The Holy Spirit Blows Where He/She Wishes and Calls Whom He/She Calls

(Tim Teichman) #102

Maybe he has a misunderstanding about what the term means. Here’s a refresher for everyone:


“Disingenous” seems too kind. Rather, “duplicitous”.
Does the ceremonial bestowment script really differ for Commissioning vs Licensing vs Ordination?



" allowing the Holy Spirit to call whomever He/She wanted to for the Gospel Ministry."

I am wondering…Since when is the Holy Spirit a He/She? My Bible never uses the pronouns “she” when speaking of the HS.

  1. If the second person of the Godhead, Jesus Christ the Son, calls the HS a 'HE"…
  2. And if Jesus only spoke the truth…
  3. Then the HS must be referred to with the pronoun “He.” not “it” or “she”.
  4. Paul also spoke of the HS with the pronoun “He”

John 16: 13
John 14:17, 26
Romans 8:16, 26
Heb. 10:15


Tim…It won’t be valid for you. You have already prejudged any posting of such a statement. I have posted it here, but it was ignored and blown off or twisted to say what it didn’t say or judged in any number of ways…but surely not accepted by anyone in this forum. So why repost it? It would change no one’s mind.

(Tim Teichman) #106

Some of the texts you reference do use a male personal pronoun, but others actually don’t, though they are commonly translated that way into English (where “it” would be a more accurate option.)

John 14:17 transliterated, says:

the Spirit of truth, whom the world not is able to receive, because not it does see It [αὐτὸ], not know. But know It [auto], for in you It [αὐτὸ] abides, and in you It [αὐτὸ] will be.

In this verse the Greek αὐτὸ is used. αὐτὸ is a personal-possessive pronoun that is active, nominative, 3rd person, and superlative, and is neuter, neither male nor female. It is translated as “He” in many English bibles, but that’s not really what the original said.

The same neuter pronoun is used on Romans 8:16 and 26. In Hebrews no personal pronoun is used at all in the original.


So, is it correct to assume that you don’t view the HS as a person of the Godhead?

(Tim Teichman) #108

No, it is not correct. Why do you ask that in response to my post?

(Steve Mga) #109

Kaloof –
What is being said about God The Trinity is that “God” relates to humans
in HE ways , Father, but also relates to humans in She/Her ways as in
“Sophia” which is a female name for Wisdom.

Because of this Humans do NOT KNOW if He/Him, She/Her are REALLY
correct terms for “God”, but it does work in the construct of RELATIONSHIP
to “God”.

(Tim Teichman) #110

I haven’t done that. And, as expected, you haven’t provided your source for when the church decided to not ordain women (I expect because there isn’t one as it hasn’t happened.)


You said,…(I expect because there isn’t one as it hasn’t happened.)

I have posted the three votes taken at GC (1990, 1995, 2015) and it seems that most everyone on this forum just ignored them or said the motion didn’t state that women cannot be ordained to be pastors. I take it from your sentence in ( ) above that you have already decided the same thing. I am almost convinced that if the motion was placed on the floor of the GC stated emphatically…“The SDA will not ordain women to be pastors of the church.” and it passed by majority vote, it would not be accepted by those who favor WO. The working policies of the GC, NAD, use ony the male gender in talking about who can be in pastoral positions. There is no he/she at all that I can find. And Paul clearly states that the bishop is to be “the husband”, which can not be misunderstood ( in my opinion) unless you have a homosexual marriage…which is not a biblical marriage.

As to the HS. It appeared to me that you were rejecting the idea that the HS is not a person. More than half of the translations use the pronoun “he” and the others do not use any pronoun.
There are some who deny the HS is a person, thus denying the trinity. I could give lots of texts to support the idea the HS is a person.
I could also supply SOP quotes stating the same idea. I appears to me that few people in this forum give my credence to EGW. Those who say the HS, as a person, was not believed in the beginnings of our church are incorrect. Here is just one.quote.
"We need to realize that the Holy Spirit … is as much a person as God is a person… {Faith I Live By p. 52.2} That is a pretty clear indication of what EGW believed.

(Steve Mga) #112

Kaloof –
We DO NOT know if the Trinity Gods have Testosterone only or Estrogen only.
So Pronouns are used based on the Human Relationships we have with
the Gods. Whether they are “Father” one time, “Mother” another time.
Over time the Gods have been presented as both in Scripture.

“Shepherd” as in Psalm 23 and Psalm 95:7 can be both male or female.

(George Tichy) #113

Insisting on saying that the 2015 vote was against WO is misleading. Intentionally or not, it’s a misrepresentation of what the vote was actually about, and it’s deceiving. Doing this completely undermines the credibility of those making this fake argument and eliminates the merit of any possible good intention they mau possibly have.

