Print

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

[Murcielago]

So far this discussion has not produced a single scripture forbidding women from ordination to ministry. Perhaps Johann has point here. In the Roman Catholic Church the writings of the saints, the votes of the Councils, and tradition hold as much weight in the creation of dogma as does the Bible. If there is not a scripture specifically forbidding the ordination of women to ministry is it possible that it is indeed a doctrine created by people and held as dogma on the authority of human votes and tradition?

[Johann]

So far this discussion has not produced a single scripture forbidding women from ordination to ministry. Perhaps Johann has point here. In the Roman Catholic Church the writings of the saints, the votes of the Councils, and tradition hold as much weight in the creation of dogma as does the Bible. If there is not a scripture specifically forbidding the ordination of women to ministry is it possible that it is indeed a doctrine created by people and held as dogma on the authority of human votes and tradition?

Indicating that Roman traditions galore among the saints? When will they wake up? Or does dormant recognition of danger provide security?

[Murcielago]

2) Rome exalts the decisions and votes of mere mortals and church councils above the Bible. If we ever get to the point where we think it is all right to do something because a committee somewhere voted it, even though the Bible forbids, it is then that we are following Rome.

Therefore, if we ignore the vital role of women in the church as outlined in Scripture, and choose to give them a role that Scripture does not approve of, despite what Scripture says on the topic, then we are certainly following in the footsteps of Rome.

And where will departure from Scripture lead us?

Is it possible that we are exalting the decisions and votes of mortals and church councils above the Bible in disallowing the ordination of women?

[Artiste]

It is unfortunate, but also important to remember, that the Southeastern California Conference constituents that are currently jumping up and down for joy that the conference has made this move are also the individuals who are advocating homosexuality in the church, theistic evolution, and greater respect for other religions, namely Catholics.

I think Bob Pickle is aware of this, but others, such as Gregory, may not have noticed this fact so much. 

[Murcielago]

It is unfortunate, but also important to remember, that the Southeastern California Conference constituents that are currently jumping up and down for joy that the conference has made this move are also the individuals who are advocating homosexuality in the church, theistic evolution, and greater respect for other religions, namely Catholics.

I think Bob Pickle is aware of this, but others, such as Gregory, may not have noticed this fact so much.

That may be true in some cases. Being right or wrong on one thing doesn't make one right or wrong on all things. For example, Martin Luther, father of the reformation. We would probably all agree that he was right in his finding for righteousness by faith and the 95 thesis he nailed to the church door, yet he wrote a book called "Von den Juden und ihren Lügen" which means "On the Jews and Their Lies." In section XI of the book Luther makes the following recommendations:

1. for Jewish synagogues and schools to be burned to the ground, and the remnants buried out of sight;
2. for houses owned by Jews to be likewise razed, and the owners made to live in agricultural outbuildings;
3. for their religious writings to be taken away;
4. for rabbis to be forbidden to preach, and to be executed if they do;
5. for safe conduct on the roads to be abolished for Jews;
6. for usury to be prohibited, and for all silver and gold to be removed and "put aside for safekeeping"; and
7. for the Jewish population to be put to work as agricultural slave labor.

[Artiste]

What does that have to do with anything, Murcielago?

[princessdi]

Welcome back, GJ.  You never fail to show with a bang.  You are soo funny!  Proceeed!

Artiste, you know I don't believe in evolution, and I do respect other's beliefs mainly because I have no heaven or hell to put them in, so if God allows them to be where they are, what else can I do?  However, I do believe that homosexual activity to be a sin, but no greater than any other.  I believe in ordination of women, because ordination(not the laying on of hands like in the Bible) is some that is man made and subject to discriminatory actions by men(and some women) in order to maintain "control".  There are too many instances in the Bible of women, in authority to men both politically and spiritually(just for two examples, Miriam, Deborah, Anna...I'll throw in a NT example to show consistency).  So, if God placed women in authority when He ruled Israel, Why would I? If God not only said it, but gave His own example of it, that is good enough for me.  No rationalization by men about why they should be in control can sway me.  It is also part of SDA history. We had women who were ordained(30+ during the time of EGW.).  SDAS only took issue with this after those women and EGW died.  So at this point, we are inconsistent at best.  But you know to each his own........If God'w own example is not good enough then as I said, proceed..........

[Murcielago]

What does that have to do with anything, Murcielago?

It has to do with the fact that because some of the SECC constituents may be supportive of some questionable or wrong positions does not make everything they support questionable or wrong. I used Martin Luther as an example of someone who was right on some things and very wrong on others.

[Johann]

It is unfortunate, but also important to remember, that the Southeastern California Conference constituents that are currently jumping up and down for joy that the conference has made this move are also the individuals who are advocating homosexuality in the church, theistic evolution, and greater respect for other religions, namely Catholics.

