Print

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

[Johann]

This is an issue that is just ignored. This, in my opinion, makes it easier for the Roman Catholic church to make inroads among Adventists, since so many already adhere to this important Roman Catholic doctrine!

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?

[Johann]

No, I really was told that in 1881 a resolution to ordain women was voted by a GC Session. So I checked it out in the GC Session minutes and found out that that was the only one of around 40 resolutions that isn't marked adopted, carried, or approved.

It, like at least two other resolutions, was referred to a committee, that one to the GC Comm., and the other two to the Committee on Resolutions. The other two were brought back in separate meetings, one being modified, and were then adopted. But the one on ordaining women, I couldn't find anywhere where it was brought back to the session for a vote.
- - -

This items shows how different attitudes make their evaluation. Yes, I agree with you fully that the resolution on the ordination of women was referred to a committee and was never brought back for consideration in 1881, and I also realize that someone made a misjudgment of the results. But I think you do ignore completely one or two factors in connection with this.

1. When something that was unbiblical or just not right was suggested at a General Conference Sessions, Ellen G. White would often make an important statement in connection with such resolutions. To the best of my knowledge she never made any suggestion that this had been a wrong solution.

2. Quite to the contrary, Ellen White later made a statements, which you reluctantly admit, that women should be ordained to do certain tasks, ministering in the church, etc. You insist on limiting those ministerial tasks to the work of a female deacon. You refuse to consider the Biblical pattern that deacons both preached and baptized (Acts), stating there is no record of female deacons preaching or baptizing in the Bible, only male deacons, in spite of the fact that Paul in 1 Tim 3:11 states that the same applies to male and female deacons.

I can well understand that if you really followed the Biblical pattern and what Ellen White in reality is saying, the Roman Catholic Church would not as easily accept you into their fellowship, something we all know is their goal. You might well have in mind saving your skin when that enforcement is introduced, and you might succeed, even if you keep your Sabbath. Even they permit people to attend mass on Saturdays now, so  why not then too? There could be a possibility with that compromise, who knows?

So I wish you good luck, my dear friend, but I cannot guarantee the final results when the judge of all things appears in the sky. Perhaps He will have mercy on you too? I am not the judge.

[Bob Pickle]

Yes, women can be chosen as prophets.  WHO choses the prophets?  AND were prophets not in spiritual authority to everyone in the Bible, priests, kings, etc.?  So God puts women in spiritual authority, but somehow some belief that Paul then changed that in the NT even though the instances of female authority, both political and spiritual, do not result in the disasterous issues as so many of their male counterparts.

Di, I know of no Adventist woman today that claims that she ought to be ordained by men because God has called her through visions and dreams to be a prophet.

As far as Paul goes, note that in 1 Cor. 11:5 Paul allows for women to pray and prophesy. So Paul by no means is saying that women can't serve as prophets.

[Bob Pickle]

2. Quite to the contrary, Ellen White later made a statements, which you reluctantly admit, that women should be ordained to do certain tasks, ministering in the church, etc. You insist on limiting those ministerial tasks to the work of a female deacon. You refuse to consider the Biblical pattern that deacons both preached and baptized (Acts), stating there is no record of female deacons preaching or baptizing in the Bible, only male deacons, in spite of the fact that Paul in 1 Tim 3:11 states that the same applies to male and female deacons.

1 Tim. 3:11 does not say that any deacons can baptize. Was Philip's conducting of a baptism the norm? I don't know.

The issue today is to a large extent whether women may be ordained to serve as local pastors of local churches. I personally think it contrary to the SoP to ordain men as gospel ministers to routinely serve in such a role. That is more the function of local elders, not gospel ministers, according to the SoP. And I don't see biblical support for women to serve as local elders.

[Bob Pickle]

I don't think the women in our class were trying to say that men have superior leadership skills. That's not how I remember it.

What's the difference between wanting to have a man in charge and saying that men have superior leadership skills?  Semantics?  And lets remember that your comments are derived from the responses of the women in your class, which is NOT representative of women in general!!

I don't think it is semantics, but I never quizzed them to find out why they felt the way they did.

Just to be clear, these were women that were not just out of high school. They'd been around for awhile.

[Johann]

2. Quite to the contrary, Ellen White later made a statements, which you reluctantly admit, that women should be ordained to do certain tasks, ministering in the church, etc. You insist on limiting those ministerial tasks to the work of a female deacon. You refuse to consider the Biblical pattern that deacons both preached and baptized (Acts), stating there is no record of female deacons preaching or baptizing in the Bible, only male deacons, in spite of the fact that Paul in 1 Tim 3:11 states that the same applies to male and female deacons.

