Print

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

[Snoopy]

Perhaps the majority is not always right...??  Why does it have to be universal?  I think it is mainly a cultural difference.  The working policies are unique to each division - why not this?

[Snoopy]

I didn't say to set the text aside, or any other.  I simply do not agree with your interpretation of the text.

What alternative interpretation would you suggest?

OK - here is the text again:

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.

...and here are my issues with using it to support not ordaining women:

1.  "I suffer not a woman to teach..."  Uh-oh.  Get rid of all the female educators in our schools and churches!!

2.  "...nor to usurp authority over the man..."  Usurp?  Here is a dictionary definition:

     u·surp  ? ?[yoo-surp, -zurp]
     verb (used with object)
     * to seize and hold (a position, office, power, etc.) by force or without legal right: The pretender tried to usurp the throne.
     * to use without authority or right; employ wrongfully: The magazine usurped copyrighted material.

     How does that apply to ordination of women?

3.  "...but to be in silence."  How did that apply to EGW?

[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.

Quite an important point, Artiste. I know very little about the Southeastern California Conference so that would disqualify me from making a verdict against this body. But if there is something to what you state here, I see no reason to make a judgment against this body for doing what many church members all over the world would esteem right and proper, based on Scripture and our prophetic light, leaving all the other items out of the charge. How can we act so strange?

Johann, the fact of the matter is that multiple times Seventh-day Adventists all over the world through their representatives have overwhelmingly stated that they don't believe we should ordain women. According to Kevin Paulson, 8 divisions in the spring of 2010 didn't want to revisit the issue, and 3 divisions did. So we have the 1881 GC Session issue, the 1990 GC Session vote, the 1995 GC Session vote, the 2010 poll of the division administrations, and the 2011 GC Annual Council vote. How many more votes are needed before we all get the point that the majority do not want this?

Is the majority always right? In the 16th century when the reformation was launched the reformers were a tiny minority. In Judea of the first century the Christians were a tiny minority. When Galileo found that the earth is round and orbits the sun, he was alone and the Church faced him down. They proved their rightness by their majority.

[Murcielago]

George Orwell once said "During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."

[Bob Pickle]

Perhaps the majority is not always right...??  Why does it have to be universal?  I think it is mainly a cultural difference.  The working policies are unique to each division - why not this?

Excellent questions and points. The majority is not always right, and the majority can never trump Scripture. It doesn't have to be universal, but the votes of the GC Sessions ought to be respected.

Note that in this case it isn't a small group of people making the decision. It was the majority of a large group of people representing the entire world field. Ellen White drew a distinction between these two scenarios in 9T 261.

If we chalk it up to cultural differences, how do we keep the pro-homosexual group from eventually getting their way too, on the basis that Paul wrote what he wrote because that was the culture back then? You may not go down that road, but there are folk that already have.

Why not this? Because there is a theological issue underlying it all, and the church as a whole decides those kind of questions.

[Snoopy]

Excellent questions and points. The majority is not always right, and the majority can never trump Scripture. It doesn't have to be universal, but the votes of the GC Sessions ought to be respected.

I guess one has to respect the GC before one can respect the GC Sessions.

[Bob Pickle]

OK - here is the text again:

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.

...and here are my issues with using it to support not ordaining women:

1.  "I suffer not a woman to teach..."  Uh-oh.  Get rid of all the female educators in our schools and churches!!

2.  "...nor to usurp authority over the man..."  Usurp?  Here is a dictionary definition:

     u·surp  ? ?[yoo-surp, -zurp]
     verb (used with object)
     * to seize and hold (a position, office, power, etc.) by force or without legal right: The pretender tried to usurp the throne.
     * to use without authority or right; employ wrongfully: The magazine usurped copyrighted material.

     How does that apply to ordination of women?

3.  "...but to be in silence."  How did that apply to EGW?

What I hear you doing is raising questions about how to apply the text consistently, which is very important, but I don't hear you offering a contrary interpretation.

