Ordination Facts - New website

[Tom Wetmore]

http://ordinationfacts.com 

[Tom Wetmore]

A new whiteboard video that answers some of the critics ideas...  http://ordinationfacts.com/womens-ordination-facts-whiteboard/  

Well done!

[Tom Wetmore]

Has anyone spent any time on this site or watched the video?

[CoAspen]

Yes 

[Johann]

Certainly. It makes sense with some humor.

[brotherly love]

The video does not really tackle the subject, it is more of an appeal than a sound study of scripture. When i hear the words "we have nothing to fear of the future" this is a meaningless statement that could be applied to any situation or topic.

What puzzles me is that the narrator brings up Genesis and brings up the fact that Adam named the animals. In the Bible the naming of someone or something shows the leadership or dominion of that person or animal.

Adam names Eve in the Garden before the fall, this shows the leadership of Adam over Eve. The fall resulted when both partners failed to honor their respected positions.

What puzzles me is the 7th day sabbath is argued as being implemented at creation, but this subject of our roles was also implemented at creation but is being rapidly dismissed as being irrelevant.

[Tom Wetmore]

Both the man and woman at creation were given the role to rule over all of creation on this earth.  Together.  As equals.  So says Genesis and EGW.

This video, as I understand it is not intended as a comprehensive coverage of the subject, ut rather a response to a similarly styled video produced by those opposed to WO.

[brotherly love]

​Of course man and women were created equal to rule over creation. Humans were given this blessing. Females are just as human as men, and vice versa. This does not circumvent that within this blessing there are different roles and responsibilities between male and female.

It takes male and female to subdue and rule over the earth, and within this there are different roles.

So God created mankind in his own image,
    in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them.

²⁸ God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

What puzzles me is that the narrator brings up Genesis and brings up the fact that Adam named the animals. In the Bible the naming of someone or something shows the leadership or dominion of that person or animal.

 

​when Adam named the animals and birds, Eve had not yet been created...  The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.  Gen 2:20

Adam names Eve in the Garden before the fall, this shows the leadership of Adam over Eve.

there are occasions in the Bible where the mother named the child...  And then [Leah] had a daughter and she named her Dinah.  Gen 30:21   Apparently, this indicates that women could also be leaders, if one follows the theory in the above quote.

Edited May 26, 2015 by rudywoofs

[brotherly love]

 

​when Adam named the animals and birds, Eve had not yet been created...  The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.  Gen 2:20

 

​I am not sure what you are driving at with this detail? I would have to think that you somehow believe that Eve not being created when Adam named the animals somehow does not make him person of importance or leadership.

The first mistake many make is thinking that the Bible was written to us instead of for us. This makes a big difference.

The reason the narrative shows God instructing Adam, giving him responsibility and naming the animals before Eve comes on the scene is because Adam was the first born.

In the ancient Jewish bet-ab, the Patriarch was the leader of the clan. When he had a first born son, that responsibility would be passed down to him. This is why he would be given a double portion-his responsibility was greater than that of his siblings-he would need it. Anyways, the first born would live under the shadow of his father, learning how to lead and take responsibility until he was ready to take a wife, and hen finally lead the clan when his father passed away.

This is the thrust of Genesis 2, Adam was the first born of God (not literally)

1.Adam was formed first, and was created for God           

 Then the Lord God formed a man^[c] from the dust of the ground

2. Adam was given responsibility

¹⁵ The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it

3. God instructed Adam

¹⁶ And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; ¹⁷ but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

4. God starts to prepare a wife for Adam, Eve was for Adam

¹⁸ The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

5. God gave Adam more responsibility and authority

He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

6. Only after Adam was ready did God make adam a wife

²² Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib^[h] he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

God is likened to a Patriarch and brings the wife to the first born after Adam has learned responsibility and leadership.  This is the basis of the New Testament instruction on church government. Paul deals with this very clearly. The head of Jesus is God the Father, the head of the husband is Jesus , and the head of the wife is the the husband.

[brotherly love]

 

there are occasions in the Bible where the mother named the child...  And then [Leah] had a daughter and she named her Dinah.  Gen 30:21   Apparently, this indicates that women could also be leaders, if one follows the theory in the above quote.

​You probably think this is a "gothcha" moment, but in reality it supports the bible stance on who we belong to and given names. The wife would naturally be able to name her children because they belong to her. The commandment of honor your father and mother would apply to the relationship.

