Print

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

[Johann]

*See explanation below

One of the rights a man has when he is ordained to the gospel ministry is that his call, his ordination, is recognized worldwide within the SDA church. As such, he can go to teach, preach, and minister anywhere in the world and the worldwide church allows and recognizes this as essential. There is no separate or different ordination for those in Ghana from those in Bolivia. Ministers travel, move, work, and live between all the world fields with total spiritual freedom.

Where did you pick up this idea?

If a minister is ordained in Japan and then goes to work in France, the church in France must recognize this ordination.

False. The church in France does not have to do that.

Enter CUC. IF a Union can draw up its own guidelines for ordination separate from the world church, then individuals ordained under these laws would, by current order of the church bylaws, be able to serve anywhere in the world at a later time. And the rest of the world would have to recognize their ordination.

False

But let's suppose that the New Zealand Pacific Union Conference used their new-found "power" to ordain whomever they want AND they ordain homosexuals to the gospel ministry, then all Unions in the world would be compelled to recognize and honor those ordinations, including CUC! Hey, if it's okay to foist their rebellion upon the rest of the church, why not another Union foist a deeper rebellion upon them (would be the thinking)?

False

CUC is opening a Pandora's box with their rebellion.

False

Gay pastors, coming to a church near you, thanks to legal precedents set by the CUC.

False

SDAminister

No wonder they manage to get so many people to sign against WO because of the lies and false information thrown out to the members.

Johann,
Did Gregory, Bob, and others sufficiently explain to you how and what rights ordination confers upon a man within the world church or would you like me to speak more directly to the points you dispute above?

SDAminister

Not sufficiently for you to draw the conclusions you do.

If you want to dispute that, I have no problem, because I have dealt with such questions for about half a century in many different countries.

[Bob Pickle]

Still -- the first argument was that since Columbia Union voted to ordain women, any woman ordained is an ordained minister the world over.   Thus, according to that poster,  any Union who choses to ordain homosexuals would mean that homosexual is an ordained minister the world over.   

That is NOT a valid argument since the General Conference has NOT agreed to the ordination of women.

That doesn't matter. The point that Ted Wilson made at the last annual council, as I recall, is that we presently do not view ordination on a region by region basis. We view ordination on a global basis. That's simply the way it is. And thus any woman or homosexual that is ordained in a single union would have an ordination that is automatically recognized the world over, UNLESS we change how we view ordination. But we haven't made any such change yet.

If the GC fails to make that change and individual unions start making that change on their own, then that would be another step in the process of the disintegration of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

[Bob Pickle]

Besides I do find equating women in the same class as those practicing what the Bible calls an abomination, very offensive.
Basically what it's saying is that men, due to their gender are righteous, pure and worthy, while women, due to their gender, are sinful, defiled and unworthy.

You may take it that way, but that's not what it's really saying. The point being made concerns the ramifications of changing our hermeneutical principles, ramifications that have been seen in other denominations and which we were warned about by C. Raymond Holmes, someone who personally experienced these kind of things in his Lutheran denomination.

I suggest that you read his book if you haven't done so already, and then letting us know if you still feel the same way.

Especially since the male priesthood was done away with at the cross and everyone is now invited to directly come to God through Christ.  There's no more need to go through a priest.   All are invited to go out and preach, teach, and explain the good news of the gospel to everyone.

Though doing away with an earthly all-male priesthood, Jesus established an all-male apostleship, yet He used women to be the first to proclaim his resurrection. All can preach, but not all can lead. It is the leadership aspect that is at issue right now, not the preaching aspect, since we are talking about ordination which confers the authority to organize churches and ordain elders and deacons.

[Johann]

Besides I do find equating women in the same class as those practicing what the Bible calls an abomination, very offensive.
Basically what it's saying is that men, due to their gender are righteous, pure and worthy, while women, due to their gender, are sinful, defiled and unworthy.

You may take it that way, but that's not what it's really saying. The point being made concerns the ramifications of changing our hermeneutical principles, ramifications that have been seen in other denominations and which we were warned about by C. Raymond Holmes, someone who personally experienced these kind of things in his Lutheran denomination.

I suggest that you read his book if you haven't done so already, and then letting us know if you still feel the same way.

Especially since the male priesthood was done away with at the cross and everyone is now invited to directly come to God through Christ.  There's no more need to go through a priest.   All are invited to go out and preach, teach, and explain the good news of the gospel to everyone.

Though doing away with an earthly all-male priesthood, Jesus established an all-male apostleship, yet He used women to be the first to proclaim his resurrection. All can preach, but not all can lead. It is the leadership aspect that is at issue right now, not the preaching aspect, since we are talking about ordination which confers the authority to organize churches and ordain elders and deacons.