Re: #1:

Titus 2:3-5 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

So here we have Paul commanding women to teach. So 1 Tim. 2 is not an absolute ban on all kinds of teaching.

Re: #2: Those that believe that this passage is still good counsel today believe that Paul is endorsing the idea of male headship in the church, where men lead out. And a lot of women want men to be men and lead out in spiritual things in the home and in the church.

In Adventism, ordination invests the individual with authority to ordain elders and deacons, baptize, marry, organize churches, etc., anywhere. If a woman has been granted that much authority, in what way is the divine order in Scripture still preserved?

In the OT, all the priests were men. In the NT, all of Jesus' apostles were men. Women filled important and vital roles, but they didn't fill the priest/apostle roles. When Barack didn't want to go to battle unless Deborah when too, Deborah's response was basically, "Shame on you!"

Re: #3: The Bible endorses the idea of women serving as prophets. Some have pointed out that Paul also allowed for women to pray or prophesy in 1 Cor. 11:5, which thus allows for women to speak during public worship. So where does one draw the line? A logical place seems to be when a woman becomes the leader in the church.

[Snoopy]

My alternative interpretation is that the text does NOT support a prohibition of ordination of women.  In an effort to comply, however, I will try to remain silent...

[Bob Pickle]

Excellent questions and points. The majority is not always right, and the majority can never trump Scripture. It doesn't have to be universal, but the votes of the GC Sessions ought to be respected.

I guess one has to respect the GC before one can respect the GC Sessions.

I'll defer to a woman on that one. Take a look at 9T 261, and you'll see that Ellen White had more respect for the GC Session votes than for the GC as it operated around the 1890's. She had said that she no longer considered the GC to be the voice of God. Too few men controlled too much. 9T 261 is her explanation of her earlier statement. She had not been referring to a GC Session vote.

But after the reorganization in 1901/1903, things were different. The consolidation of power that resulted from a small church with a small administration increasing its membership so much was broken up. Union conferences were part of that reorganization. No longer did a few men control so much. I think I read where the GC Committee, maybe in 1881, was three people. Can you imagine only three running the GC today? It isn't that way anymore.

[Bob Pickle]

My alternative interpretation is that the text does NOT support a prohibition of ordination of women.  In an effort to comply, however, I will try to remain silent...

LOL. But you probably see the challenge that must be met in order to achieve worldwide unity on this issue. An alternative interpretation that does not rely on the culture of Paul's day would go a long ways toward achieving that goal.

[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.

Quite an important point, Artiste. I know very little about the Southeastern California Conference so that would disqualify me from making a verdict against this body. But if there is something to what you state here, I see no reason to make a judgment against this body for doing what many church members all over the world would esteem right and proper, based on Scripture and our prophetic light, leaving all the other items out of the charge. How can we act so strange?

Johann, the fact of the matter is that multiple times Seventh-day Adventists all over the world through their representatives have overwhelmingly stated that they don't believe we should ordain women. According to Kevin Paulson, 8 divisions in the spring of 2010 didn't want to revisit the issue, and 3 divisions did. So we have the 1881 GC Session issue, the 1990 GC Session vote, the 1995 GC Session vote, the 2010 poll of the division administrations, and the 2011 GC Annual Council vote. How many more votes are needed before we all get the point that the majority do not want this?

Who is Kevin Paulson - that he can be used as an authority here? Where does he find this overwhelming majority? Was he counting the votes? I have also read an interview with Jan Paulsen as he was leaving the presidency where he indicated there would soon be a majority. But he added that the opposition would be so fierce it would cause intense problems in the Church. So some of those opposing now could be doing it for peace sake, and not because of their conviction.

How long was Kevin Paulson a member of the GC? Did he move around with the Division leaders to discover their feelings?

[Johann]

Have we forgotten?

Last year a number of priests, bishops and members of the Church of England joined the Roman Catholic Church.