1 Tim. 3:11 does not say that any deacons can baptize. Was Philip's conducting of a baptism the norm? I don't know.

Where was the Holy Spirit when that section of the Bible was written? You just do not know? And your uncertainty makes you lean to the conclusion that this section just confuses us? Rather take the Roman Catholic road to be on their side when the final time of trouble approaches? What security is there in that?

The issue today is to a large extent whether women may be ordained to serve as local pastors of local churches. I personally think it contrary to the SoP to ordain men as gospel ministers to routinely serve in such a role. That is more the function of local elders, not gospel ministers, according to the SoP.

Yes, I am with you on this part. But if this is really your concern, Bob, then that is what you should be going for in this discussion. Is it political concern, that some of your Brethren will not regard you being on the right track if you fight for what you consider being right?

 And I don't see biblical support for women to serve as local elders.

I presume by "elders" you mean those called "presbyteros" in the Greek Bible? Most of those were kind of wicked people, weren't they? But you also have some in every Christian church. But what did they do in companies where there were only women?

Where was the Holy Spirit when Paul used the same term, "presbyteros" of a woman in 1 Tim 5:2? Did the good Lord use another source of inspiration for that one? Would it help us to know? We are still in the same area of the Bible where we have the information we use in connection with ordination. Only four verses before Paul is still dealing with ordination. And in v. 1 he is dealing with a male "presbyteros" and then speaking of a female one in the following verse. Remember Paul never set a divider between chapters and verses.

Even if you consider these being different kind of elders, I find it really interesting that he is still using exactly the same word as he continues his letter to Timothy. The Holy Spirit could easily have made him use a different term, if that was important, as he continued writing.

[Johann]

Yes, women can be chosen as prophets.  WHO choses the prophets?  AND were prophets not in spiritual authority to everyone in the Bible, priests, kings, etc.?  So God puts women in spiritual authority, but somehow some belief that Paul then changed that in the NT even though the instances of female authority, both political and spiritual, do not result in the disasterous issues as so many of their male counterparts.

Di, I know of no Adventist woman today that claims that she ought to be ordained by men because God has called her through visions and dreams to be a prophet.

What are you replying to by making this uncalled for statement? A different question is that any one preaching the Gospel Message is functioning, according to the Biblical term, as a prophet. Any pastor is mainly proclaiming a prophetic message, and this makes the function of a pastor today so different, including his/her ordination.

As far as Paul goes, note that in 1 Cor. 11:5 Paul allows for women to pray and prophesy. So Paul by no means is saying that women can't serve as prophets.

[Johann]

We should remember that soon no one will be able to buy or sell except those who have the mark of the beast. And you might even be sentenced to die. Rev. 13.

So we know that the whole world will follow, since it is the aim of that church that all  are to worship with them or their image.

Last year it was made plain in the news that for members of the Church of England the only requirement to join was that they reject the ordination of women.

Therefore this warning is in place: If you initially want to avoid any persecution for your living faith, you must also reject the ordination of women - as long as possible. The delaying tactic might save your skin for a while, but for how long?

If you really want a living faith which defies the danger of persecution, then follow your conviction, based on Scripture, and sustained by the prophetic guidance. The day is at Hand! Have faith, dear friend, in God!

[Johann]

As I have prayerfully been conversing through Scripture, asking the Spirit to guide my feet and hands throughout the approaching Sabbath, I see before me the change of Day. A new day is dawning, and the power of the Holy Spirit is breaking the fetters of darkness.

My world today is so different from the world I grew up in 70 years ago.

What will happen when the Holy Spirit ignites the Church and unleashes the hands and tongues of our women, who until now have had a different task to do? As the end is approaching you see these women setting the world on fire through the Holy Spirit.

It takes faith and courage. If you lack faith and you are worried and fearful, better stay with your predefined ideas and traditions. Just play it safe and never risk you neck.

But faith makes all things possible, even for a weak person of fear.

Trust in God and in His message of Hope and Glory! Jesus is coming soon!

[Johann]

- - -
So, my question is this.  Since we see that God's own example is to put women in political and spiritual authority, at what point do we feel the need to over turn the decisions of an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God of which we claim to be followers.  Are you saying that He made a bad decision in this area and the man He created  knows better?  Once again, since God's own example is there and clear in the Bible, I am going with that. This thing some of you have going seems like a bit of rebellion to me. 

Quite a question, PrincessDi! If God is for us, who is then against us? We must have faith to put aside man-made ideologies and replace them with trust in God. Have faith, dear frind, and let His Spirit awaken the sleeping giants among us. Jesus is coming soon!

