Print

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

[Johann]

- - -
I understand Johann's position, but, the World Church has spoken clearly and concisely and private opinion MUST BE SET ASIDE to nurture the unity of Faith essential to a unity in the Spirit. In the alternative, the Lord will manifest His Power within the church and there will be a massive falling away as the crisis grows. The true REMNANT will be ALL that is left once that Power has been fully manifested and it most certainly will occur with or without our cooperation.

I implore EVERYONE to carefully consider the implications of this open rebellion and recognize it may well be the beginning of the false reformation, the sifting and a part of the Omega of Apostasy. YOU DO NOT WANT TO BE ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THIS BIBLICAL STANDARD!!! NOR DO YOU WANT TO BE IN REBELLION TO THE SPIRIT OF THE GODHEAD!!!

Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter

Somehow this reminds me of my personal meeting with Ted Wilson's father 20-30 years ago when he seemed clearly to classify the Heartland and Our Firm Foundation people as open rebels, and he saw to it that they were not classified as Adventists with whom the Church was willing to cooperate with. We, as Adventist workers, received a number of warnings from the GC not to cooperate with those rebels and heretics.

In spite of those warnings, I attended some of their meetings and I read all of the reading material I found scattered around in our churches - from them.

Somehow the SDA church survived the crisis. Is the Lord somewhere else these days?

You asked me to provide some text from Scripture or EGW which supported the ordination of women. I did. You never responded. Why?

[Bob Pickle]

Is there truth to what we've heard about the unions having the authority to make their own decisions regarding ordination?

Yes and no. As it is presently set up, conferences choose who they would like to see be ordained, and unions decide whether that will happen. That's the yes part. But unions only have authority to decide to ordain individuals that fit the specifications of GC and NAD Working Policy, the Bible, and the SoP, which happen to exclude anything that isn't a qualified living male human being. See L 45 and L 50.

What part of the Bible exclude anything that is not male? I'm certain that if the officers of the PUC had discovered that they would never have had the recent session.

Note that my statement listed four sources of authority:

• Bible
• SoP
• GC Working Policy
• NAD Working Policy

And I stated that those sources excluded anything that didn't have these four characteristics:

• Qualified
• Living
• Male
• Human being

I then referenced two sections in the GC and NAD Working Policy.

You have asked that I cite where one of those sources excludes things that don't have one of those characteristics. Here would be one place:

1 Timothy 2:12  But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

And:

1 Timothy 3:2  A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

Titus 1:6-7  If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;

[christined]

 
[quote author=Bob Pickle link=topic=2392.msg37587#msg37587 [1 Timothy 2:12  But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

I am thankful that I don't go to Bob Pickle's church.  Where would our church be if women were to be in silence?  Sad day that this verse has to be taken at face value and not in context just to prove a point. 

[Snoopy]

[quote author=Bob Pickle link=topic=2392.msg37587#msg37587 [1 Timothy 2:12  But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

I am thankful that I don't go to Bob Pickle's church.  Where would our church be if women were to be in silence?  Sad day that this verse has to be taken at face value and not in context just to prove a point.

I'm with you, christined.  I'm thankful I don't serve Bob Pickle's God.

[Murcielago]

1 Timothy 2:12  But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Would it be accurate to say that Ellen White was not in unity with Paul when she taught, exerted authority over men, and was certainly anything but silent? How does one reconcile her behaviour with Paul and his teachings on the woman's place in the context of religion and church?

[Bob Pickle]

1 Timothy 2:12  But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

I am thankful that I don't go to Bob Pickle's church.  Where would our church be if women were to be in silence?  Sad day that this verse has to be taken at face value and not in context just to prove a point.

Feel free to cite any context from 1 Timothy that you think clarifies the meaning of what Paul was saying.

The women in our church have not been utterly silent in their opposition to women's ordination. And you will note that I quoted that verse and others to give Johann his requested biblical support for the idea that only qualified living male human beings may be ordained as gospel ministers.

In other words, if we were discussing whether the NT and Paul endorse women as teachers, then I would have quoted other verses too. But that wasn't the topic under discussion.

[Bob Pickle]

1 Timothy 2:12  But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Would it be accurate to say that Ellen White was not in unity with Paul when she taught, exerted authority over men, and was certainly anything but silent? How does one reconcile her behaviour with Paul and his teachings on the woman's place in the context of religion and church?

We can certainly discuss this, and should. But apparent inconsistencies are not justification for ignoring a Bible text. For example, if one shares with a Lutheran about the Sabbath, that Lutheran could ask, "Did Luther keep the Sabbath?" It's good to ask, but the answer doesn't justify ignoring the Bible evidence for the Sabbath.

Since Ellen White never held an administrative position except for sitting on the board of Madison College, I don't know how we can say that she exerted authority over men. If by virtue of her prophetic office we want to say that she held such authority, I don't think we can say that Paul was excluding that sort of thing. Paul himself acknowledged to the Corinthians that women did pray or prophesy. It hardly seems that Paul was referring to them praying and prophesying where no one or no men could ever hear. As far as I know, the anti-WO crowd believe Paul was referring to women praying and prophesying in public meetings.