Abram is changed to Abraham, Saul to Paul because of their new identity belonging to God. This is not a theory, but a biblical reality. a woman in the west would take her husbands name because she had a heightened purpose identifying with him. This has biblical teeth. Modern feminism is opposed to the bible and finds this offensive.

Your response flushes out a wrongful idea imposed on the Bible-that who is our head and who we belong to is a master-slave relationship in which the wife would not have the right or authority to name her own children

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I was just pointing out the errors in your statements by using very specific, very blunt scriptural texts.  What spin you desire to put on those is up to you.

Good day..

[Tom Wetmore]

Order of creation has its limitations.  Fish and birds and mammals were all created before mankind.  The Sabbath was last.  It seems more the order of creation goes from less complex to more complex and higher order of creation.  

Regarding the artifacts of the ancient patriarchal society that are referenced as prescriptive of what we are to do now is subject to a whole lot of selectivity. It seems only that which is consistent with what one seeks to replicate or enforce or advocate gets noted to the exclusion of all else.  Undue emphasis is placed on the hierarchical relationship between  man and his wife but nobody seems to care about the patriarchal rights of inheritance.  That is not being viewed as a mandate.    

We see similar selectivity in viewing the statement regarding women in the NT that they should be silent, but nobody seeks to enforce the idea that they shouldn't cut their hair or that they should  cover their heads.  Why are those culture specific but not the other?  

The same happens in the key Genesis 3 text of the curse after the fall.  The only point mandated is the relationship between the man and the woman.  Nobody mandates that women should not be allowed measures to relieve their pain in childbearing or that men should have to work up a sweat to earn their bread.  The curse also includes a reference to toiling against weeds and thorns, but nobody has suggested that we should avoid herbicides for that reason.    The only point selected as mandatory for all time is men ruling women. 

[brotherly love]

Order of creation has its limitations.  Fish and birds and mammals were all created before mankind.  The Sabbath was last.  It seems more the order of creation goes from less complex to more complex and higher order of creation.  

​The Heavens and earth were created first, and it does no get more complex or a higher order of creation in which everything else dwells in it. If we are to read the text, the creation order is reversed in Genesis two-and this is to highlight the crowning jewel and purpose of God's creation-mankind

[brotherly love]

  Regarding the artifacts of the ancient patriarchal society that are referenced as prescriptive of what we are to do now is subject to a whole lot of selectivity. It seems only hat which is consistent with what one seeks to replicate or enforce or advocate gets noted to the exclusion of all else.  Undue emphasis is placed on the hierarchical relationship between  man and his wife but nobody seems to care about the patriarchal rights of inheritance.  That is not being viewed as a mandate.    

We see similar selectivity in viewing the statement regarding women in the NT that they should be silent, but nobody seeks to enforce the idea that they shouldn't cut their hair or that they should  cover their heads.  Why are those culture specific but not the other?  

 

​We dont have to replicate or cannonize the culture of an ancient society, but we do have to understand it. God chose to reveal Himself at a certain time to a certain people in a certain culture. This is why the slogan "the bible was not written to us, but for us" is vitally important. We need to understand the culture in order to understand the message.

It would be foolish to promote the inheritance structure of a patriarchal society-this would be cannonizing the culture, and not extracting the message. It was not wrong either, it was used at that time as it offered advantages and it worked.

The women be silent passage is very hard to interpret because we are not seeing the other side of the problem except bits and tidbits. We do know that women are allowed to prophesy in church, and that is not silence. We do know that there was a problem with women going house to house speaking something more than random average gossip. This would be another topic to dig deeper.

The headcoverings and hair is a great example of Paul using a cultural norm to communicate a message that goes back to Genesis 2. It is not about cannonizing the Coriinthian culture, but is using a particular culture outside of covenant Israel to communicate the message of Genesis 2. and the church.The head covering is used to communicate who are head is. The same goes for long hair and short hair. a person who would promote headcoverings is missing the message.

 

Edited May 26, 2015 by brotherly love

[brotherly love]

 

The same happens in the key Genesis 3 text of the curse after the fall.  The only point mandated is the relationship between the man and the woman.  Nobody mandates that women should not be allowed measures to relieve their pain in childbearing or that men should have to work up a sweat to earn their bread.  The curse also includes a reference to toiling against weeds and thorns, but nobody has suggested that we should avoid herbicides for that reason.    The only point selected as mandatory for all time is men ruling women. 

