Print

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

[Artiste]

And the arguments can go on and on.  And they will.

Yes, they will go on and on for a while at least.

I'm sorry you're on the wrong side of the issue, Johann.

[christian]

He seems to be fully in line with Ellen G. White's own interpretation of 1 Tim 2

 Johann, I will ask again, what is the reason for ordination of women? Already, for years women have taught Sabbath School, worked as deaconesses, Preached sermons etc... There has never in my 50 plus years of church membership been an exclusion of women. Now for years women were more confined to the biblical outline as it comes to church function and the regulated understood position of men. I would hope you are not trying to imply that God does not have an ideal position for men and women in the home and in the church. God is the one that put the distinction between women and men, it is not just an invention of men. Why do you think that women give birth and have breast? And yes that is a revelant question because obviously God designed women for a different function than men. And you know what Johann, I have never ever wanted to be called the mother of my family. Why would you try an insist that women should be the man of the church? In a way it is an assault on the family structure too. And by the way it will not stop with women ordination it will be gays next? Your battle is not really with the church it is with God.

That's like comparing apples and rabbit turds, dude.  And who are you to comment on someone else's walk (ie, battle) with God??

Not at all the church is a part of the family structure and often the bible links the two.

[Artiste]

Even that massive reconstruction of the text doesn't get Ellen White off the hook. She exercised spiritual authority in public and in private, and her hearers were both male and female. Of course, people can continue to finesse their definitions so as to make Paul come out with their conclusions, but doing that is hardly a reading of the "plain words" of the Bible. And such a procedure most certainly fails to follow its own hermeneutical method to its logical conclusions.

Clever arguments here, Johann.  I am aware that progressives try to make black into white and vice versus.   

[Johann]

Johann, your position is unbiblical.

You chock me, Artiste, by making such a silly statement. To say the least you completely contradict yourself, as you are completely throwing Ellen G. White and Scripture overboard. I am fully in harmony with how Ellen White interprets the section of Scripture we are dealing with:

    Writing in Signs of the Times, June 24, 1889, Ellen White shared an intimate moment from her early years:

    “When in my youth God opened the Scriptures to my mind, giving me light upon the truths of his word, I went forth to proclaim to others the precious news of salvation. My brother wrote to me, and said, 'I beg of you not to disgrace the family. I will do anything for you if you will not go out as a preacher.’

    "’Disgrace the family!’ I replied, ’Can it disgrace the family for me to preach Christ and Him crucified! If you would give me all the gold your house could hold, I would not cease giving my testimony for God. I have respect unto the recompense of the reward. I will not keep silent, for when God imparts his light to me, he means that I shall diffuse it to others, according to my ability.’

    “Did not the priests and rulers come to the disciples, and command them to cease preaching in the name of Christ? They shut the faithful men in prison, but the angel of the Lord released them that they might speak the words of life to the people. This is our work.”

    Ellen’s brother was not the last to object to her preaching. After speaking in a tiny Northern California town in 1880, she shared in a letter to her husband, James, some backstage information:

    “Elder Haskell talked in the afternoon and his labors were well received. I had in the evening, it was stated, the largest congregation that had ever assembled at Arbuckle. The house was full. Many came from five to ten and twelve miles. The Lord gave me special power in speaking. The congregation listened as if spell-bound. Not one left the house although I talked above one hour. Before I commenced talking, Elder Haskell had a bit [piece] of paper that was handed [him] in quoting [a] certain text prohibiting women speaking in public. He took up the matter in a brief manner and very clearly expressed the meaning of the apostles words. I understand it was a Cambelite [sic] who wrote the objection and it had been well circulated [among the audience] before it reached the desk; but Elder Haskell made it all plain before the people" (Letter 17a, April 1, 1880; Manuscript Releases, vol. 10, p. 70).

You are just hiding your head in the sand, unwilling to face reality.

