Another series on WO

[Gail]

I found this on SealingTime Ministries. Delievered by Ryan McCoy:

Women's Ordination- yet another series

[olger]

Is this pro or con?

Let me guess..

[Gail]

I dare you to guess!

[olger]

DOUBLE ??!!

[M. T. Cross]

I envy people that have 5 spare hours to watch something like this.......

[Guest]

DOUBLE ??!!

I DOUBLE DOG dare ya!!

[debbym]

i am reminded these quotes on worldliness were written before the flood of sensual content on the internet, and warnings on worldliness are well taken with the massive entertainement industry with floods of appeals night and day.

isaiah 3:12, 13

is used to justify fear of womens ordination.

i could understand that if we live under the rule of humanity and not under the rulership of God.

If and family or organization does not have the leadership of the Holy Spirit, there is an exercise of human authority that attempts to compensate for God's authority.

Chidren will attempt to rule over their parents if there is no love.

men will attempt to violently rule over their wives and children and create almost infinfite rebellion when there is not love.

women will struggle with mo peace with the controlling of children and husbands when there is no love ruling hearts by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Children obey in the Lord, women obey in the Kord, men obey in the Lord. we all must be Obedient in Love to the Holy Spirit to have the more abundant life Jesus came to give.

I do not read this to mean women cannot serve the Gospel work in submission to and obedience to God in positions of leadership. those are not positions of rulership, but of service with humility and prayer, and sometimes tears.

[Gail]

Well said!

[olger]

Thanks for the verses in Isaiah.

This passage is not an approbation of the 'tolerance' of God's people, but rather a divine rebuke of their weakness'.

If there was ever a time for the realization of Ellen White's injunction on men, that time is now. "The greatest want of the world is the want of men-men who will not be bought or sold; men who in their inmost souls are true and honest; men who do not fear to call sin by its right name; men whose conscience is as true to duty as the needle to the pole; men who will stand for the right though the heavens fall." Forbes.com

Rejoice always,

`G

[Tom Wetmore]

Ger, do you think that the woman that penned that wisdom and someone that personally exemplified its content, was using the word "men" to mean "male only"? Or would you be willing to recognize the 19th Century (and even today) vernacular usage of "man" or "men" as being inclusive of all mankind, including women, and even boys and girls?

[LifeHiscost]

i could understand that if we live under the rule of humanity and not under the rulership of God.

If and family or organization does not have the leadership of the Holy Spirit, there is an exercise of human authority that attempts to compensate for God's authority.

Children will attempt to rule over their parents if there is no love.

men will attempt to violently rule over their wives and children and create almost infinite rebellion when there is not love.

women will struggle with no peace with the controlling of children and husbands when there is no love ruling hearts by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Children obey in the Lord, women obey in the Lord, men obey in the Lord. we all must be Obedient in Love to the Holy Spirit to have the more abundant life Jesus came to give.

I do not read this to mean women cannot serve the Gospel work in submission to and obedience to God in positions of leadership. those are not positions of rulership, but of service with humility and prayer, and sometimes tears.

[debbym]

Quote:

Excellent discernment, a gift of the Holy Spirit. Other than correcting some of the obvious typos, there is only one thing I would change in your post. The first quote as you wrote it and the second a reiteration with the change I took the liberty of making that will be evidenced in the life of one who is born again.

i appreciate your response, i am house sitting, and there are three keys on this keyboard with their letters. this presents challenges for a hunt an peck typosts as i am .... lol

but i would still urge, that love must be the ruling force in our obedience to God who only accepts free will service, in contrast with the ways of our fallen nature.

yes love is the governing authority and will ever be the kindom of heaven in our hearts.

Most ceretainly! God does not save us to leave us under the rulership of a kingdom of force and coercion, manipulation, and various degress of violence.

and this browser has zero spell check lol ouch!!

so anyone who can please edit my posts freely to spiff up these errors.