[Murcielago]

1 Timothy 2:12  But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Would it be accurate to say that Ellen White was not in unity with Paul when she taught, exerted authority over men, and was certainly anything but silent? How does one reconcile her behaviour with Paul and his teachings on the woman's place in the context of religion and church?

We can certainly discuss this, and should. But apparent inconsistencies are not justification for ignoring a Bible text. For example, if one shares with a Lutheran about the Sabbath, that Lutheran could ask, "Did Luther keep the Sabbath?" It's good to ask, but the answer doesn't justify ignoring the Bible evidence for the Sabbath.

Since Ellen White never held an administrative position except for sitting on the board of Madison College, I don't know how we can say that she exerted authority over men. If by virtue of her prophetic office we want to say that she held such authority, I don't think we can say that Paul was excluding that sort of thing. Paul himself acknowledged to the Corinthians that women did pray or prophesy. It hardly seems that Paul was referring to them praying and prophesying where no one or no men could ever hear. As far as I know, the anti-WO crowd believe Paul was referring to women praying and prophesying in public meetings.

Would it be accurate to say that Ellen White taught and preached? Would it also be accurate to say that she gave orders and commands that men obeyed? In the matter of spiritual authority do the 9 vol of the Testimonies ever include an instance that could be seen as her taking spiritual authority over a man?

[Murcielago]

1 Timothy 2:12  But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Would it be accurate to say that Ellen White was not in unity with Paul when she taught, exerted authority over men, and was certainly anything but silent? How does one reconcile her behaviour with Paul and his teachings on the woman's place in the context of religion and church?

We can certainly discuss this, and should. But apparent inconsistencies are not justification for ignoring a Bible text. For example, if one shares with a Lutheran about the Sabbath, that Lutheran could ask, "Did Luther keep the Sabbath?" It's good to ask, but the answer doesn't justify ignoring the Bible evidence for the Sabbath.

Since Ellen White never held an administrative position except for sitting on the board of Madison College, I don't know how we can say that she exerted authority over men. If by virtue of her prophetic office we want to say that she held such authority, I don't think we can say that Paul was excluding that sort of thing. Paul himself acknowledged to the Corinthians that women did pray or prophesy. It hardly seems that Paul was referring to them praying and prophesying where no one or no men could ever hear. As far as I know, the anti-WO crowd believe Paul was referring to women praying and prophesying in public meetings.

Would it be accurate to say that Ellen White taught and preached? Would it also be accurate to say that she gave orders and commands that men obeyed? In the matter of spiritual authority do the 9 vol of the Testimonies ever include an instance that could be seen as her taking spiritual authority over a man?

Perhaps the text should not be ignored, but should the inconsistencies be? Should we demand the acceptance of one part of the text, but say that the parts regarding teaching and silence don't apply? If we use a text to prove one point should it be ignored in the context of related points? If we agree that women should not have authority in the SDA church it follows that we must address that matter of Ellen White. She was not silent, she taught, and she still holds authority over the church and its leaders, and that includes men. How do we reconcile the use of this text as authoritative in stopping women from holding authority, while refusing to apply it to Ellen White? This tends to put into question the credibility of its use, does it not?

[Johann]

1 Timothy 2:12  But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Would it be accurate to say that Ellen White was not in unity with Paul when she taught, exerted authority over men, and was certainly anything but silent? How does one reconcile her behaviour with Paul and his teachings on the woman's place in the context of religion and church?

We can certainly discuss this, and should. But apparent inconsistencies are not justification for ignoring a Bible text. For example, if one shares with a Lutheran about the Sabbath, that Lutheran could ask, "Did Luther keep the Sabbath?" It's good to ask, but the answer doesn't justify ignoring the Bible evidence for the Sabbath.

Since Ellen White never held an administrative position except for sitting on the board of Madison College, I don't know how we can say that she exerted authority over men. If by virtue of her prophetic office we want to say that she held such authority, I don't think we can say that Paul was excluding that sort of thing. Paul himself acknowledged to the Corinthians that women did pray or prophesy. It hardly seems that Paul was referring to them praying and prophesying where no one or no men could ever hear. As far as I know, the anti-WO crowd believe Paul was referring to women praying and prophesying in public meetings.

Would it be accurate to say that Ellen White taught and preached? Would it also be accurate to say that she gave orders and commands that men obeyed? In the matter of spiritual authority do the 9 vol of the Testimonies ever include an instance that could be seen as her taking spiritual authority over a man?

The text was used against Ellen White a number of times. How did she react?

    me. I am still waiting for your reaction to my reply.

    Who gave you permission to call me a "feminist"? That is a great deception!

Jóhann M Thorvaldsson
July 5
Jóhann M Thorvaldsson


    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).

[Bob Pickle]

Would it be accurate to say that Ellen White taught and preached? Would it also be accurate to say that she gave orders and commands that men obeyed? In the matter of spiritual authority do the 9 vol of the Testimonies ever include an instance that could be seen as her taking spiritual authority over a man?

See if you can find a good specific example of Ellen White doing what you think Paul was forbidding, and then let's look at that example.