[Johann]

Even that massive reconstruction of the text doesn't get Ellen White off the hook. She exercised spiritual authority in public and in private, and her hearers were both male and female. Of course, people can continue to finesse their definitions so as to make Paul come out with their conclusions, but doing that is hardly a reading of the "plain words" of the Bible. And such a procedure most certainly fails to follow its own hermeneutical method to its logical conclusions.

Clever arguments here, Johann.  I am aware that progressives try to make black into white and vice versus.   

These are not my arguments, Artiste. They are written by one of our denomination's greatest present writers, a professor emeritus of church history, and one of the greatest defenders we have of Ellen G. White.

[Johann]

And the arguments can go on and on.  And they will.

Yes, they will go on and on for a while at least.

I'm sorry you're on the wrong side of the issue, Johann.

I am on the side where I want to meet my Lord. If you call that the wrong side, Artiste, then I feel sorry for you. I want to stand for truth till the heavens fall, if you do not want to be there, that is your choice.

[Johann]

He seems to be fully in line with Ellen G. White's own interpretation of 1 Tim 2

 Johann, I will ask again, what is the reason for ordination of women? Already, for years women have taught Sabbath School, worked as deaconesses, Preached sermons etc... There has never in my 50 plus years of church membership been an exclusion of women. Now for years women were more confined to the biblical outline as it comes to church function and the regulated understood position of men. I would hope you are not trying to imply that God does not have an ideal position for men and women in the home and in the church. God is the one that put the distinction between women and men, it is not just an invention of men. Why do you think that women give birth and have breast? And yes that is a revelant question because obviously God designed women for a different function than men. And you know what Johann, I have never ever wanted to be called the mother of my family. Why would you try an insist that women should be the man of the church? In a way it is an assault on the family structure too. And by the way it will not stop with women ordination it will be gays next? Your battle is not really with the church it is with God.

What is your excuse for not wanting to be in line with Ellen White? You do want to follow her on jewelry, theater, and other things. But if she says  something that goes against your preconceived notions then you throw her overboard. Is that what it means to you to be a Seventh-day Adventist?

Ellen White states clearly that certain women are to be ordained. That was not my invention. Neither is it the invention of any women of today. I believe in everything she says, not only what pleases me.

[Artiste]

You do want to follow her on jewelry, theater, and other things

You speak out of ignorance, Johann.  You've never even met me.

[Johann]

Johann, you should stop flogging the dead horse, because this forum is not going to convert itself into your liberal agenda.

May I remind you that it was a liberal General Conference President, Jan Paulsen, who made it possible for you to maintain your heresies. He was too liberal to do what former presidents had done. Several previous General Conference presidents fought certain of what you wrongly think are conservative ideas.

[Snoopy]

You do want to follow her on jewelry, theater, and other things

You speak out of ignorance, Johann.  You've never even met me.

It doesn't matter if he has met you in person or not.  If you claim to be a staunch supporter of the SDA church including doctrine and legalisms, as you appear to do, he can be reasonably sure of his statement.  Thus, he does NOT "speak out of ignorance".

I know, I know...  "Your opinion, Snoopy."   Yup - everybody's got one!!!

[Johann]

You do want to follow her on jewelry, theater, and other things

You speak out of ignorance, Johann.  You've never even met me.

Why do you answer when I wasn't addressing you? Do you need new glasses to see?

[Johann]

However, your comments and point of view would be more appropriate over on Spectrum or Atoday.

Strange you should say this, Artiste. I guess you haven't noticed that several of the authors featured in these magazines are among the conservative leaders in our church.

[Bob Pickle]

From a retired General Conference Officer on the ordination of females:

http://www.atoday.org/article/1297/news/analysis-of-what-is-happening-with-the-ordination-of-women-pastors

From a retired General Conference Officer on the ordination of females:

http://www.atoday.org/article/1297/news/analysis-of-what-is-happening-with-the-ordination-of-women-pastors

Here is what Dr. Gery Patterson has to say on who decides:

The Permission Issue
 
Ordination is, by General Conference policy, the purview of the union level of governance. This being the case, the General Conference has overstepped its bounds in seeking to tell the unions that they may or may not ordain women to the gospel ministry. It is not within the authority of the General Conference to take such action, just the same as if the taking of such action regarding individual membership, the election of personnel for church offices, or in the sisterhood of churches issues is not the purview of the General Conference Session. These actions belong to the constituent level to which they are assigned by policy and may not be determined or overruled by higher levels of the church structure.
 