I think Bob Pickle is aware of this, but others, such as Gregory, may not have noticed this fact so much.

That may be true in some cases. Being right or wrong on one thing doesn't make one right or wrong on all things. For example, Martin Luther, father of the reformation. We would probably all agree that he was right in his finding for righteousness by faith and the 95 thesis he nailed to the church door, yet he wrote a book called "Von den Juden und ihren Lügen" which means "On the Jews and Their Lies." In section XI of the book Luther makes the following recommendations:

1. for Jewish synagogues and schools to be burned to the ground, and the remnants buried out of sight;
2. for houses owned by Jews to be likewise razed, and the owners made to live in agricultural outbuildings;
3. for their religious writings to be taken away;
4. for rabbis to be forbidden to preach, and to be executed if they do;
5. for safe conduct on the roads to be abolished for Jews;
6. for usury to be prohibited, and for all silver and gold to be removed and "put aside for safekeeping"; and
7. for the Jewish population to be put to work as agricultural slave labor.

The Wiesanthat Institute in USA seems to be rubbing these writings under the nose of people to make them feel sorry for the Jews.

[Johann]

Good to see you keep injecting your presence here from time to time, Princess.

[Bob Pickle]

In Galatians 3:28 Paul is very specific that there is no distinction between male and female in Christ. Does he get specific in saying that women are not to be ordained?

I have asked pro-women's ordination proponents why, if they quote Gal. 3, they don't consider the rest of what Paul said on the topic.

What Paul did say was that women were not to have the leading positions in the churches. Ordination to the gospel ministry within the Adventist Church puts the recipient at the highest level.

[Bob Pickle]

On another site someone claimed that Paul's statements were based on the culture of the times. I asked why Paul used creation-based arguments. No reply.

Another claimed that not ordaining women as gospel ministers is discrimination. I responded that God was not discriminating against women in Gen. 3:16. No reply, except to say that my exegesis of Gen. 3:16 was very poor. I then gave a SoP comment which agreed with my stance, asked how my exegesis was "very poor," and asked for an alternative interpretation. The lengthy response explained why he wasn't going to respond.

Yet another claimed that through the cross the penalties added down by God at Eden are done away. So I asked why women still have pain in childbirth, and why men still have to work hard to eat, and why women are still afraid of snakes. Several responded about how we can use analgesics to alleviate the pain of childbirth, and machines to make it less laborious to grow our food. Yet the use of analgesics today is an admission that God never removed the penalty of pain in childbirth at the cross.

Over and over again, the pro-ordination proponents on that other site seem unable to reason from the Scriptures in a clear, simple, coherent fashion. But they at the same time are well able to deny the virgin birth, call DA inspired fiction, and say that Bible writers misinterpreted Gen. 3:16.

I might not have reacted to any of those comments either because I fail to see their relevance in this context.

Fail to see their relevance? Could you please explain? When trying to see if someone's position is biblical or not, checking to see if it's biblical or not is not relevant? Then, based on what you just said, the issue of whether or not to ordain women is taking the Adventist Church away from the position of sola scriptura. And thus it must be opposed.

Seems to me you are merely using their lack of reaction as a reason for you to keep on in a faulty track.

Sticking with the Bible is never a faulty track.

But then, on the other hand, how else would Rome get hold of a man of your caliper?

Rome wants me to surrender my allegiance to Scripture. I refuse to.

What authority do you have to say they are mistaken?

Because I am the one who received the email, and I was able to research in the GC archives to prove that the claims made in that email were false.

If you cannot elaborate publicly, then you should keep it to yourself.

I'm not going to state publicly who sent me the email. But you are more than welcome to call. But then, maybe you don't want to be convinced?

I have often heard at General Conference Sessions I have attended (4 or 5) and also been a delegate, that the vote against the ordination of women is largest from areas where the Roman Catholic Church dominates.

Have you checked to verify if that is true or not? At the 1995 GC Session, Ted Wilson, Damsteegt, and Pipim spoke against the motion. Did they come from areas of the world where the Roman Catholic Church dominates?

[Bob Pickle]

Bob, does Paul specifically forbid women from being ordained to ministry?

That's not the issue, Murcielago. The issue is the role that the ordination service is setting apart the person for. Damsteegt made that point at the 1995 GC Session, I believe, and David Read has made that point recently online.

So the real question is whether Paul forbids women to hold the position that ordination today puts a person in.

[Bob Pickle]

So far this discussion has not produced a single scripture forbidding women from ordination to ministry.

1 Timothy 2:12-15  But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

[Snoopy]

Sticking with the Bible is never a faulty track.

Then why haven't you answered the question Murcielago has posed in a couple of different threads on the topic:

Where in the Bible is the ordination of women specifically prohibited?