Pacific Union Info on WO...

[Tom Wetmore]

2 hours ago, Green Cochoa said:

Where is your "thus saith the LORD" to support your allegation that headship is heresy?  Do Adventists base their views on Scriptures these days?  Or do they just like comparing to the Catholics?  Here's a text of scripture to prove your charges false:

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (1 Corinthians 11:3)

If that Biblical text is not "biblical" and it is not supporting "headship," I don't know what is.

You either have not been paying attention or have a very short memory, since this has been discussed here before a number of times.  And our Seminary released  a statement about it which you can read here - http://session.adventistfaith.org/uploaded_assets/468269 .  There are other resources that have been provided in the pinned topics here, including the OP of this topic.

[Rossw]

4 hours ago, Tom Wetmore said:

@Green Cochoa and @Rossw Both of you seem to miss the point on this. (As seems so often the case...) When I said it was sad I was primarily reacting to  the "it won't bother me one bit" part.  The church splitting over this or any issue is and should be a matter of very serious concern.  But to declare that you really don't care is just plain disturbing.

As usual you are twisting my words. It is obvious the church will split over the issue like many other denominations have or are. Does it really bother me?...not really because my faith in God is unshakable. The part you've twisted is that I don't care. That just isn't true otherwise I wouldnt be here passionately arguing my position. See, there is a difference.

[Green Cochoa]

7 hours ago, Tom Wetmore said:

Now you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth...  You and Ross have been insisting on a "Thus saith the Lord" and ignoring or rejecting anything you deem to be extra-Biblical, even clear and undisputed contextual information.  Now when the absence of that explicit directive from God on the key disputed issue of ordination, it no longer matters.  

Nice try...  

Perhaps God speaks from both sides of His mouth, if that is how you wish to characterize the "thus saith the LORD"--hence the "twoedged sword" in His mouth (see Rev. 1:16).  But the fact is, His directives are clear and plain enough a child could understand them in this situation.  Even a child knows  a "husband" is a man, not a woman.  Why should God need to tell you any more plainly?  Keep Sunday, if you will, for God never forbad it.  How is it that you do not see your views as self-contradictory?  You want to ordain women because the Bible does not forbid it.  Then why don't you want to keep Sunday too?  What would you tell the Sunday-keeper who brings you that argument, that God never forbad it?  Really, now, I would like to hear how you could answer that question in favor of the true Sabbath, without compromising your position on women's ordination.

Find me even one text of scripture that says any of the following, if you can:

1) That we (the church) should ordain women;

2) That women should have hands laid on them;

3) That women should be bishops;

4) That women should be deacons;

5) That the wife of one husband should be a church leader in any capacity;

6) That the church should allow women into the same roles as men;

7) That Christ abolished the patriarchy;

8) That headship is heresy;

9) That a prophet equals an elder or an eldress; OR

10) Any similar definitive textual command beyond an ambiguous "well so-and-so did/was . . . ."

 

The "husband of one wife" passages are clear (see 1 Timothy 3).  There is no equivalent for them in the Bible directing women toward roles in church leadership.  

[Rossw]

What I see quite a lot from the pro-WO are arguments founded in SDA church history. Does what the church did historically set any precedence over what is written in Scripture? Is the SDA church infallible. If the church is fallible how do we use it as evidence? 

Next question is, what is the church? Is it a/the denomination and it's leadership? Or is the church really a grass roots organization and movement?

[Rossw]

9 hours ago, Tom Wetmore said:

@Green Cochoa The split is more likely to be that those who are so adamantly opposed will leave because women in ministry in the Adventist Church is here to stay and support for it is growing.  

Purely conjecture. I don't believe those who are shaken out are shaken by a 'popular' movement. Likely it will be an unpopular movement that will shake out the popular group. We have an idea the unpopular view ultimately wins out because we know even most SDAs won't be saved. Seems very similar to the unpopular beginnings of the Reformation. We know it is a "thus saith the Lord" side that will always prevail which obviously is not a popular view even here. My personal opinion is this forum is very anti-fundamentalist. The fundamentals of what sets SDAism apart is rooted in Scripture. Without fundamentalism where is the SDAism? We might as well just be any other denomination and join hands with them. But going to the Scriptures alone is what SDAism is all about yet it is my impression this forum goes everywhere but to Scripture. It is amazing to hear SDAs reject Scripture.