An additional example of this overreach occurs in the General Conference action granting permission for churches to ordain women to the position of local church elder.  There was no existing action prohibiting such election or ordination of elders or any other church office on the basis of gender. Therefore, there was no cause for granting such permission from the General Conference. Church officer election is under the authority of the local church constituency and by policy, higher organizations are  not allowed to interfere in this process.
The General Conference, union or conference may not, for example, tell the local church whether it can elect women as treasurer or clerk of the church. Likewise they have no authority either to deny or give permission for women to be elected and ordained as elders. They may give advice on such matters, but it is not in their purview to dictate who may or may not be elected. With no action forbidding such gender choices, the church does not need permission to do as it sees fit.

It does no good to support the cause of women's ordination with misinformation, as Gary Patterson has done. Patterson states:

"Authority for ordination is assigned to the union level of church governance as indicated by General Conference Working Policy L 45 05. It states, “After favorable consideration the local conference committee will submit the name of the candidate with its findings and convictions to the union for counsel and approval.” There is no gender reference in this policy whatsoever."

Yet L 45 10 in the 2005-2006 GC Working Policy refers to "the examination of the candidate, with his wife." No reference to gender in the policy? And L 50 when discussing the examination of the candidate explicitly says "a man." No reference to gender?

And then there is the whole issue of incorporation. The Working Policy explicitly states that a GC Session is the highest authority on earth under God. Therefore, the votes of those sessions are pretty much incorporated into the Working Policy by reference. Both the 1990 and the 1995 GC Sessions voted down women's ordination.

One has to ask, if Patterson quoted from L 45 05, why did he not notice the obvious reference to gender in L 45 10? And why did he not notice the word "man" in L 50? Why did he not notice these obvious references to gender?

When I was a student at Southern in 1982/83, there was a student there who went around and collected recordings of conversations with various individuals about the sanctuary, 1844, etc., and turned them over to church leadership. My recollection is that Patterson as president of a conference was one of those who was recorded. Therefore I would like to ask whether Patterson believes that there is a sanctuary in heaven with furniture, and that Jesus began His high priestly ministry in 1844 when He moved from the Holy Place to the Most Holy Place at the end of the 2300 day prophecy of Dan. 8:14.

Johann, do you know the answer to this question?

[Bob Pickle]

Patterson also states,

"The matter continued to be under discussion for the following five years and was again placed on the agenda of the 1995 General Conference session in Utrecht at the request of the North American Division. At this meeting it was officially recognized that there was no biblical or theological to support a position of forbidding such ordination, and the vote there again did not forbid it, but rather stated that to avoid division in the world church, the request was denied “at this time.”"

Gregory or Johann,

Could you please locate for me an action at or quotation from the 1995 GC Session that so states?

Mere quotations won't really suffice. We really need an action rather than a quotation. You have folks in 1995 stating that women's ordination is unbiblical, and that it isn't unbiblical. When two sides are taking contrary positions, that is anything but official recognition of one of the views.

"... the vote there again did not forbid it ..."

How so?

"... the request was denied “at this time.”"

That sounds almost like 1990, but in 1990 it was officially recognized that some thought that the Bible forbade the practice, and some thought that it did not. And I can't find the words "at this time" in the voted action.

