Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Alex L. Walker]

I'm not, Bob, but NEVER would that be the will of God. If the southern Baptist did that, I would disown them in a heartbeat!

[Alex L. Walker]

Alex:  Generally I donot, for reasons that I have stated, get involved in a discussion of the Biblical issues in forums such as this one.

But, I will ask you a question:  Do you see in either, or both, the OT and the NT females in leadership, to include spiritual leadership  in a manner that is seemingly approved.  IOW, I am not talking about pagan priestesses and witches.

Thanks,

I can not recall any off hand, but if you give me time to look into this I will try my best to supply an answer.

Gregory, I base my standpoint on the requirements set forth for those desiring to be ordained. The Apostle Paul does NOT hesitate to make it clear that is ONLY men who should be ordained.

It is also clear that women are to remain silent, and submit themselves to whom? Their husbands.......not the other way around.

[Murcielago]

Alex:  Generally I donot, for reasons that I have stated, get involved in a discussion of the Biblical issues in forums such as this one.

But, I will ask you a question:  Do you see in either, or both, the OT and the NT females in leadership, to include spiritual leadership  in a manner that is seemingly approved.  IOW, I am not talking about pagan priestesses and witches.

Thanks,

I can not recall any off hand, but if you give me time to look into this I will try my best to supply an answer.

Gregory, I base my standpoint on the requirements set forth for those desiring to be ordained. The Apostle Paul does NOT hesitate to make it clear that is ONLY men who should be ordained.

It is also clear that women are to remain silent, and submit themselves to whom? Their husbands.......not the other way around.

What if they don't have a husband?

[Alex L. Walker]

That makes no difference, Paul is clearly stating women are not to be superior to men.

[Murcielago]

That makes no difference, Paul is clearly stating women are not to be superior to men.

Does being ordained make one a person superior to others?

[Gregory]

Thank you Alex, I now understand you.

[Johann]

Some patterns are getting clear.

1) When a GC session votes in favor of a traditional trait, even if it is tainted by Roman Catholicism - that is certainly the will of God and all must adhere without asking any questions.

2) If the GC session votes in favor of a revision of the Church Manual, then you can be sure it is a mistake and one must never follow the new trait.

Is this to be our new standard to show if we are true SDA?

[tinka]

That makes no difference, Paul is clearly stating women are not to be superior to men.

Does being ordained make one a person superior to others?

No it does not, ordaining just meant that you promise to preach under your denomination the doctrines of any particular church and not branch off like David K. and the other reason is paycheck. When it came to SDA women the laying on of hands was to be special prayer for them to go out into the fields of labor other then preaching that was definitely encouraged by EGW because men could not minister unto women like a women could in other fields. She encouraged women to take up education in being a Dr. so women could treat women. women and many more fields that once an ordained preacher went into the field he could focus just that. That is where the women were encouraged to pick up from there. Dorcas, and Deaconesses and teachers and special councils to ministers wives. But it was down tredded as much as possible but so far not overruled but the church people did try and still are.

[Johann]

Snoopy: I do not know what Bible you read out of, but it is not the KJV.

In a previous reply to you, Alex, I was quoting the KJV. It is all right with me that you did not respond to that.

Also, I am going to go even a step further than Bob, on this issue.

I do not believe women should be Sunday School teachers,pastors, Deacons, Prophets or etc. They are to remain silent and allow the men to do these things.

Are you putting some pressure on Bob to make him just as "good" as you are?

Now, I have seen EGW
 mentioned. I do not agree with her on about 75% of her supposed prophocies. But.....I will not speak any further on my thoughts of a woman prophet, but to say I have issues with that.

Whatever percentage, Alex, does not make that much difference. You might get some support from Bob, the way I see it. Seems to me he is fighting all he is worth to prove that Ellen White made a grave mistake by supporting that females should receive any ordination at all, and he is trying to limit the value of that ordination down to as close as he can get to nothing. 75% or 99.9% - what is the difference?

As for me I have chosen to follow the Lord and be obedient to what He tells me through the reading of His Word and Message to me. If you can show me that I am wrong, I challenge you all, Alex, tinka, Bob, Gailon, or whoever, to make it evident. One thing is for sure, Jesus is coming soon.