[Gail]

I think they are charming :)

[debbym]

Gaul,

you are so sweet.

ty

but edit away any time ...

[olger]

I like the reminder of the changing power of love.

As to biblical male headship, must it be taken as an insult or threat to women? Not at all. Eve was Adam’s equal in the only sense in which equality creates personal worth. Adoption into God’s family. In a parallel sense, a church member has just as much freedom and significance as a church elder. But the elder is to lead and the member is to support – no cause for offense there. I see this fallacy again and again in feminist argumentation. “Subordination = denigration” and “equality equals indistinguishability.” Where does this convoluted thinking come from? Was the Son of God slighted because He came to do the will of the Father? Is the church denigrated by its subordination to the Lord? Never. Subordination is entailed in the very nature of a helping role (Genesis 2:18).

Why then, do some fellow church members resist this teaching so energetically? One reason is incidences of male domination asserted in the name of male headship. I have seen examples of this, along with examples of hostile, dominating women. Both are wrong. When truth is abused, a rival position (in this case feminism) that lacks logically compelling power can take on psychologically compelling power. In short, feminism is an emotive reaction to male domination, driven by pain or pride. But male domination and feminist rebellion are both a personal moral failure, not a Biblical doctrine.

If we define ourselves out of a reaction to bad experiences we will be forever translating our past pain into the present where it damages ourselves and others. We must define ourselves not by personal injury, or popular hysteria, but by the pattern of gender and sexual truth taught here in the Holy Scriptures. As the head, the husband bears the primary responsibility to lead their partnership in a God-glorifying direction. This is a Biblical principle that stands forever apart from changing cultures. And when we exchange Biblical principles with culture, we can go down all kinds of wrong roads—such as the July 29th vote by the Columbia Union Committee to “ordain” women in opposition to the expressed will of the world church.

Rejoice always,

G

[olger]

Gaul,

you are so sweet.

ty

but edit away any time ...

I don't believe calling Gail a western European is helping our communication.

[olger]

Ger, do you think that the woman that penned that wisdom and someone that personally exemplified its content, was using the word "men" to mean "[males]..."?

[Gail]

Originally Posted By: debbym

Gaul,

you are so sweet.

ty

but edit away any time ...

I don't believe calling Gail a western European is helping our communication.

She can use whatever term of endearment she wants- I trust her! LOL

But I understand her struggle with the letter less keyboard. All is forgiven!

[Guest]

Gaul, you have some gail saying that!

[olger]

Gaul, you have some gail saying that!

That is stupendous !!!

[olger]

She can use whatever term of endearment she wants- I trust her! LOL

But I understand her struggle with the letter less keyboard. All is forgiven!

Just teasin..

[8thdaypriest]

On the topic:

Paul wrote that he did NOT allow a woman to "have authority over a man."

Is that just within the church?

I have a friend who is a family court judge. She accepted that appointment when she had already raised her 2 children, so no child care was neglected. If she then steps over the threshold of the "church", she can have no "authority." It is very confusing.

The "church" seems to have held women to a subservient position, while the rest of our culture has moved past this.

Now - I am absolutely for hands on mother care of children - home schooling and all that. I do believe that when one chooses to have children, she must forgo other full-time out-of-home career obligations. If there is one sin that I must admit of, it is my disdain for women who give birth to children they cannot care for.

To me, this issue of women's role in the "church" must basically be about child care and early teaching.

But I'm not as concerned with "ordination" as I am with teaching. I have been teaching adults for some 34 years now. Occasionally I still get emails to the website telling me that a woman should "keep quiet."

There is an audio teaching at my website on the subject of a woman's role in the church. If you have the time - of course.

prophecyviewpoint.com

[Gordon1]

I have a friend who is a family court judge. She accepted that appointment when she had already raised her 2 children, so no child care was neglected. If she then steps over the threshold of the "church", she can have no "authority." It is very confusing.