When Ellen White spoke about the ordination women, she is not referring to deaconesses, as has been claimed, but public evangelism the way she finds it should be done in Australia as a model for world evangelism. There she does not mention organization of churches nor ordaining elders and deacons. Don't make majors out of minors.

[Bob Pickle]

It is something like what just happened in North Germany. The Union president seems to acknowledge that their decision to ordain without regard to gender is seen by some as a disobedience of the GC rule. He claims they were forced to do it because federal law in Germany now demands equal status for men and women employed also by a church. They could do it because the question of ordaining women is not regarded by the GC as a doctrine based on Scripture or the Spirit of Prophecy, but rather dictated by culture.

Johann, I wonder if in making this sort of claim, if the union in North Germany violated GC WP B 15 10(1)(b):

"Compliance with the law does not constitute a violation of scriptural principles."

Since the Scriptures explicitly state that within the home and within the church, men rather than women must lead, even though women are free to speak in church, for that German union to decide to ordain women in violation of GC Policy and GC Session votes is not allowed, and thus also appears to constitute rebellion. This is so because "compliance with the [alleged] law" constitutes "a violation of scriptural principles."

[Bob Pickle]

When Ellen White spoke about the ordination women, she is not referring to deaconesses, as has been claimed, ...

Why make the point if you aren't going to support it with even a shred of evidence? It isn't helpful to make mere assertions and expect us all to just take your word for it.

... but public evangelism the way she finds it should be done in Australia as a model for world evangelism. There she does not mention organization of churches nor ordaining elders and deacons. Don't make majors out of minors.

On what basis are you belittling the point by calling it a minor?

The fact of the matter is that when we are talking about the ordination of women today, we are talking about granting women the authority to ordain elders and deacons, and the authority to organize churches. That's what we are talking about. Calling that a minor would be about the same as discussing creation vs. evolution, and then calling it a minor point whether "creation" means a 6-day creation or a creation via slow changes over a long period of time. You'll remember how Bille Burdick wanted to define "creation" in something along those lines.

[Johann]

When Ellen White spoke about the ordination women, she is not referring to deaconesses, as has been claimed, ...

Why make the point if you aren't going to support it with even a shred of evidence? It isn't helpful to make mere assertions and expect us all to just take your word for it.

I sure did, but again you refuse to look at it. Are you scared of something? I gave the link in another post of mine, an article wrongly attributed to Ivan Blazen

... but public evangelism the way she finds it should be done in Australia as a model for world evangelism. There she does not mention organization of churches nor ordaining elders and deacons. Don't make majors out of minors.

On what basis are you belittling the point by calling it a minor?

Why do you question that without reading what EGW says about it?

The fact of the matter is that when we are talking about the ordination of women today, we are talking about granting women the authority to ordain elders and deacons, and the authority to organize churches. That's what we are talking about. Calling that a minor would be about the same as discussing creation vs. evolution, and then calling it a minor point whether "creation" means a 6-day creation or a creation via slow changes over a long period of time. You'll remember how Bille Burdick wanted to define "creation" in something along those lines.

I have absolutely no interest in evolution, since I believe in creation, so you have to discuss that question with someone else. When EGW was in Australia she was writing about how women could be successful evangelists, even if they could not devote full time in that work they  should still be ordained. The story is longer than I can just give a quote in our discussion. I have already given you a reference, and it is up to you if you want to read EGW or not. If you don't want to, you have no right to belittle her words and what she has written about it. To me her words mean more than whatever someone else you quote may have said, and I prefer her hermeneutic of Scripture.

[Johann]

It is something like what just happened in North Germany. The Union president seems to acknowledge that their decision to ordain without regard to gender is seen by some as a disobedience of the GC rule. He claims they were forced to do it because federal law in Germany now demands equal status for men and women employed also by a church. They could do it because the question of ordaining women is not regarded by the GC as a doctrine based on Scripture or the Spirit of Prophecy, but rather dictated by culture.

Johann, I wonder if in making this sort of claim, if the union in North Germany violated GC WP B 15 10(1)(b):

"Compliance with the law does not constitute a violation of scriptural principles."

Since the Scriptures explicitly state that within the home and within the church, men rather than women must lead, even though women are free to speak in church, for that German union to decide to ordain women in violation of GC Policy and GC Session votes is not allowed, and thus also appears to constitute rebellion. This is so because "compliance with the [alleged] law" constitutes "a violation of scriptural principles."

It is only a portion of those who fight as if it means life or death against the ordination of women who claim this ordination is a violation of scriptural principles. The General Conference is not making that claim, since they only refer to unity. You cannot demand of the North German Union that they read the "authorized" writings of Bob Pickle and follow them. Neither have they accepted the wrings of Pipim as authorized, nor Doug Batchelor.

In order to maintain that the ordination of women is unscriptural you first have to accept the doctrine of male headship, an item that has never been among any of the doctrines of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

[Bob Pickle]

You cannot demand of the North German Union that they read the "authorized" writings of Bob Pickle and follow them.

