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

(Kevin Seidel) #301

The curse of sin died on the cross with Jesus. The kingdom of God is not just in the future. The restoration begins now. Holding on to the curse works against the restoration. We should be follow Jesus’ teaching that the least is the greatest in the kingdom of God.

(Frankmer7) #302

And in the text, God never said, “I will make the man rule over you.” Or, “I will appoint your husband to rule over you.” He simply said, “Your husband will rule over you…” There is a difference between this text and what you quoted as examples to supply its meaning. A difference that you are discounting.

I already said that i don’t discount the idea of God’s judgement. I did say, that it is often manifested through his letting humanity reap the results of our own choices. The husband ruling over the wife was the result of such. It implied domination from the get go. We have seen the results through human history up to the present. It is a distortion of the oneness and equality with which God created male and female. A distortion of the image of God, of his own oneness and equality. A distortion of the equal responsibility that male and female carried as stewards of God’s good creation. A distortion of the female being created as the male’s ezer kenegdo…an equal and opposite strength to him.

If we believe that Christ came to restore the original created order, and all it implies, then should we not be about beginning to practice this now? If equal responsibility and standing before God, and reflection of God, were what that order implies, and if we wouldn’t dream of denying privilege or responsibility to anyone based on ethnicity, race, or social standing, then why do we think that we should continue in this vein with women? (Gal. 3:28)

Lastly, EGW did not do the work of exegesis. She wrote in a homiletical fashion as a pastoral commentator. She often borrowed from many sources for her insights. To use her perceived authority in the way you do to trump any other insight or observation from the text, is to use her writings as a discussion ender. It’s an appeal to authority, which carries no logical weight in debate. How could anyone have an opinion differing from hers without being an unfaithful Christian, without being unfaithful to the Bible, or an apostate? That is what you are implying, whether you realize it or not.

Additionally, if you do subscribe to male headship as defining order in the church, you might as well throw her ministry out the window as being unbiblical. She taught men, and she preached to them…all contrary to the letter of what Paul said in the pastoral epistles.



I am sorry, I fail to see what your comment has to do with what I said. I could say that the curse of sin won’t be gone until Jesus comes back and destroys Satan and sinners. I could also say that my parents died, and that was a result of Adam’s sin. After sin is eradicated, I believe things will go back to God’s original plan, and there will be no male headship. But Gen. 3 shows that God ordained that, and it wasn’t Adam’s idea. Patriarchs and Prophets clearly explains why it was done. I will just leave it at that. :slightly_smiling_face:

(Tim Teichman) #304

Yes, based on Jesus teaching, the kingdom of God is here, and also was here during is life.

Mark 1:15 transliterated from Greek reads something like this:

And after the delivering up of John came Jesus into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God and saying - “Is fulfilled the time and has drawn near the kingdom of God; Repent and believe in the good message.”

Is fulfilled - the original word “peplerotai” is sometimes translated as “at hand” and likely means is satisfied or is finished.

has drawn near - from the Greek “engiken” can be translated “I bring near” or “I approach” or “to make near” and is present tense or already past tense in this verse, not future tense.

So, Jesus is saying:
“The time for waiting for the kingdom of God is over. It is here, so repent and believe in this good message.”

(reliquum) #305

Your understanding is quite telling, @timteichman and stands as counterpoint to the willful ignorance above, to wit I fail to see what your comment has to do with what I said

With a blithe wave and an apropos plastic smile emoji
(wow,indulgences have surely lost their value) - “dismissed”.

How can so many so badly miss the breadth and depth of the good news, instead clinging to curses and hierarchy and jostling for the best seat in the orphanage? Are we as a church so willing to trample on these, the least, and deny them a single crumb all the while we proudly stuff spiritual smugcakes down our collective superior cakeholes?

Perhaps it is time to run into the gutters and streets to collect the rejected, misguided, unwashed unworthy, for the coming cosmic ketubah. Lets start the celebration already!


Sir, I find your vitriol comments unkind , negative, and unChristlike. . (without any emoji) since you passed wrongful judgment on that also…

(Tim Teichman) #307

Since you didn’t mention, no one can tell who you are responding to.

(Tim Teichman) #308

That’s one way to read the story. But another is that God was just explaining the reality that humans would face outside of the garden, the nursery, now that they had to leave - since they now knew the difference between good and evil - had now become like the gods.

(reliquum) #309

Tim, what is sadly lacking in the whole larger picture is how we interpret writ.
Specifically, an understanding of historic hebrew exegesis.

I find it so tiresome to have folks using the literal reading in the Kinges Olde Englishe as “thus-sayeth-proof”.
As an example, note above, use of “ordained” illicitly (as in slipping the assumption God “ordained” male headship). Or the use of the word at all-because it is not literally found anywhere in scripture. Of course, God did “set apart”, “commission”, “send” all sorts of people (including women) and “things” (principles, rules, days)- but then these same literalists claim they can use the re-definition in their favor (but we pro-wo foes cannot do any such thing.

Pardes is instructive in rightly dividing pages. If we have not gone beyond KJV, have not sought the Hebrew study traditions and language, structure, etc, we have malformed our conclusions-and usually always and only favorable to our biases.