[Gregory]

The following is taken from an Adventist Today news item:

In 1995 when a number of local churches ordained women serving as pastors, the North American Division officers sidestepped a confrontation by taking the position that a local church only has authority to ordain local elders, so this must be what these churches had done. Under the General Conference Working Policy the authority to authorize ordination belongs to union conferences, although local conferences issue the actual credentials.

For the above reason, which I agree with, I say that local congregations and conferences are not in rebellion against the General Conference.
 

[Bob Pickle]

Is it political concern, that some of your Brethren will not regard you being on the right track if you fight for what you consider being right?

If I was concerned about politics, I would have kept my mouth shut a long time ago, and would never have been sued by Danny Shelton and 3ABN. I oppose the ordaining of women to the gospel ministry because I think it is contrary to Scripture. I agree with C. Raymond Holmes' observations.

Where was the Holy Spirit when Paul used the same term, "presbyteros" of a woman in 1 Tim 5:2?

If you take the use of presbuteros in 1 Tim. 5:1, 2 to refer to the office of elder, what do you do with the word neos in the same verses, translated "younger"? Must those who hold the position of elder therefore never be young? Or is presbuteros here referring to age rather than the office of elder?

Certainly in the LXX, presbuteros can mean "old" and "oldest." Isn't the use of the word to refer to the office of "elder" derived from the root meaning of "elderly"? Therefore, I think Paul in 1 Tim. 5:1-2 can simply be referring to the age of church members, not their office, and that would agree with a simple reading of the passage.

[Bob Pickle]

Yes, women can be chosen as prophets.  WHO choses the prophets?  AND were prophets not in spiritual authority to everyone in the Bible, priests, kings, etc.?  So God puts women in spiritual authority, but somehow some belief that Paul then changed that in the NT even though the instances of female authority, both political and spiritual, do not result in the disasterous issues as so many of their male counterparts.

Di, I know of no Adventist woman today that claims that she ought to be ordained by men because God has called her through visions and dreams to be a prophet.

What are you replying to by making this uncalled for statement? A different question is that any one preaching the Gospel Message is functioning, according to the Biblical term, as a prophet.

Not according to Num 12:6. Prophets are those whom God is speaking to through visions and dreams.

Di and others have compared God calling women as prophets with calling women to be local pastors of local churches. I think that is a false comparison.

One on another website has gone so far as to repeatedly quote where Ellen White said that God ordained her in Portland, ME, which would be about Dec. 1844 when Ellen White was called via a vision to be a prophet. The one quoting that uses it to justify men, not God, ordaining a woman to serve as a local pastor, not a prophet. It's a false comparison.

[Bob Pickle]

So we know that the whole world will follow, since it is the aim of that church that all  are to worship with them or their image.

Last year it was made plain in the news that for members of the Church of England the only requirement to join was that they reject the ordination of women.

On the other hand, the Protestant churches that will be enforcing the mark are often accepting of the idea of ordaining women to the gospel ministry, and sometimes ordaining even active homosexuals. But the churches that do that are the ones that have left the Bible behind in many areas. Without a Scriptural foundation, they won't have any reason to reject the mark.

What will happen when the Holy Spirit ignites the Church and unleashes the hands and tongues of our women, who until now have had a different task to do? As the end is approaching you see these women setting the world on fire through the Holy Spirit.

But that isn't what the women's ordination movement is trying to achieve. A local pastor hovering over a local church isn't likely going to set his city on fire, much less the world.

More importantly, women can go out right now in the power of the Holy Spirit as Bible workers, Christian welfare workers, or whatever, and set their communities afire. They don't need to be ordained as gospel ministers first.

Isn't ordination reserved for those who have already demonstrated that they are already being used by the Holy Spirit in ministry? Or have times changed on this point too, and ordination precedes giving proof of one's calling?

[Bob Pickle]

The following is taken from an Adventist Today news item:

In 1995 when a number of local churches ordained women serving as pastors, the North American Division officers sidestepped a confrontation by taking the position that a local church only has authority to ordain local elders, so this must be what these churches had done. Under the General Conference Working Policy the authority to authorize ordination belongs to union conferences, although local conferences issue the actual credentials.

For the above reason, which I agree with, I say that local congregations and conferences are not in rebellion against the General Conference.

Which part do you agree with? That any woman who is ordained today cannot possibly be ordained as a gospel minister, and must therefore only be ordained as a local elder? Or that the authority to authorize ordination belongs to union conferences?

If the 1990 and 1995 GC Sessions voted down the ordination of women as gospel ministers, and if Ellen White in 9T 261 explicitly states that GC Session votes have authority, and if those votes do not contradict a plain Thus saith the Lord, and if congregations and conferences, though knowing all this, decide they're going to do it anyway, how is that not rebellion against (a) the GC Session votes, and (b) the testimony of Jesus in 9T 261?