Anyone reading the question that was posed for voting in 2015 should be able to understand that the vote was not about WO but rather about the Divisions (aka CG) taking (stealing) the power from the Unions who currently retain the exclusive power to make decisions on ordination issues. I am glad God apparently confused those delegates and they actually ended up voting against the (hidden) wishes of the GC. It’s called, “backfiring.”


Matt. 28:19…"baptizing them in the name of the Father (pater. masculine noun) and of the Son ( huios: masculine noun ) and the Holy ( hagios : adjective) Spirit (pneuma: neuter noun)
This is Jesus talking here. Seems clear to me (maybe not you) that Jesus used the masculine nouns when he could have used something different. Jesus ought to know what he is talking about.

(Tim Teichman) #115

Everybody knows about the votes. They were not votes to prohibit WO. That’s been pointed out here more than once by those who know more than I.

(Tim Teichman) #116

What? You state neuter and then counter yourself two sentences later.

(Steve Mga) #117

Elmer –
I have a lady friend who for the years I have known her, and tried to assist her
has had Jesus talk to her when she is off her “meds”.
She will be in an adequate living situation and Jesus will tell her she has to
move. Leaves a lot of things behind and just moves out with no idea where
she is going. One time I was taking her someplace and Jesus was speaking to
her and she un-nicely told him to ‘shut up’.
She has been on her meds for about 6 months and is like a different person, looks
good. Talks normal now.


This is where the line is drawn for you. If the Adventist hierarchy on earth says, no women can be spiritual leaders authorized by the Church, you are on board with that.

I believe wholeheartedly that the Holy Spirit gifts/calls/blesses whomever regardless of earthly hierarchial rules based solely on gender. I believe the Holy Spirit, like justice, is gender blind.


@kalfoof, take a look at this just to be fair:


Dear @kalfoof,

In the Hebrew, the Spirit of God or Holy Spirit “vuah” is used 378 times. It is a feminine term that refers to the life of God or the “essence” through which the divine acts, or Wisdom (hokhmah).

Wisdom is personified as a woman in Jewish and Biblical wisdom literature.

Pre-existent with God, she participated in creating the world. She orders all things, permeates all things, inspirits all things. She is a teacher and lover and mediates God’s love in the world. She guides and reveals God’s will and knocks at the door of the human soul, or hovers outwardly in the natural beauty of the world.

She is a tree of life, the breath of the power of God, a reflection of eternal light, one who renews all things.

In Luke 7:35 Jesus and John are Wisdom’s children.

See Proverbs 8:22-23, 27, 30 for more about Wisdom or Sophia’s role.

Check New Testament references I Corinthians 1:23 - 24, 30 as well ad I Corinthians 2:6 - 8. Sophia became Christ.

In John 1:1-4 notice the Word, Logos, which is also Sophia and Wisdom.

I don’t see much research happening in Adventism, personally or scholarly, about the feminine aspects of Divinity. But it does exist for those who, like the Bereans, search the Scriptures.


(Allen Shepherd) #121

Here is the problem, even that this article points out. The GC has not said that women cannot be spiritual leaders. They, in fact, in CO, commissioned one here to be the spiritual leader of the church the author was attending. Did they not commission her as the pastor? Is that not a leadership position? Was there another man there that was really leading, and she was not the designated leader?

You think commission means no leadership. Not so. She is leading there and there is no one else. You just don’t like what she is called.

I have had difficulty addressing this issue, that is, the accusation that I am grasping at power because I have not exchanged my ordination credential for a commissioning. There is really no way to prove that I am not that unless I do give it up. You attribute to me a grasping that I can say is not there, but I cannot prove it without doing as you say. In other words, I can’t prove a negative. (Philippians 2 tells of a similar situation with Jesus and Godly power).

I admit that ad hominem arguments can be effective.

I do not need a refresher, as I gave an example above about Al Gore. When you say "I should practice what I preach.’, you are attacking my character. You are saying I am a hypocrite. That is not an argument about WO, but about me, personally. It is an ad hominem. You are not going after the substance of my arguments, but me.

Same with calling the men of the Adventist church misogynists and backward and power grabbing. That says nothing about their arguments against WO, but only about their characters. It is an ad hominem.

The supporters of WO are so utterly used to immediately going to this sort of argumentation that they just do it naturally and think it settles the argument, when it does nothing of the sort. Calling someone a misogynist does not answer any argument at all!

None of you have addressed the fact that the woman mentioned in the article was led by the Spirit and was commissioned, completely negating the thrust of the article that the church was suppressing the Spirit. How could they be when they acted to recognize her as the leader of that church, and the Spirit’s leading in it. Just because they did not call her ordained does not mean they did not designate her as the Spirit’s choice.

Now addressing that would have been better than a mere ad hominem.