[Bob Pickle]

1) Well, the book isn't an official statement. Why does an editor state:

The North American Division Women's Commission had a great desire that the research and experiences of these pages be made available to the church family. Allow the authors' messages to be understood.

Written by:

Elizabeth Sterndale is a field secretary and director of Womens' Ministries of the North American Division of Seventh-day Adventists, Silver Spring, Maryland.

This is the North American Division of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists with a similar address as the GC. Why would they want this contents to be known to members of the church? Could it be more legal reasons the authors are held responsible for the wording? This is an opinion and not a legal document? A book is too long a document to be voted on?

Each division could have its own commission, and each commission could come up with different conclusions. Recall that the voted 1990 statement says that no consensus had been reached as to whether the practice was biblical or not, which means that some felt it was and some felt it wasn't.

That being so, there is no way to turn statements in that book into official, approved statements from an NAD commission, and then into a publication issued by the GC. Sure, the commission might want the stuff out there, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it approved every concept within the book. But even if one could find language in the book that shows that it was approved in its entirety, that wouldn't make it a publication issued by the GC, since clearly there was no consensus among the divisions in 1990, 1995, and 2010.

[Bob Pickle]

EGW was greatly impressed with this man, even if some of you might not, when I tell you this story about him:

I am not impressed by the falsehoods he stated, probably unintentionally, at the 1919 Bible Conference. That doesn't mean God didn't use him at other times.

   - Be sure to wear wedding rings where you are going. This was the advice Ellen White gave us in Australia, and I have known it is good to follow her words.

Based on Tinka's quote, I would say that either Daniells never said this, or else Daniells was seriously mistaken at other times than just during the 1919 Bible Conference.

It is evident that by her statement in 1909 Ellen White still supported the leadership of A G Daniells, in spite of what she had said in 1901.

But, and I may have missed something, the 1909 statement does not address the authority of the GC president. It addresses the authority of the GC Session, and perhaps the full GC committee as it is composed today, not that of a single individual. Am I correct?

What I discovered at the 2005 CG session was even worse. I got this documented by a reporter. You realize that most of the matters voted on first go through a committee. It so happened in a nomination committee that a man came in and told the members that if they would bring a certain name to the floor - this was the leader of an important section within our Church - then someone would donate a certain huge amount of dollars to that particular cause. That donation would not follow any other candidate.

Did that really occur? Or was that just something an AToday reporter said?

[Bob Pickle]

I do not believe women should be Sunday School teachers,pastors, Deacons, Prophets or etc. They are to remain silent and allow the men to do these things.

In the NT you have Anna in the temple, and later Philip's four daughters who were prophets. Paul stopped at Philip's house in Acts on his last trip to Jerusalem, and that's where it says that Philip had four daughters who prophesied.

Acts 21:9  And the same man had four daughters, virgins, which did prophesy.

[Bob Pickle]

For reasons I won't go into right now, I believe it is inevitable that the GC will vote for the ordination of women. If/when that happens, Bob, do you intend to honour that as the will of God? Should an action of the GC be honoured as the will of God, even when one believes it is not?

I will speak about general principles. The NAD Working Policy says that the GC Session is the highest authority under God. I take that to mean that the GC Session is not above the Bible. And it really can't be, for that was a mistake that Catholicism made, putting church councils above the Bible.

If a GC Session voted to now keep Sunday instead of the Sabbath, I would not honor that as the will of God.

[Johann]

"Wrong is Wrong even if everyone [including the best among us] is doing it. Right is Right even if" - I have to fight this battle alone.    

[Johann]

Each division could have its own commission, and each commission could come up with different conclusions. Recall that the voted 1990 statement says that no consensus had been reached as to whether the practice was biblical or not, which means that some felt it was and some felt it wasn't.

That being so, there is no way to turn statements in that book into official, approved statements from an NAD commission, and then into a publication issued by the GC. Sure, the commission might want the stuff out there, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it approved every concept within the book. But even if one could find language in the book that shows that it was approved in its entirety, that wouldn't make it a publication issued by the GC, since clearly there was no consensus among the divisions in 1990, 1995, and 2010.

I'll give you credit, Bob, for being so almost right in many of your points, and that gives me the picture of you during a walk through the woods where you eye a dying baby raccoon. I see you fondling that poor sick raccoon baby in your arms as if your own life depends on its survival. Happy hunting!

Don't forget: "He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus." This is what counts!