It needn't be confusing. The church runs by a different set of rules.

Culture may appear to progress, but we are fast becoming less orderly, more selfish, a greater rich/poor disparity; enslaved to self-destructive ways...ruled by passions & appetite. (Lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes & pride of life - 1Jo.2:16). In other words, farther from God with each passing year. We cannot afford to imitate the world's fashion (culture).

Surely it's no sin, crime, or even unseemly to call men and women to account in childbearing & responsibility. This should be a central part of the church's message, but alas terribly neglected. (And we wonder at our divorce rate, youth retention, etc.) Choosing to procreate, like choosing to marry, has life-long consequences. Few seem prepared.

"Ordination" is a term which has been hijacked to divide the church and subvert gospel order. Yes female workers should receive fair remuneration. Appoint women as gospel missionaries, they are a necessary force and can do a work which men cannot & should not do. Such includes reaching out to women.

But do not place women to lead the church. Here (in the the church/congregation/assembly) Paul teaches that "God is not the author of confusion..Let your women keep silence..as also saith the law".."Let all things be done decently and in order." (1 Cor.14:33-40)

[olger]

Originally Posted By: 8thdaypriest

I have a friend who is a family court judge. She accepted that appointment when she had already raised her 2 children, so no child care was neglected. If she then steps over the threshold of the "church", she can have no "authority." It is very confusing.

It needn't be confusing. The church runs by a different set of rules.

Culture may appear to progress, but we are fast becoming less orderly, more selfish, a greater rich/poor disparity; enslaved to self-destructive ways...ruled by passions & appetite. (Lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes & pride of life - 1Jo.2:16). In other words, farther from God with each passing year. We cannot afford to imitate the world's fashion (culture).

Surely it's no sin, crime, or even unseemly to call men and women to account in childbearing & responsibility. This should be a central part of the church's message, but alas terribly neglected. (And we wonder at our divorce rate, youth retention, etc.) Choosing to procreate, like choosing to marry, has life-long consequences. Few seem prepared.

"Ordination" is a term which has been hijacked to divide the church and subvert gospel order. Yes female workers should receive fair remuneration. Appoint women as gospel missionaries, they are a necessary force and can do a work which men cannot & should not do. Such includes reaching out to women.

But do not place women to lead the church. Here (in the the church/congregation/assembly) Paul teaches that "God is not the author of confusion..Let your women keep silence..as also saith the law".."Let all things be done decently and in order." (1 Cor.14:33-40)

This ^^^

[Johann]

Originally Posted By: 8thdaypriest

I have a friend who is a family court judge. She accepted that appointment when she had already raised her 2 children, so no child care was neglected. If she then steps over the threshold of the "church", she can have no "authority." It is very confusing.

It needn't be confusing. The church runs by a different set of rules.

Culture may appear to progress, but we are fast becoming less orderly, more selfish, a greater rich/poor disparity; enslaved to self-destructive ways...ruled by passions & appetite. (Lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes & pride of life - 1Jo.2:16). In other words, farther from God with each passing year. We cannot afford to imitate the world's fashion (culture).

Surely it's no sin, crime, or even unseemly to call men and women to account in childbearing & responsibility. This should be a central part of the church's message, but alas terribly neglected. (And we wonder at our divorce rate, youth retention, etc.) Choosing to procreate, like choosing to marry, has life-long consequences. Few seem prepared.

"Ordination" is a term which has been hijacked to divide the church and subvert gospel order. Yes female workers should receive fair remuneration. Appoint women as gospel missionaries, they are a necessary force and can do a work which men cannot & should not do. Such includes reaching out to women.

But do not place women to lead the church. Here (in the the church/congregation/assembly) Paul teaches that "God is not the author of confusion..Let your women keep silence..as also saith the law".."Let all things be done decently and in order." (1 Cor.14:33-40)

Does this have anything to do with trinitarian-ism? Just asking.