[Rossw]

9 hours ago, Tom Wetmore said:

@Green Cochoa and @Rossw That idea is shared by many opposers of women in ministry  within the Adventist Church conflating this with some end of time scenario of the "shaking" and/or last generation theology that purging the church of all sin is necessary so that that those that remain will be the purified and righteous remnant ones fit for the kingdom that God is waiting for.  Thatt really becomes hard to reconcile for those so adamant that WO and women in ministry and leadership is a moral issue as long as support for it within the Church continues to grow. 

Do you believe we are in the end times?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

 

8 minutes ago, Rossw said:

we know even most SDAs won't be saved.

more than 50% of Adventists won't be saved?  Where's the "thus saith the Lord" for that bit of prophecy?

[Rossw]

It is a solemn statement that I make to the church, that not one in twenty whose names are registered upon the church books are prepared to close their earthly history, and would be as verily without God and without hope in the world as the common sinner. They are professedly serving God, but they are more earnestly serving mammon. This half-and-half work is a constant denying of Christ, rather than a confessing of Christ. So many have brought into the church their own unsubdued spirit, unrefined; their spiritual taste is perverted by their own immoral, debasing corruptions, symbolizing the world in spirit, in heart, in purpose, confirming themselves in lustful practices, and are full of deception through and through in their professed Christian life. Living as sinners, claiming to be Christians! Those who claim to be Christians and will confess Christ should come out from among them and touch not the unclean thing, and be separate. . . . {ChS 41.1}

[Robert]

10 hours ago, Green Cochoa said:

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." (1 Corinthians 11:3)

Eph 5:22 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body.....

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her...

• Christ is the head of the church.  No man or woman is the head.
• The wife is to voluntarily subject herself to her husband as she does to the Lord.  Does the Lord coerce?  Does the Lord force?  No.  So if the husband becomes a tyrant she is not to subject herself to such.
• The husband is to love his wife as he naturally cares for himself.  Furthermore the husband is love his wife as Christ loved the church.  We must keep in mind that the majority of God's people turned against Christ and had Him nailed to a tree.  Nevertheless, Christ still loved His bride, the church. That's how the husband is to love his wife.

 

[Robert]

34 minutes ago, rudywoofs (Pam) said:

 

more than 50% of Adventists won't be saved?  Where's the "thus saith the Lord" for that bit of prophecy?

This is the only thing I could find:

http://ellenwhite.org/content/file/19-20-adventists-will-be-lost#document

[Robert]

Quote

"Not one in twenty whose names are registered upon the church books are prepared to close their earthly history, and would be as verily without God and without hope in the world as the common sinner."

Why?

Quote

"....their own unsubdued spirit, unrefined; their spiritual taste is perverted by their own immoral, debasing corruptions, symbolizing the world in spirit, in heart, in purpose, confirming themselves in lustful practices, and are full of deception through and through in their professed Christian life. Living as sinners, claiming to be Christians! "

These are simply carnal Christians living for the desires of their natures as a lifestyle.  This has nothing to do with ordination.

Again, I do not have a dog in the race....Ordination is not a salvation issue, right?

Now, if you asked me I would rather have male pastors.  That's what I am use to....

[Green Cochoa]

19 minutes ago, Robert said:

Eph 5:22 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body.....

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her...

• Christ is the head of the church.  No man or woman is the head.
• The wife is to voluntarily subject herself to her husband as she does to the Lord.  Does the Lord coerce?  Does the Lord force?  No.  So if the husband becomes a tyrant she is not to subject herself to such.
• The husband is to love his wife as he naturally cares for himself.  Furthermore the husband is love his wife as Christ loved the church.  We must keep in mind that the majority of God's people turned against Christ and had Him nailed to a tree.  Nevertheless, Christ still loved His bride, the church. That's how the husband is to love his wife.