​Nobody mandates that a female cant comfort herself in her moon time or childbirth anymore than a person would refuse medication for a headache, a sling for a broken bone or whatever malady that has become us after the fall.

The toil on the earth with weeds and all that jazz is just an example, the text was not designed to communicate every possible example, but the message is that with great uncertainty, anxiety and hard work would men be able to provide for themselves or their family. This is true whether it a person is a blacksmith or a stockbroker

The relationship of man and wife predates the fall

Edited May 26, 2015 by brotherly love

[LifeHiscost]

​

The toil on the earth with weeds and all that jazz is just an example, the text was not designed to communicate every possible example, but the message is that with great uncertainty, anxiety and hard work would men be able to provide for themselves or their family. This is true whether it a person is a blacksmith or a stockbroker

The relationship of man and wife predates the fall

​

God is Love!  Jesus saves! 

[brotherly love]

I was just pointing out the errors in your statements by using very specific, very blunt scriptural texts.  What spin you desire to put on those is up to you.

Good day..

​An attack on character without substantiation is an ad hominem. This is heightened when your blunt bible verses dont support your claims but actually defeats your claims. This shows you are only into your version of truth even if the facts dont line up. To resort to a charactor attack only shows your bias and unwillingness to be part of a conversation.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

wrong again, but at least you're consistent...

 

[Stan]

***ouch***

[Tom Wetmore]

 

​An attack on character without substantiation is an ad hominem. This is heightened when your blunt bible verses dont support your claims but actually defeats your claims. This shows you are only into your version of truth even if the facts dont line up. To resort to a charactor attack only shows your bias and unwillingness to be part of a conversation.

Just as you have used a straw man argument to accuse others of using one you likewise do exactly what you accuse another of doing.  You, my friend need to get a better understanding of what a character attack is and what ad hominem means.  You miss on both counts but seem able to replicate them in actual practice.

Here is at least a primer - http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem   Once again, Pam is right...

[Tom Wetmore]

And by the way, you missed my point, entirely.  

 

If anything, you may have confirmed what I was saying. 

[CoAspen]

Maybe an introduction to Pam's dragons might help understanding.....dunno...just a thought...

[brotherly love]

A short quip on ad Hominem attacks from a website

http://skepdic.com/adhominem.html

Attacking a person, rather than the person’s position or argument, is usually easier as well as psychologically more satisfying to those who divide the world into two classes of people—those who agree with them and are therefore good and right, and those who disagree with them and are therefore evil and wrong.

The ad hominem is attractive to lazy thinkers, who would rather ridicule or belittle a person than seriously examine an opposing viewpoint. The ad hominem is also a tactic of the clever manipulator of crowds, the experienced demagogue who knows how to play on the emotions of people and seduce them into transferring their attitude of disapproval for a person to disagreement with that person’s position.

When the irrelevant claims are negative, this fallacy is called poisoning the well. It's purpose seems two-fold: it gives a person a false sense of license to avoid producing any evidence of his own while giving the illusion of providing a rebuttal; and, it creates the false impression that the position you hold is held in good faith while the position you oppose is held by corrupt or compromised people like the one you pretend to be refuting.

 

If anyone is interested in a discussion minus this type of immature attitude, then lets be adults and act accordingly

I was just pointing out the errors in your statements by using very specific, very blunt scriptural texts.  What spin you desire to put on those is up to you.

Good day..

She did not like the rebuttal I gave which actually undermnded her position, so instead of replying with a logical and informative rebuttal, she replied with a charactor attack that i was spinning her verses with no supporting evidence

Sorry, but that is an unsubstantiated character attack.

Edited May 27, 2015 by brotherly love

[Tom Wetmore]

Not really.  You are missing the whole point and seem unwilling to admit you are wrong.  Let me put this simply with two clear examples.  

 

"You are a fool." - Clearly  a personal attack. Fits the definition of ad hominem.

"What you said is foolish."  Not a personal attack. directly addresses the statement made.  Does not fit the definition of ad hominem.  

Administrative Note:

Disagreeing with you and your ideas, challenging them and characterizing them as wrong, foolish, flawed, ridiculous, orr anything of that sort has nothing to say about you personally.  Neither does using strong blunt language in doing so.  Pam wasn't engaging in any ad hominem commentary or arguments.  But you were.  Now accept that you were wrong and move on. Drop the arguing about arguing and get back to the topic at hand.

This is your second warning along these lines.

Edited May 27, 2015 by Tom Wetmore