Using Sod, one finds (from mamonaides) “Adam and Eve were at first created as one being, having their backs united: they were then separated, and one half was removed and brought before Adam as Eve.” Note how clearly it has been stated that Adam and Eve were two in some respects, and yet they remained one, according to the words, “Bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh” (Gen. ii. 23). The unity of the two is proved by the fact that both have the same name, for she is called ishah (woman), because she was taken out of ish (man), also by the words, “And shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh” (ii. 24). How great is the ignorance of those who do not see that all this necessarily includes some [other] idea [besides the literal meaning of the words].


You, Tim, And since you don’t know me at all like my friends do, your judgment of me including my emoji would make them shake their heads.


Your way of reading the story is not according to Patriarchs and Prophets. And as stated, I will accept her inspired rendition of that incident over yours. She does not agree with your interpretation of Gen. 3.

(reliquum) #312

Kal, since you do not reveal yourself (except through what appears to be a tiresome superior posturing here) we cannot “know you at all like your friends do”. In some ways, we only know you like those you make enemies. I’d further suggest your comment was directed at moi, and not @timteichman. I am the one who commented how your emoji is out of place as you dismiss the other poster (@KevinSeidel). It sure seems you are not even trying to understand “the other”, and if they do not agree with you, you dismiss them and their perspective. There may be a better way, just sayin’

(Tim Teichman) #313

What judgement? What emoji? I searched the thread on my posts and don’t see anything I wrote about an emoji. My last response to you was over a week ago. I can’t find any posts where I judge you. (I don’t think your ideas are correct, but comments on your ideas are not judging you!)

(Tim Teichman) #314

Of course not. I have not given any credence to Patriarchs and Prophets in a long time.

Oh OK. However, I like to read different views. They appear more likely to be accurate than the simplistic views I was taught.

When I want to know what the Jewish bible means, I find it a better idea to ask a Jewish scholar what it means.

This is funny, but accurate:

In all seriousness, though, I encourage you to read and understand @Timo 's post above:

(George Tichy) #315

HaHa, getting some rocks on your head… that others deserved uh?
Refer the case to @elmer_cupino:smiley::smiley:


Wow, were you looking at yourself when you said that? Because it fits you perfectly. Like Kalfoof said, your comments are often vitriolic, unkind, negative, and, if I may add, judgmental.

But, like you said yourself, “there may be a better way, just sayin’”. (I hope you will listen to your own advice).



Thank you for the video. It was priceless!!! :smile:
(though we have to remember that Jesus was also a Jew and He knew and understood the Bible whereas most of the Jews of His time, including the disciples, had many misconceptions concerning what was written in the Old Testament).

(reliquum) #318

I understood a long time ago that personalizing something anybody said-especially an anonymous nobody on the net, was no reason at all for me to get my knickers all knotted up. I would hope that you understood none of what I write is intended to be applied to any individual personally. Applying it so is entirely up to the reader. I sure don’t need to post the definition of vitriol-we’re all adults here-but I checked 42 synonyms/related words for vitriol, and none seem to accurately reflect my intentions. But then again, your experiential definition has a different context than mine. Same language, probably same aculturation, yet we have divergent meanings. If we have difficulty here-in this common moment-understanding what the other wrote-imagine our issues with a 3 or 4 millenia old, originally verbal sutra, translated across a number of languages from fragments of broken tablets and scrolls, imagine how challenging it is to agree on what THAT means?

Are you aware of the Pardes concept of exegesis? It could prove instructive in becoming aware of how to read and interpret scripture-even in the bastard language english is.
We’ve been told “truth is hidden” to preserve it. I suspect the preservation of the spirit (as opposed to letter) of a written truth passed down from culture to culture, nation to nation, language to language, generation to generation, version to version, denomination to denomination requires a study beyond the superficial face meaning. We’ve also been warned that most do not hear the truth (and i suspect that is because they are not speaking it).
I remain fully hopeful that the Truth will survive even the hubristic standard narrative adventist mishandling of it. God has time on his side.

(and-despite niggling doubt it will benefit anyone tremendously, let me repeat what was earlier written on these pages-if you knew me as my friends knew me, you would understand and perhaps appreciate my passion, compassion, queriosity, impertinence etc etc-i am truly none of the things you wrote behind all those “you” statements. I hope I can continue to refrain from reciprocating them-and I pray i might right in a fashion which reduces the propensity of some to personalize my writings as such. I apologize for my humanity, my failings, my lack of clarity-english is my second language)


No problem, Timo.

We are all human after all. And when dealing with hot topics, it is normal that, at time, we lose our patience.

You said something very interesting: “if you knew me as my friends knew me”. Your words are good reminders that we cannot be reduced to just words, expressions, or opinions in a comment section. We are more than that. We are human beings, even brothers and sisters. We have our own experiences, histories and, of course, perspectives shaped by what we have lived through life. We are not enemies, just people with, sometimes, different takes on important subjects. And because we come from different horizons, what is obvious for one is not that obvious for another. This is normal.

So, I want to see you as someone with friends who know you and appreciate you and your passion, curiosity and your care.

Thank you for this reminder. May God richly bless you.

(Spectrumbot) closed #320

This topic was automatically closed after 30 days. New replies are no longer allowed.