The only requirement was that they would not be in agreement with women being ordained to the ministry. So is this becoming a mark of the Beast?

How many Adventists are now eligible to join the Roman Catholic Church if this is the main requirement?

[Bob Pickle]

Who is Kevin Paulson - that he can be used as an authority here? Where does he find this overwhelming majority? Was he counting the votes? I have also read an interview with Jan Paulsen as he was leaving the presidency where he indicated there would soon be a majority. But he added that the opposition would be so fierce it would cause intense problems in the Church. So some of those opposing now could be doing it for peace sake, and not because of their conviction.

How long was Kevin Paulson a member of the GC? Did he move around with the Division leaders to discover their feelings?

I was citing my source, and at the time did not know how to verify what he wrote.

http://www.adventistreview.org/article/3249/archives/issue-2010-1510/10cn-women-s-ordination-not-on-atlanta-gc-session-agenda

I can't tell you that the Review was Paulson's source, but that is exactly what the Review reported. And the Review's source was GC President Jan Paulsen himself.

[Bob Pickle]

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 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" (1 Tim. 2:11-15).

It appears to me that whatever Paul is saying, he is definitely connecting his thoughts to Gen. 3:16. Gen. 3:16 refers to a woman bearing children, and it refers to it in the context of Adam and Eve's fall.

I would think that both sides of the issue should be able to agree that this is what Paul is doing. Correct?

Note one positive thing that Paul is saying is that the penalties handed down in Gen. 3 were intended to help us. Thus we have a biblical basis for the idea, found in the SoP, that hard work is supposed to have a positive effect on our character, helping us reach heaven.

[tinka]

My question is do you have an issue with someone who believes they are homosexual pastoring a church or being ordained if they have never engaged in homosexual sex.

If God created some humans to be attracted to the same sex....that being it is not a choice....do you have an issue with a homosexual preaching if they have chosen not to engage in homosexual sex.

This post now answers my question from other post. This statement now puts this in a highly"controversial issue" if you knew this at "developed" very early age your desires then why the Criminal suit against TS if curiosity or developed actions was permitted willingly?? Did you fight back with TS or try to get away?  I thought to be in all fairness for you to contemplate at your very early age all thoughts of right or wrong treatment at family and environment level. I still do not believe all are born that way but "developed into it."

I do not know what has drove you to believe you were born that way other then falsely doctrined scientific doctors or shrinks or false denominational opinion that are not correct .

  I can agree that AA can do some good with people of no foundation that can be easily led by their doctrines. But I go against it because it instills in a person that they are flawed for life and must say, I am an alcoholic, I am an alcoholic for life. 

So how can one know he has been forgiven of God and that person is "born again or renewed to new life" with that stigma in his head of always an alcoholic. Where is the freedom of knowing you are free because of the help of Holy Spirit. When do you bury and put away all sin knowing that you are forgiven and told Jesus burys it in the deepest parts and remembers your sin so more. and we are supposed to do the same! How do you see AA advising this?  Now do you see where man's device is not God's? It is letting the mentality of the weak person to still be led and not bring them up to " self identity or complete "freedom in the light only the Word can give to be whole mentally."

 I still want the best for you Alex as I can tell what has been done here. I see what you think of yourself and  "idenity" has been stripped from you one way or the other. There is truth of the matter in this and in the Word of God that does challenge any pastor to check what he preaches and in what condition of Spiritual level he is at.

 I see great confusion and too many episodes here to lead out the direction of other sheep. Would you lead them into your realm of belief or the Word of God? There are too many preaching in order to rise above in authority position or what ever gives to their self intentions when they are not called. Just remember God opens the doors and we don't. 

and whatever any on these posts say in ordaining women I am not agreeable with and right now search where I read added scripture that I know I read stating about women being in power at the last and then distruction. Just have to find and see if I am remembering in right context and where its at
What a world of trials Alex, and in all our state by now it is dividing up with the worst confusion the devil can put one into.