[Johann]

From a retired General Conference Officer on the ordination of females:

http://www.atoday.org/article/1297/news/analysis-of-what-is-happening-with-the-ordination-of-women-pastors

From a retired General Conference Officer on the ordination of females:

http://www.atoday.org/article/1297/news/analysis-of-what-is-happening-with-the-ordination-of-women-pastors

Here is what Dr. Gery Patterson has to say on who decides:

The Permission Issue
 
Ordination is, by General Conference policy, the purview of the union level of governance. This being the case, the General Conference has overstepped its bounds in seeking to tell the unions that they may or may not ordain women to the gospel ministry. It is not within the authority of the General Conference to take such action, just the same as if the taking of such action regarding individual membership, the election of personnel for church offices, or in the sisterhood of churches issues is not the purview of the General Conference Session. These actions belong to the constituent level to which they are assigned by policy and may not be determined or overruled by higher levels of the church structure.
 
An additional example of this overreach occurs in the General Conference action granting permission for churches to ordain women to the position of local church elder.  There was no existing action prohibiting such election or ordination of elders or any other church office on the basis of gender. Therefore, there was no cause for granting such permission from the General Conference. Church officer election is under the authority of the local church constituency and by policy, higher organizations are  not allowed to interfere in this process.
The General Conference, union or conference may not, for example, tell the local church whether it can elect women as treasurer or clerk of the church. Likewise they have no authority either to deny or give permission for women to be elected and ordained as elders. They may give advice on such matters, but it is not in their purview to dictate who may or may not be elected. With no action forbidding such gender choices, the church does not need permission to do as it sees fit.

It does no good to support the cause of women's ordination with misinformation, as Gary Patterson has done. Patterson states:

"Authority for ordination is assigned to the union level of church governance as indicated by General Conference Working Policy L 45 05. It states, “After favorable consideration the local conference committee will submit the name of the candidate with its findings and convictions to the union for counsel and approval.” There is no gender reference in this policy whatsoever."

Yet L 45 10 in the 2005-2006 GC Working Policy refers to "the examination of the candidate, with his wife." No reference to gender in the policy? And L 50 when discussing the examination of the candidate explicitly says "a man." No reference to gender?

And then there is the whole issue of incorporation. The Working Policy explicitly states that a GC Session is the highest authority on earth under God. Therefore, the votes of those sessions are pretty much incorporated into the Working Policy by reference. Both the 1990 and the 1995 GC Sessions voted down women's ordination.

One has to ask, if Patterson quoted from L 45 05, why did he not notice the obvious reference to gender in L 45 10? And why did he not notice the word "man" in L 50? Why did he not notice these obvious references to gender?

When I was a student at Southern in 1982/83, there was a student there who went around and collected recordings of conversations with various individuals about the sanctuary, 1844, etc., and turned them over to church leadership. My recollection is that Patterson as president of a conference was one of those who was recorded. Therefore I would like to ask whether Patterson believes that there is a sanctuary in heaven with furniture, and that Jesus began His high priestly ministry in 1844 when He moved from the Holy Place to the Most Holy Place at the end of the 2300 day prophecy of Dan. 8:14.

Johann, do you know the answer to this question?

1. I see Patterson giving full answers to your questions in his article. Why don't you?
He finds no reference to gender in L 45 10, and neither do you.

2. Both Patterson and you find a reference to gender in other parts of the policy. Patterson states these are in conflict with other sections of the policy, which call that a discrimination.

3. You seem uncertain of Patterson's views on the Sanctuary question. You expect me to answer that question as if I had universal knowledge of each person who has worked for the denomination. No, I am not able to answer that question. I recall we had some theology students discussing of what material the Sanctuary in Heaven is made of, canvas, or bricks, or something else? Or of some heavenly material unknown to man? Was this the kind of questions your friend was asking? What authority did he have to turn his findings over to the church leaders? Were those tricky, misleading questions to confuse the issue?

4. Patterson refers to the GC session as the highest authority, but his opinion is that the GC still does not have the authority to grant itself greater authority than what has already been granted the unions. If you have given your daughter the right to decide herself which college she should attend within certain limits,what kind of father would you be if you then suddenly told her she could not attend the college of her choice?