesn’t have the term “Approved” and was, in fact, referred to the GC Committee. Apparently, the GC Committee itself didn’t approve the resolution.


#290

Frank,

You have no proof whatsoever for that statement. It is pure speculation.

However, what is a fact (at least, according to the Bible) is that:

  1. Adam was created first.
  2. Eve was created from Adam
  3. Adam named Eve
  4. God addressed Adam first when inquiring about what took place at the tree, and this, before a judgement was given (that is, before Adam was considered guilty)

So, even before the condemnation of Adam and Eve because of their sin, there was an order. This order had nothing to do with sin.


(Robert Lindbeck) #291

@Timo this is a really interesting one. Jesus in His ministry was annointed three times. The first, at His baptism Jesus is annointed by the Holy Spirit in the form of a Dove. The second was at the transfiguration. The third annointing was not by the Holy Spirit but by a woman, a prostitute no less, as you mentioned. Jesus did not permit His disciples, His chosen 12, to annoint Him. He didn’t even let them wash His feet. God chose a humble outcast to perform an act of the greatest significance, that had only previously been performed by the Holy Spirit. Now the MH proponents would have us believe that the same God that chose a woman for this honour, wants them subjugated. Go figure?


(Robert Lindbeck) #292

Well done Nymous, you have successfully taken the paragraph out of context.

The article you cited was written written with respect to the topic of “Can women and minors partake the Lord’s Supper?” The article is divided into two parts to answer the question, firstly from a belief perspective, with the later part of the article dealing with Paul’s “prohibition” of women partaking in worship. By the way the upshot of that is that Paul didn’t forbid women to partake in worship.


(Robert Lindbeck) #293

@cincerity, the article that Bro Nymous referenced is quite interesting in part.

“In all instances recorded in the Old Testament it appears that God called women to this important office when the condition of the people wan especially trying, or in time of great declension or disaster. We should naturally suppose that individuals of the stronger sex would uniformly be chosen at such a time, but God does not see as man sees. Those women whom the Lord chose to occupy this important place, have shown themselves peculiarly fitted to fill it, and often even in striking contrast with public men of their own time.”

As we all know, God will choose who He wants, when He wants. If we don’t wish to accept the call, He will choose another. And it is quite possible it will be a choice that will embarrass us for rejecting His call.


(reliquum) #294

Permit me to restate the obvious. Perhaps you innocently overlooked this truth.
"I HAVE NO PROOF EITHER THAT IT IS PRESCRIPTIVE. IT ALSO IS PURE SPECULATION."
(but but but i do have some nice words from the bible that I can braid into a cat-0-nine-tales with which to whip up male headship frenzy)

I pray you are not married, Nymous, for if you are, you are unequally yoked, and that is counter to a prescriptive word. Perhaps God is having the last laugh, creating an unequal servile
“helpmeet” for lonely King Adam…


(reliquum) #295

Found in an early and discarded manuscript of the l :innocent: st King Male Headship version.

The MAN said to Him, “I know that Messiah is coming” (who is called Christ).

“When He comes, MEN will tell you all things.”

Jesus said to HIM, “I wasn’t speaking to YOU, I who speak to HER am He.”
…John 4:22-26


#296

My point…there was no “culture” with just Adam and Eve being the only two people on the earth. That was when the headship was established by God’s sentence.

Second point. I feel you are mistaken when you say it was descriptive and not prescriptive.
If that were true, then the pronouncement of judgment on the serpent was just a description.
Then God saying " I will put enmity…" “I will greatly multiply your sorrow…” to the serpent and to the woman were not judgments from God is incorrect. It was clearly a sentencing, not a description.
PP page 58" The Lord then passed sentence upon the serpent: “Because thou hast done this…"
Notice to Adam God also said. “Because you have heeded…” and a curse was put on the earth.
These were sentences of judgment.

Please notice this quote. I am guessing you will not like what EGW said here and you may well twist her words to fit your view. This is a pronouncement of judgment on the woman, not a description of the way things would be. EGW calls it a sentence. Read it carefully from that perspective.

_" And the Lord said, “Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” In the creation God had made her the equal of Adam. Had they remained obedient to God—in harmony with His great law of love—they would ever have been in harmony with each other; but sin had brought discord, and now their union could be maintained and harmony preserved only by submission on the part of the one or the other. Eve had been the first in transgression; and she had fallen into temptation by separating from her companion, contrary to the divine direction. It was by her solicitation that Adam sinned, and she was now placed in subjection to her husband. Had the principles enjoined in the law of God been cherished by the fallen race, this sentence, though growing out of the results of sin, would have proved a blessing to them; but man’s abuse of the supremacy thus given him has too often rendered the lot of woman very bitter and made her life a burden. {PP 58.3}_

I my opinion, this paragraph clearly shows that things were changed by God. Only God could have placed her in subjection to her husband. He had created them equal, but this paragraph clearly shows that God changed the relationship, not Adam. “She was now placed…”

This was no accident. It was God’s sentencing the serpent, the woman, and the man.


(Frankmer7) #297

I don’t subscribe to using an extra biblical source as the discussion stopper, as if she is the last word on biblical interpretation. She is not, and it is a total misuse of her writings.

While I’m not disputing God’s judgements, part of that is by God allowing natural consequences to run their course. This is the judgment that sin inherently carries. It is why the oldest translations of the Hebrew say, “Cursed is the ground because of you.” Their sin brought the curse in and of itself, not simply because God imposed an external punishment.

This applies to the state of men ruling over and dominating women, which the text implies. This was not the order of creation at the beginning, it was the distortion of the male female relationship, and of the image of God, “Male and female he created him, in the image of God he created them.” Unless, of course, you think that the image of God is reflected in male domination of women. That distortion, brought by sin, is what is being described in the text, not prescribed by it.

Finally, Romans also carries this idea that God’s judgement is realized through God letting people go to experience the consequences of their own actions… Chapter 1:18-30.

Frank


#298

It does not surprise me that you disregarded Patriarchs and Prophets. This is quite common with people who comment here. I will only say that as God’s inspired messenger, ( had visions, talked with angels and Jesus and was taken to heaven in vision ) I will take her “inspiration” over your opinion always. She makes it clear you are wrong in your thinking. And you won’t admit that, will you?
Again, she clearly states these were “sentences” of God, not just natural consequences. You and I will disagree on this no matter what “inspiration” I present. oh well :grinning:


(Frankmer7) #299

Yes… as long as you, or anyone else uses her as the discussion ender, we will not agree. I believe exegesis is done from the text itself, not through an “inspired” source.

Frank


#300

So I guess God was wasting His time in sending messages through her. And my exegesis from the texts clearly shows me that God pronounced judgement and sentences on the serpent, the woman, and the man. To just tell them what was going to happen as a result of their behavior seems such a silly thing for God to do. I highlighted His words, and you just ignored that. “Because you have done this…I WILL DO THIS…” that hard sounds like your exegesis of “Because you have done this…this will happen.” My use of EGW was not a discussion ender as you saw it but rather, it was an exegesis of someone who is inspired far more than you and I are. I guess you must not believe she was inspired by the same Holy Spirit who caused Moses to write, “Because you did this, I WILL DO THIS.” Did Moses get it wrong? :face_with_raised_eyebrow: