Pacific Union Info on WO...

[Rossw]

Tom, who is it that bruises the serpent's head? Who actually has their head bruised? Many Christians, myself included, think this is the first blessed promise of a Saviour. Do you agree? 

So, is God directly giving a promise, a curse, or the fact of the matter when he tells Eve... "And he shall rule over you.”

[CoAspen]

Quote

So, is God directly giving a promise, a curse, or the fact of the matter when he tells Eve... "And he shall rule over you.”

An example of 'round and round', asked and answered many times over!!

 

[Tom Wetmore]

The overall essence of the pronouncement by God in Genesis 3 is descriptive of the consequences of sin, a set of snapshots of the chain of events that their act of disobedience unleashed on the earth and humanity.  It is God looking into the future and telling them the long term ramifications of their sin.  But in the midst of it He of course of the description of the curse of sin  (Notice - not the curse of God but rather the cause of it all was sin)  The perfect rods rand ideal of God was changed, not in a good way or a beneficial way.  But as in all things God offers the first expression of His response to evil, that ray of hope that He would undue evil and overcome the consequences of sin in the end by crushing its source, the head of the serpent.  ( Head as source or origin is a meaning that seems quite lost by the teachers of the headship heresy.  Think "headwaters" of a river.)  But really that is pretty much the only part that is positive. The rest are negative predictions. 

As for the notion that the part where God says "and your desire will be for your husband", as I understand it this phrase in Hebrew is somewhat obscure and uncertain.  I would suggest that it is a contrast to what follows it and should be read as a single thought.  Sort of "despite what you may desire with your husband, he is going to lord it over you."  The equal relationship, the partnership, that God had created for the man and women was broken.  

 

[Rossw]

Thank you for answering my question directly, Tom.

[APL]

1 hour ago, Tom Wetmore said:

I think we are in agreement.  Point well taken on the precise wording.  My concern was less about whether God "cursed" or pronounced a curse and more about the object of the curse.

My point is that Genesis 3 is talking about the consequences of sin, and not that God wanted the results, including the relationship between men and women, for some take this to believe that this is what God wanted, to have women ruled over by the husband instead of the consequences of sin; a form of calling evil good.  

[Green Cochoa]

1 hour ago, APL said:

My point is that Genesis 3 is talking about the consequences of sin, and not that God wanted the results, including the relationship between men and women, for some take this to believe that this is what God wanted, to have women ruled over by the husband instead of the consequences of sin; a form of calling evil good.  

You dabble in definitions.  Did God want Noah to build an ark?  If not, why not? If so, why so?

God may have originally made Adam and Eve to be equals, but after sin a change was necessary.  God gave the woman His direction that she must submit to Adam's authority, not because God wanted it to be so in a perfect world, but because mankind needed it to be so in an imperfect world in order to make the best of their new situation and maintain some semblance of peace and harmony.  It was a curse/blessing--a "curse" from a "perfect world" perspective, and a "blessing" from an "imperfect world" perspective.  As long as sin remains on this earth, submission of one to another must take place in order to maintain harmony and order--which God DOES want.

[Green Cochoa]

God's Instruction to Eve.--Eve was told of the sorrow and pain that must henceforth be her portion. And the Lord said, "Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." In the creation, God had made her the equal of Adam. Had they remained obedient to God--in harmony with His great law of love--they would ever have been in harmony with each other; but sin had brought discord, and now their union could be maintained and harmony preserved only by submission on the part of the one or the other. Eve had been the first in transgression; and she had fallen into temptation by separating from her companion, contrary to the divine direction. It was by her solicitation that Adam sinned, and she was now placed in subjection to her husband. Had the principles enjoined in the law of God been cherished by the fallen race, this sentence, though growing out of the results of sin, would have proved a blessing to them; but man's abuse of the supremacy thus given him has too often rendered the lot of woman very bitter, and made her life a burden.  {AH 115.1}  

Notice that Ellen White, a woman, speaks the truth freely here in saying that "Eve . . . was now placed in subjection to her husband."  Those are not the words of merely a foretelling of what would happen.  Those are words indicative of a command.  That it was a command is further emphasized in the very next words: "Had the principles enjoined in the law of God been cherished by the fallen race, this sentence, though growing out of the results of sin, would have proved a blessing to them . . . ."

Ellen White makes clear that the submission of woman to man is not a sin, but a law of God.  Which of us has authority to change God's law, man or woman?

[Rossw]

2 hours ago, APL said:

 a form of calling evil good.  

Is that what is really going on here in this discussion?

[Rossw]

24 minutes ago, Green Cochoa said:

Notice that Ellen White, a woman, speaks the truth freely here in saying that "Eve . . . was now placed in subjection to her husband."  Those are not the words of merely a foretelling of what would happen.  Those are words indicative of a command.  That it was a command is further emphasized in the very next words: "Had the principles enjoined in the law of God been cherished by the fallen race, this sentence, though growing out of the results of sin, would have proved a blessing to them . . . ."

Ellen White makes clear that the submission of woman to man is not a sin, but a law of God.  Which of us has authority to change God's law, man or woman?

It makes sense to have a head of household to make ultimate decisions in a life that is sinful and full of discord.

Had we not had headship the home would be full of chaos and anarchy.

[Rossw]

3 hours ago, Tom Wetmore said:

 As for the notion that the part where God says "and your desire will be for your husband", as I understand it this phrase in Hebrew is somewhat obscure and uncertain.  I would suggest that it is a contrast to what follows it and should be read as a single thought.  Sort of "despite what you may desire with your husband, he is going to lord it over you."  The equal relationship, the partnership, that God had created for the man and women was broken.  

 

Does this belief reconcile with what EGW writes?

[Robert]

10 hours ago, Green Cochoa said:

Jesus said, "If ye love me, keep my commandments."  Are you His disciple?  We do not keep the commandments to be saved.  We keep them because we love our Savior.

Okay, I'll ask you the same thing I did Jackson:  On judgment day can you legally and honestly stand before God's law and claim to be blameless?  

If not, then technically speaking, you are not a commandment keeper.  Your aim might be to live up to its precepts, but the reality is "all have sinned (past tense) and fall short (present continuous tense) of the glory of God (i.e., His agape love)".  Rom 3:23

Quote

Which reminds me…why do women wish to be ordained?  To have equality? To have authority? To feel "empowered"?  To do something they could not have done without being first ordained? To earn more money? . . . . . . .

The same could be asked of men, now couldn't it?

Quote

Or is it because they are following a "thus saith the LORD", and, out of selfless love for their Master, desire to obey Him in all things?  If the latter, where is the command for them to be ordained?

I'm not so sure this is a "thus saith the LORD"?  There are good arguments on both sides, but I do not see this as a salvation issue.

 BTW, preaching "another gospel" is a salvation issue.  So maybe we should focus on the gospel and less on ordination.  

[Rossw]

Robert, let me ask you something. Was it a sin for Israel to reject God's command to go and inhabit the promised land?

[Green Cochoa]

3 minutes ago, Rossw said:

Had we not had headship the home would be full of chaos and anarchy.

Which is one reason why the divorce rate is climbing in the more "liberated" countries that are trying to remove the husband from the position of head of the home.

 

4 minutes ago, Robert said:

If not, then technically speaking, you are not a commandment keeper.  Your aim might be to live up to its precepts, but the reality is "all have sinned (past tense) and fall short (present continuous tense) of the glory of God (i.e., His agape love)".  Rom 3:23

That is a heretical translation, from the same Not Inspired Version (NIV) that would abolish the entire law of God in Colossians 2:14 and Ephesians 2:15.  The Authorized Version puts it this way: "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God."  That can be understood one of two ways: 1) "have sinned and (have) come short" (compound verb); or 2) "come short" -- will we ever equal God's glory?  That we do not have to keep falling is evident in the scriptures which say "be ye therefore perfect," "do not err," etc.  God would not ask us to do something that it is not possible for us to do.

[Robert]

49 minutes ago, Green Cochoa said:

It was by her solicitation that Adam sinned, and she was now placed in subjection to her husband. Had the principles enjoined in the law of God been cherished by the fallen race, this sentence, though growing out of the results of sin, would have proved a blessing to them; but man's abuse of the supremacy thus given him has too often rendered the lot of woman very bitter, and made her life a burden.  {AH 115.1}

"Men's abuse" in his supremacy; his pride and his power are characteristics of Satan, not the principles "enjoined in the law of God".  Thus men screwed it up....

If men agaped their wives as Christ agaped His bride, the church, then women would naturally trust men to be looking out for their best interest, but we know that's not the case.

 

[Green Cochoa]

1 minute ago, Robert said:

"Men's abuse" in his supremacy; his pride and his power are characteristics of Satan, not the principles "enjoined in the law of God".  Thus men screwed it up....

If men agaped their wives as Christ agaped His bride, the church, then women would naturally trust men to be looking out for their best interest, but we know that's not the case.

 

On this we might largely agree.  There is no question that men have abused their supremacy.  Many women have suffered as a result.  I have personally been in situations to help some of these women whose "husbands" did not serve the title.  

In spite of all this, God has never seen fit to revoke His sentence.  If the husband does not abuse his supremacy, it would still be a blessing today.

[Robert]

4 minutes ago, Green Cochoa said:

That is a heretical translation, from the same Not Inspired Version (NIV) that would abolish the entire law of God in Colossians 2:14 and Ephesians 2:15.  The Authorized Version puts it this way: "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God."  That can be understood one of two ways: 1) "have sinned and (have) come short" (compound verb); or 2) "come short" -- will we ever equal God's glory?

You understand that this is off subject?

Quote

 

Jack Sequeira:  

Romans 3:23:...For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God....

“For all have sinned.”  That is in the aorist tense in Greek, which means something that took place once and for all.  We will study later when we all sinned in the past in Romans 5:12-21.  But besides that, besides the fact that we have sinned in the past, now in the present continuous tense, “And fall (continually) short of the glory of God,” which is another way of saying we are sinning.  We sinned in the past, we are sinning in the present.  By inheritance and by performance, we are all sinners.

 

Also, God's glory is his goodness....His agape love.  See Ex 33:18,19

  

 

[Robert]

4 minutes ago, Green Cochoa said:

 If the husband does not abuse his supremacy, it would still be a blessing today.

Perhaps...but, what does this have to do with ordination? 

[Green Cochoa]

1 minute ago, Robert said:

You understand that this is off subject?

Sure.  You understand that you started this?

Why should I believe Jack over the Bible?  Do you believe that Jesus gave you impossible commands?  Maybe you believe that the command subordinating women to men is one of those?

[Kevin H]

15 hours ago, Green Cochoa said:

Which reminds me…why do women wish to be ordained?  To have equality? To have authority? To feel "empowered"?  To do something they could not have done without being first ordained? To earn more money? . . . . . . . Or is it because they are following a "thus saith the LORD", and, out of selfless love for their Master, desire to obey Him in all things?  If the latter, where is the command for them to be ordained?

Probably for the same reasons Mary Magdalene and Pricilla and Aquila and Paul wished to be ordained.  

[Green Cochoa]

1 hour ago, Kevin H said:

Probably for the same reasons Mary Magdalene and Pricilla and Aquila and Paul wished to be ordained.  

Where is your "thus saith the LORD" for this?  Did any of them want to be ordained?  If I remember the story, Saul/Paul was ordained, not from his desire at all, but because God ordered it.  Mrs. White elucidated his experience thus:

The solemn charge that had been given Paul on the occasion of his interview with Ananias, rested with increasing weight upon his heart. When, in response to the word, "Brother Saul, receive thy sight," Paul had for the first time looked upon the face of this devout man, Ananias under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit said to him: "The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know His will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of His mouth. For thou shalt be His witness unto all men of what thou hast seen and heard. And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." Acts 22:13-16.  {AA 126.2}  

Interestingly, there are two aspects here for ordination which our early church leaders also followed.  The laying on of hands appears to have been slightly less important than the other aspect, mentioned clearly above: "the charge."  

Did Paul come to Ananias wanting to be ordained? Nothing could be further from the truth than to think Paul wished to be ordained.  Paul was blind, and did not go anywhere.  Ananias came to him, at God's direction, not by Paul's bidding.  The passage by Mrs. White continues about Paul's calling as follows.

    These words were in harmony with the words of Jesus Himself, who, when He arrested Saul on the journey to Damascus, declared: "I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee; delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee, to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in Me." Acts 26:16-18.  {AA 126.3}  
     As he pondered these things in his heart, Paul understood more and more clearly the meaning of his call "to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God." 1 Corinthians 1:1. His call had come, "not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father." Galatians 1:1. The greatness of the work before him led him to give much study to the Holy Scriptures, in order that he might preach the gospel "not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect," "but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power," that the faith of all who heard "should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God." 1 Corinthians 1:17; 2:4, 5.  {AA 127.1} 
     As Paul searched the Scriptures, he learned that throughout the ages "not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: but God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; and base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: that no flesh should glory in His presence." 1 Corinthians 1:26-29. And so, viewing the wisdom of the world in the light of the cross, Paul "determined not to know anything, . . . save Jesus Christ, and Him crucified." 1 Corinthians 2:2.  {AA 127.2}  

 

 

[Robert]

9 hours ago, Green Cochoa said:

 Do you believe that Jesus gave you impossible commands?  

That's just it...Jesus didn't give us commands so that we could obtain heaven.  He came to save us from under law.  Why?  We ain't good enough under law.

Ellen White:

The tempter stands by to accuse them, as he stood by to resist Joshua. He points to their filthy garments, their defective characters. He presents their weakness and folly, their sins of ingratitude, their unlikeness to Christ, which has dishonored their Redeemer. He endeavors to affright them with the thought that their case is hopeless, that the stain of their defilement will never be washed away. He hopes so to destroy their faith that they will yield to his temptations, and turn from their allegiance to God.

Satan has an accurate knowledge of the sins that he has tempted God's people to commit, and he urges his accusations against them, declaring, that by their sins they have forfeited divine protection, and claiming that he has the right to destroy them. He pronounces them just as deserving as himself of exclusion from the favor of God. "Are these," he says, "the people who are to take my place in heaven, and the place of the angels who united with me? They profess to obey the law of God; but have they kept its precepts? Have they not been lovers of self more than lovers of God? Have they not placed their own interests above His service? Have they not loved the things of the world? Look at the sins that have marked their lives. Behold their selfishness, their malice, their hatred of one another. Will God banish me and my angels from His presence, and yet reward those who have been guilty of the same sins? Thou canst not do this, O Lord, in justice. Justice demands that sentence be pronounced against them."

But while the followers of Christ have sinned, they have not given themselves up to be controlled by the satanic agencies. They have repented of their sins and have sought the Lord in humility and contrition, and the divine Advocate pleads in their behalf. He who has been most abused by their ingratitude, who knows their sin and also their penitence, declares: "The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan. I gave My life for these souls. They are graven upon the palms of My hands. They may have imperfections of character; they may have failed in their endeavors; but they have repented, and I have forgiven and accepted them." [P&K 588]

Here's another:

The religious services, the prayers, the praise, the penitent confession of sin ascend from true believers as incense to the heavenly sanctuary; but passing through the corrupt channels of humanity, they are so defiled that unless purified by blood, they can never be of value with God. They ascend not in spotless purity, and unless the Intercessor who is at God’s right hand presents and purifies all by His righteousness, it is not acceptable to God. All incense from earthly tabernacles must be moist with the cleansing drops of the blood of Christ. He holds before the Father the censer of His own merits, in which there is no taint of earthly corruption. He gathers into this censer the prayers, the praise, and the confessions of His people, and with these He puts His own spotless righteousness. Then, perfumed with the merits of Christ’s propitiation, the incense comes up before God wholly and entirely acceptable. Then gracious answers are returned.

O, that all may see that everything in obedience, in penitence, in praise and thanksgiving must be placed upon the glowing fire of the righteousness of Christ. The fragrance of this righteousness ascends like a cloud around the mercy seat (Manuscript 50, 1900).

[Gregory Matthews]

Green said, below:

I can understand why Green not only prefers the KJV (NKJV ?) and rejects the NIV.  While I do not agree with him, I do not have a problem with him arguing in CA his position on this subject. 

But, his statement below comes across to me as a "cute" statement (Calling the NIV the Not Inspired Version) that is designed to get a laugh from people reading it.   I take great offense at anyone who attempts to get people to laugh at what many believe to be the inspired Word of God.   Personally, I think that Green is doing the work of Satan in such statements.  I compare what Green has posted here with what another person has posted in CA in saying that Paul is a liar and the Bible is not inspired other than the words of Christ, which are inspired.

I have blocked people from reading such statements by that other person.  Perhaps in fairness, I should also block people from reading Green's statement.  I have considered doing so.  But, in fairness to Green, I do not consider his statement to quite reach the level of this other person.  So, I have not blocked Green's statement.

 But, I will say to Green:  The work of God is not advanced by one's skill in scoring cute debating points that bring a laugh and present one as cute and/or smart.  While I assume you believe that your comment reflects the mind of Christ, I believe that it reflects the mind of Satan. 

Quote

That is a heretical translation, from the same Not Inspired Version (NIV) that would abolish the entire law of God in Colossians 2:14 and Ephesians 2:15.

[Green Cochoa]

Gregory,

As an Adventist, I must reject falsehoods wherever I find them.  If I find them in modern versions of the Bible (you, as a pastor, should also hesitate to call the NIV a "translation," as I know other pastors who also make no attempt to defend it), we know that Satan himself tried to use the Word of God in tempting even Jesus.  Why should Satan not use such tactics with us now?  We must be careful to accept truth, but reject error, regardless of its source.  I would like you to know that it is my firm conviction that the NIV is not inspired.  It is NOT a "cute" statement.  If you wish to use a more appropriate adjective for it, I might suggest "adamant."  You may disagree.  That is fine.  But my statement is borne of conviction and conscience.  How can you call Satanic that which God has brought me to understand as the truth?  

This is a women's ordination thread.  You and I disagree about the Biblical-ness of ordaining women.  Should I call your view "Satanic," how would you feel and/or react?  (I would probably get banned.)  But what if I actually believe that that is true?  Will you ban me for my honest convictions?

Gregory, humor does not often come from me.  I'm a man of conviction who writes from a serious sense of duty and a realization of the times in which we are living.  I do sometimes try to bring a smile if it will help me to make a point.  This was not one of those times.  You, nor anyone else, will be able to persuade me that the NIV is inspired after I have witnessed its many specious lies.  I mentioned two of them in my last post.  Did you look those up and compare them between the KJV and the NIV?  If not, please do.  And if you are ready to look at more falsehoods published by the highly-copyrighted NIV publishers, perhaps we can start a separate topic on this.  It does have a bearing on women's ordination, for the NIV's carelessness in addressing certain passages contributes to the general philosophy that God's Word is not so particular, and consequently, that God is not particular about whether a man or a woman leads His church either.  However, the topic of Bible translations can certainly stand on its own.  Is there such a topic here already?  If so, I don't yet know how to find it in this forum.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[APL]

15 hours ago, Green Cochoa said:

God's Instruction to Eve.--Eve was told of the sorrow and pain that must henceforth be her portion. And the Lord said, "Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." In the creation, God had made her the equal of Adam. Had they remained obedient to God--in harmony with His great law of love--they would ever have been in harmony with each other; but sin had brought discord, and now their union could be maintained and harmony preserved only by submission on the part of the one or the other. Eve had been the first in transgression; and she had fallen into temptation by separating from her companion, contrary to the divine direction. It was by her solicitation that Adam sinned, and she was now placed in subjection to her husband. Had the principles enjoined in the law of God been cherished by the fallen race, this sentence, though growing out of the results of sin, would have proved a blessing to them; but man's abuse of the supremacy thus given him has too often rendered the lot of woman very bitter, and made her life a burden.  {AH 115.1}  

Notice that Ellen White, a woman, speaks the truth freely here in saying that "Eve . . . was now placed in subjection to her husband."  Those are not the words of merely a foretelling of what would happen.  Those are words indicative of a command.  That it was a command is further emphasized in the very next words: "Had the principles enjoined in the law of God been cherished by the fallen race, this sentence, though growing out of the results of sin, would have proved a blessing to them . . . ."

Ellen White makes clear that the submission of woman to man is not a sin, but a law of God.  Which of us has authority to change God's law, man or woman?

" though growing out of the results of sin"  That is the point.  Do we like the results of sin?  Do we want to persist in that result?  Or do we look for restoration?  Many on both sides of the ordination issue have greatly abused the meaning of ordination, giving it unwarranted importance.  Ordination adds no new grace or virtue or qualifications.  Ordination is simply the recognition of an appointment to a given office.  Even the way ordination is often done is not biblical. 

[Rossw]

Before we make accusations on a member I think it would be more appropriate to first look at the verses Green quoted and have a proper discussion on the merits of either side. Looking at the 2 verses and comparing translations it is apparent there is a major difference.

Greg, remove this post if you feel it is out of line.