 

Interestingly, Jesus refers to the men working in His vineyard as the "husbandmen."  You don't suppose they are only working for their wives, do you?  The story of the husbandmen is in all three of the Synoptic Gospels.

[Green Cochoa]

3 minutes ago, Robert said:

Again, I do not have a dog in the race....Ordination is not a salvation issue, right?

Any sin, however small, persistently cherished, is sufficient to neutralize all the power of the Gospel.  Some may think that ordination is not a salvific issue. They may not realize how important it is to God.  Can you know if God is particular about it or not?  Or can you just presume to think your opinion is also God's mind on the matter?

The truth and the glory of God are inseparable; it is impossible for us, with the Bible within our reach, to honor God by erroneous opinions. Many claim that it matters not what one believes, if his life is only right. But the life is molded by the faith. If light and truth is within our reach, and we neglect to improve the privilege of hearing and seeing it, we virtually reject it; we are choosing darkness rather than light.  {GC 597.2}  

[Robert]

11 minutes ago, Green Cochoa said:

Interestingly, Jesus refers to the men working in His vineyard the "husbandmen."  You don't suppose they are only working for their wives, do you?  The story of the husbandmen is in all three of the Synoptic Gospels.

Again, it is not a major issue with me.  As I said, I prefer men as Pastors.  Why?  Because that's what I am accustom to....

Also keep in mind I am a non-attending Christian.  I left the local SDA church because I believed they were teaching a subtle form of legalism.

Besides this legalistic, perfectionism helped turn me into tyrant at home.  I know how men can abuse their power - as in it's my way or the highway.  Been there, done that....

[Robert]

8 minutes ago, Green Cochoa said:

Any sin, however small, persistently cherished, is sufficient to neutralize all the power of the Gospel.  Some may think that ordination is not a salvific issue. They may not realize how important it is to God.  Can you know if God is particular about it or not?  Or can you just presume to think your opinion is also God's mind on the matter?

It is one thing if anyone, man or woman, forces their way into ordination -that's sin, but ordination of women is sin?  I'm not so sure about that....

[Tom Wetmore]

5 minutes ago, Robert said:

Besides this legalistic, perfectionism helped turn me into tyrant at home.  I know how men can abuse their power - as in it's my way or the highway.  Been there, done that....

Maybe that is a strong reason against preferring men as pastors...

[Robert]

3 minutes ago, Tom Wetmore said:

Maybe that is a strong reason against preferring men as pastors...

It's more about what I am use to....

[Tom Wetmore]

1 hour ago, Green Cochoa said:

Any sin, however small, persistently cherished, is sufficient to neutralize all the power of the Gospel.  Some may think that ordination is not a salvific issue. They may not realize how important it is to God.  Can you know if God is particular about it or not?  Or can you just presume to think your opinion is also God's mind on the matter?

It sort of seems that you are so presuming...

Since you are the one demanding texts of Scripture, perhaps you could give us just that very text of why ordination (as we are practicing it in the modern era) is of such moral important to God that he would regarding getting it wrong to be a sin.  

[Robert]

Quote

“Those who would in any way lessen the force of the sharp reproofs which God has given me (Ellen G. White) to speak must meet their work at the judgment" [5 Testimonies, 19-20]

Notice God gave her these sharp reproofs.  Doesn't that go against your understanding of 1 Tim 2:12

"And I do not permit a woman (e.g., EGW) to teach or to have authority over a man"

[Green Cochoa]

39 minutes ago, Robert said:

It is one thing if anyone, man or woman, forces their way into ordination -that's sin, but ordination of women is sin?  I'm not so sure about that....

Remember, there was nothing poisonous in the fruit that Eve ate.  It was perfectly good for food.  Why was it a sin, then, for her to eat it?

Obedience to God is more important than simply following what "seems right" to a man's sight--which ends in death.