But remember, what we say that 1 Tim. 2:12 is referring to must agree with 1 Cor. 11:4, 5. Paul did allow for women to pray and prophesy, and from what 1 Cor. 14 says, it would seem that a proper place to prophesy was the church service since prophecy was a sign for believers.

Perhaps the text should not be ignored, but should the inconsistencies be? Should we demand the acceptance of one part of the text, but say that the parts regarding teaching and silence don't apply? If we use a text to prove one point should it be ignored in the context of related points? If we agree that women should not have authority in the SDA church it follows that we must address that matter of Ellen White. She was not silent, she taught, and she still holds authority over the church and its leaders, and that includes men. How do we reconcile the use of this text as authoritative in stopping women from holding authority, while refusing to apply it to Ellen White? This tends to put into question the credibility of its use, does it not?

Paul had no problem with women prophets. In Acts we even have Paul visiting with Philip, who had four daughters that were prophets. So women being prophets is not at issue in 1 Tim. 2.

We also have both Aquilla and Priscilla enlightening Apollos in Acts 18:26. This husband and wife team had labored with Paul in his missionary endeavors, and Luke who was also part of Paul's team was the one who wrote the verse. There is no hint that Priscilla did anything wrong in Acts 18:26.

Then we have Titus 2:3-5 which out and out instructs older women to teach. I realize a specific target audience is specified, but it still sheds light on Paul's statement, "But I suffer not a woman to teach," that that is not an absolute prohibition against any and all teaching.

Certainly in light of the 5th commandment and Jesus' comments on it, Paul was not saying that he does not suffer a mother to have authority over her son.

Maybe we should narrow things down a bit. What do you think Paul meant when he said "authority" in 1 Tim. 2:12, and can you provide a specific example where Ellen White exercised that type of authority?

[Murcielago]

How is "but I suffer not a woman to teach" not a prohibition against teaching? And how is "but to remain in silence" not a command that women keep silent in that context?

[Bob Pickle]

The text was used against Ellen White a number of times. How did she react?

    me. I am still waiting for your reaction to my reply.

    Who gave you permission to call me a "feminist"? That is a great deception!

Jóhann M Thorvaldsson
July 5
Jóhann M Thorvaldsson


    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.”

If the brother was Robert, he was present prior to 1844 when she gave her testimony, and I don't recall him complaining then. It would be interesting seeing what the basis of his objection was.

Or, is it possible that this is referring to her giving her testimony before 1844, not after? The sentence "When in my youth ..." almost sounds pre-1844, but I can't tell for sure.

    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).

Excellent, Johann. Great reference. Now if we can determine what Haskell's explanation was in 1880, and how he applied that explanation to the question of WO, we would have some more info to work with.

I just went to http://drc.whiteestate.org/ and searched for "women preaching." The first item in the results list refers to articles by some of the pioneers on this topic. I think it would be interesting to identify which articles are being referred to, and reading them to see what they say. Here's one sentence: "Waggoner's article was especially interesting to me because he explicitly distinguished between the right of women to speak and the role of the pastor or ruling elder. He held that the Bible grants the former to women, but not the latter."

That's all I can look at for now.

[Johann]

Excellent, Johann. Great reference. Now if we can determine what Haskell's explanation was in 1880, and how he applied that explanation to the question of WO, we would have some more info to work with.

I just went to http://drc.whiteestate.org/ and searched for "women preaching." The first item in the results list refers to articles by some of the pioneers on this topic. I think it would be interesting to identify which articles are being referred to, and reading them to see what they say. Here's one sentence: "Waggoner's article was especially interesting to me because he explicitly distinguished between the right of women to speak and the role of the pastor or ruling elder. He held that the Bible grants the former to women, but not the latter."

That's all I can look at for now.

The context tells us that Haskell was responding to the text about women supposing to be silent which was applied prevent EGW from speaking to the congregation, and Ellen approved of his application convincing the audience that the text should not be taken literally.

As for Waggoner, was he a prophet? Did his words prevent a GC in session to vote that female elders could be ordained?

[Bob Pickle]

The context tells us that Haskell was responding to the text about women supposing to be silent which was applied prevent EGW from speaking to the congregation, and Ellen approved of his application convincing the audience that the text should not be taken literally.

There is no hint in the quotation given that Haskell advocated or Ellen White approved of an abandonment of Adventist hermeneutic principles. There is no hint that Haskell's explanation involved not taking the text literally.

"He took up the matter in a brief manner and very clearly expressed the meaning of the apostles words."

It very clearly indicates that Haskell advocated accepting Paul's statement as it was, without spiritualizing or explaining it away.

As for Waggoner, was he a prophet? Did his words prevent a GC in session to vote that female elders could be ordained?

I don't know whether the question of ordaining female "elders" ever came up in a 19th century GC Session. As far as 1881 goes, Waggoner was not a delegate that year. The individuals who spoke to the resolution in 1881 were:

This was discussed by J. O. Corliss, A. C. Bourdeau, E. R. Jones, D. H. Lamson, W. H. Littlejohn, A. S. Hutchins, D. M. Canright, and J. N. Loughborough, and referred to the General Conference Committee.