If you can't bring yourself to post a response devoid of insults, then please stop posting.

In order to maintain that the ordination of women is unscriptural you first have to accept the doctrine of male headship, an item that has never been among any of the doctrines of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

I have already posted multiple articles from the 1850's to 1901 which contradict your statement. So your point is false.

[Bob Pickle]

Why make the point if you aren't going to support it with even a shred of evidence? It isn't helpful to make mere assertions and expect us all to just take your word for it.

I sure did, but again you refuse to look at it. Are you scared of something? I gave the link in another post of mine, an article wrongly attributed to Ivan Blazen

Stop the insults, Johann.

I have absolutely no interest in evolution, since I believe in creation, so you have to discuss that question with someone else.

Then if you don't want to discus the ramifications of your advocacy of changing Adventist doctrine of how we view the Bible, take your points somewhere else. In other words, either discuss the topic or don't discuss the topic. If you don't want to discuss it, bow out of the discussion of WO.

When EGW was in Australia she was writing about how women could be successful evangelists, even if they could not devote full time in that work they  should still be ordained. The story is longer than I can just give a quote in our discussion. I have already given you a reference, and it is up to you if you want to read EGW or not.

You never gave a page number. It is not up to me to read a long document and to try to guess which particular point you are trying to emphasize. I can't read your mind.

[Johann]

Am I to take as a compliment that you call those arguments of mine which disagree with yours, an insult. An insult to what?

Any more insult than the title of this thread?

[Snoopy]

Why make the point if you aren't going to support it with even a shred of evidence? It isn't helpful to make mere assertions and expect us all to just take your word for it.

I sure did, but again you refuse to look at it. Are you scared of something? I gave the link in another post of mine, an article wrongly attributed to Ivan Blazen

Stop the insults, Johann.

I have absolutely no interest in evolution, since I believe in creation, so you have to discuss that question with someone else.

Then if you don't want to discus the ramifications of your advocacy of changing Adventist doctrine of how we view the Bible, take your points somewhere else. In other words, either discuss the topic or don't discuss the topic. If you don't want to discuss it, bow out of the discussion of WO.

When EGW was in Australia she was writing about how women could be successful evangelists, even if they could not devote full time in that work they  should still be ordained. The story is longer than I can just give a quote in our discussion. I have already given you a reference, and it is up to you if you want to read EGW or not.

You never gave a page number. It is not up to me to read a long document and to try to guess which particular point you are trying to emphasize. I can't read your mind.

Again, Bob...  I find your tone is very condescending and offensive.  So if someone disagrees with you, they are insulting you?  That explains a lot!!

[Bob Pickle]

Why make the point if you aren't going to support it with even a shred of evidence? It isn't helpful to make mere assertions and expect us all to just take your word for it.

I sure did, but again you refuse to look at it. Are you scared of something? I gave the link in another post of mine, an article wrongly attributed to Ivan Blazen

Stop the insults, Johann.

I have absolutely no interest in evolution, since I believe in creation, so you have to discuss that question with someone else.

Then if you don't want to discus the ramifications of your advocacy of changing Adventist doctrine of how we view the Bible, take your points somewhere else. In other words, either discuss the topic or don't discuss the topic. If you don't want to discuss it, bow out of the discussion of WO.

When EGW was in Australia she was writing about how women could be successful evangelists, even if they could not devote full time in that work they  should still be ordained. The story is longer than I can just give a quote in our discussion. I have already given you a reference, and it is up to you if you want to read EGW or not.

You never gave a page number. It is not up to me to read a long document and to try to guess which particular point you are trying to emphasize. I can't read your mind.

Again, Bob...  I find your tone is very condescending and offensive.  So if someone disagrees with you, they are insulting you?  That explains a lot!!

In the process, why don't you also reprimand Johann for not specifying where in a lengthy document I was supposed to find the information he was referring to? Otherwise, your reprimand to me will seem biased and unfair.

[Snoopy]

Why can't you ever simply accept some responsibility for a change?  Rather than trying to crawl into my brain and telling me how to think or feel? 

[Bob Pickle]

Why can't you ever simply accept some responsibility for a change?  Rather than trying to crawl into my brain and telling me how to think or feel?

What change? It is a fact that I can't read his mind, and therefore there is no way for me to know which page out of a lengthy piece contains the information he wants me to read.

I have to face this kind of thing every now and then. For example, someone who believes in keeping Sunday may not be able to explain why we should keep Sunday, and so they ask me to read some thick book on the topic without telling me where in that thick book is to be found the answer to my question. I can't read their mind. I'm not going to read the whole thing and try to guess what part answers the question(s) that I raised.

If Johann thinks the answer is somewhere in the lengthy piece, it is his responsibility, not mine, to point out where.