[Robert]

5 minutes ago, Green Cochoa said:

Remember, there was nothing poisonous in the fruit that Eve ate.  It was perfectly good for food.  Why was it a sin, then, for her to eat it?

Eve's ultimate problem was that she trusted in her own wisdom above God's warning. She was truly ignorant concerning the nature of sin, that is, "knowing evil".  Hence she was deceived.  

What does this have to do with ordination?

 

[Tom Wetmore]

3 hours ago, Green Cochoa said:

The "husband of one wife" passages are clear (see 1 Timothy 3).  There is no equivalent for them in the Bible directing women toward roles in church leadership.  

Since you singled out this one, yes there is such a reference in 1Timothy 5:9-10. This is about the older (elder) widows over the age of 60 in the context of their role as the mentors of the younger women.  Remember that this is in the passage where Paul is talking to Timothy about working with the body of elders. (The textual evidence that he is including these in the discussion of the body of elders is that he is still expressly continuing to talk about the elders  in verse 17.)  There is some suggestion that these widows were a special office for these widows to mentor and teach the younger women.  

And notice specifically that Paul indeed uses the same 3 Greek words when he qualifies them if they were the "wife of one husband".  The same qualification for an elder/deacon/bishop is phrased as the "husband of one wife".  The literal Greek is "one woman man" or in reference to the elder widows "one man woman".   In Greek this is really not gender specific phrase. The phrase appears to be a Greek idiomatic phrase that simply means "monogamous" and even today its literal English translation  is used informally in popular culture to convey the same meaning - A man/woman who is a one woman man, or a one man woman is not a philanderer and is faithful to just one woman/man.

[Gregory Matthews]

Rossw quoted the following statement from Ellen White, below:

If one accepted as truth that statement in the year that EGW made it, is should be noted that nowhere did EGW state that right down to the end of time there would never by a time in which that ratio  changed.  To apply such a statement to our time today is to put words in her mouth that she did not say.  Perhaps it is exactly true today?  Perhaps today it is less than 1 in 50?  Perhaps it is 1 in 5?  One cannot know and EGW did not say.  To speculate today would be going beyond any inspired word, pure speculation without Biblical support and judgemental even if it were said today to be 1 in 1,000.

 

Quote

It is a solemn statement that I make to the church, that not one in twenty whose names are registered upon the church books are prepared to close their earthly history, and would be as verily without God and without hope in the world as the common sinner. They are professedly serving God, but they are more earnestly serving mammon. This half-and-half work is a constant denying of Christ, rather than a confessing of Christ.

[Robert]

Ellen White was a woman

An even greater theological conundrum for thoughtful Adventists is how Ellen White factors into this discussion about women in leadership. One truth is beyond dispute: Sister White was a woman—fully engulfed in ministry.She wielded more global leadership authority than any Adventist male who ever lived. Ponder that while church historians argue whether or not the famous ordination documents that bear Ellen White’s name are valid.

Actually, the Bible doesn’t specifically address the matter of women being ordained. The New Testament discussion focuses on women not teaching men and being silent in church (as mandated by both Jewish and Greco-Roman culture). But Ellen White was anything but silent! She instructed and rebuked entire assemblies of (male) church leaders.

Which raises an interesting point. Those today resisting leadership for women tend to invest supreme authority in Sister White’s leadership and teaching—often as an infallible interpreter of Scripture. How do we explain this inconsistency to our neighbors—or even to our own young adults as we try to persuade them not to abandon their church family?

Let’s hope that our church will cease being in a state of denial regarding women in ministry. Let’s pray that delegates to the General Conference Session will resolve this matter both logically and theologically.

Martin Weber

http://atoday.org/women-in-leadership-a-logical-and-theological-mandate/

[Tom Wetmore]

It is interesting that the expression one in twenty seemed to be a popular ratio to express an idea of proportion.  EGW also describes that where there is one woman engaged in the gospel ministry there should be twenty and that if there were that many women so engaged the results would be astounding.