Jump to content
ClubAdventist is back!

DR. George Knight: Ordination & the Bible


Gregory Matthews

Recommended Posts

  • Members

On both sides not just on one

phkrause

By the decree enforcing the institution of the papacy in violation of the law of God, our nation will disconnect herself fully from righteousness. When Protestantism shall stretch her hand across the gulf to grasp the hand of the Roman power, when she shall reach over the abyss to clasp hands with spiritualism, when, under the influence of this threefold union, our country shall repudiate every principle of its Constitution as a Protestant and republican government, and shall make provision for the propagation of papal falsehoods and delusions, then we may know that the time has come for the marvelous working of Satan and that the end is near. {5T 451.1}
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Knight  said, "17. It is especially amazing that Adventists are having this debate, given the fact that the most influential clergy person in Adventist history was a woman."  

He neglects to point out that the woman he refers to was never called or ordained by humans but was commissioned by Jesus Christ Himself as His inspired messenger.  She never held an appointed office as "clergy."   Her influence was as a spokesperson for God, giving His messages, not as a minister or spokesperson of the church, which is what pastors, elders, ministers, etc., are.   The church could not tell Ellen White what to say, but the church can and does tell its pastors, elders, and ministers what to say. If a pastor teaches contrary to the church, they often get fired (as in the case of Desmond Ford and others.)   But a church cannot fire a genuine prophet of God.

Does God call men and women to service in the church?   Of course He does.  But the difference between Ellen White's "call" and the "call" of elders and pastors, is that the church must appoint them to their positions in order for them to be employed by the church in their offices.  Not so God's prophets, and let's remember that EGW was a prophet of God as surely as was Moses and Isaiah.

 So there are some very significant, relevant distinctions that seem to be ignored in Knights analysis.

John 3:16-17

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Part of the problem with that argument is that from at least 1883 until the day she died, EGW was in fact credentialed  and paid by the Church as an ordained minister of the gospel.  She was in fact paid on the same basis and at the same rate of pay as every other ordained minister working for the Church.  People that were employed by the Church were issued credentials and paid accordingly.  So indeed she could have indeed been fired as any other employee of the Church losing that credential and the pay that went with it.  

Of course she could not have been "fired" as the prophet of the Church in that same sense.   But her messages could have been ignored and her prophetic gifts rejected by the Church, even though they of course weren't. Not really pertinent since that is simple an I apposite  and meaningless hypothetical not really related to her recognition as an ordained minister that resulted in the General Conference issuing her those credentials  and paying her the salary of an ordained minister for more than 30 years. 

"Absurdity reigns and confusion makes it look good."

"Sinless perfection is such a shallow goal."

"I love God only as much as the person I love the least."

*Forgiveness is always good news. And that is the gospel truth.

(And finally, the ideas expressed above are solely my person views and not that of any organization with which I am associated.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

 But her messages could have been ignored and her prophetic gifts rejected by the Church, even though they of course weren't.

That is debatable....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

True. But to clarify, I was thinking more in a broad sense of the Church as a whole.  Some truly did and some continue to ignore or reject her messages as the prophetic gifts.  But I think the majority certainly continued to accept and understand her as such.  While many may still misuse, misunderstand, and misapply her messages, most still do so with a view that she had prophetic gifts.

  • Like 2

"Absurdity reigns and confusion makes it look good."

"Sinless perfection is such a shallow goal."

"I love God only as much as the person I love the least."

*Forgiveness is always good news. And that is the gospel truth.

(And finally, the ideas expressed above are solely my person views and not that of any organization with which I am associated.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Knight  said, "17. It is especially amazing that Adventists are having this debate, given the fact that the most influential clergy person in Adventist history was a woman." 

Is this suggesting that a rejection of woman's ordination is a rejection of the ministry of EGW?

His child Henry 

Bible student/Author https://www.loudcry101.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Not necessarily but close. While we hear of Billy Graham's son Franklyn, he also has a daughter who I've read is at least as good of not a better preacher than her dad. However, many times when she preaches there are a number of men who turn their chairs around because of how they interpret Paul. Those who reject women's ordination tend to have the same understanding of the text that these people who turn their chairs around for Billy Graham's daughter. However if they were to take the exact same stand they would have to reject Mrs. White.

However we have worked out a compromise. We read into these texts the word "Ordained" and interpret  them to mean that just as long as the woman is not ordained, she is free to speak in church, have authority and to teach and everything else that it appears Paul says they can not do. Thus they have a different guideline from those who turn their back on Billy Graham's daughter. As long as she is not ordained she is good to go. But if she is ordained than she is going against their understanding of Paul.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

This is but one example of some very serious bits of illogic that pervades the arguments against WO.  Many, if not most, of the arguments employed against ordaining women as ministers/pastors are really against the normal and expected roles and functions of being ministers/pastors. It has resulted in the outcome that our female pastors can do almost everything their male counterparts can do, except we cannot ordain them.  

But EGW presents some of the strangest anomalies in the parade of logical disconnects.  The role of prophet, sometimes in the OT called a man of God, is most significant and important  spiritual role to which humans are called. Some of the qualities/characteristics and functions of a prophet overlap what we expect of our pastors and church leaders. Some the very same things if done under the designation as exercising prophetic gifts, cannot be done by a woman if she is not recognized as a prophet, or only a pastor.  Yet when it comes to ordination of someone as a pastor, suddenly the status of being a pastor takes on an elevated position that is so more significant/important/spiritual/holy that a woman cannot be that, as if being a prophet must be a lesser role.  

Edited by Tom Wetmore
  • Like 3

"Absurdity reigns and confusion makes it look good."

"Sinless perfection is such a shallow goal."

"I love God only as much as the person I love the least."

*Forgiveness is always good news. And that is the gospel truth.

(And finally, the ideas expressed above are solely my person views and not that of any organization with which I am associated.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not necessarily but close. While we hear of Billy Graham's son Franklyn, he also has a daughter who I've read is at least as good of not a better preacher than her dad. However, many times when she preaches there are a number of men who turn their chairs around because of how they interpret Paul. Those who reject women's ordination tend to have the same understanding of the text that these people who turn their chairs around for Billy Graham's daughter. However if they were to take the exact same stand they would have to reject Mrs. White.

However we have worked out a compromise. We read into these texts the word "Ordained" and interpret  them to mean that just as long as the woman is not ordained, she is free to speak in church, have authority and to teach and everything else that it appears Paul says they can not do. Thus they have a different guideline from those who turn their back on Billy Graham's daughter. As long as she is not ordained she is good to go. But if she is ordained than she is going against their understanding of Paul.

And why is that called sola scriptura?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Taken at its face value, the Biblical teaching relates to the role that women should have in spiritual development.  Ordination is only a minor aspect of the issue that is not a focus of the central Biblical issue.

Non-SDA clergy  simply do not understand how a denomination that has a woman as a co-founder could have any argument as to ordination of females and the role that they should play in a church.

Yes, if I would to reject female ordination I would also have to believe the EGW should be  rejected as filling the role that we have given her. 

But, I believe both that women should be ordained and that EGW was used by God.

 

 

Is this suggesting that a rejection of woman's ordination is a rejection of the ministry of EGW?

 

 

 

Edited by Gregory Matthews

Gregory

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

And why is that called sola scriptura?

Because they have their "Proof Texts" in Corinthians and Timothy. Just like there is the proof text of the Rich man and Lazarus and being absent from the body and being present with the Lord and one man esteems one day above another.

The Sunday keepers who hold to  those proof texts turn their backs on Billy Graham's daughter when she preaches. Ours will be willing to sit and listen but they feel they are going against those proof texts if they place the label "ordained" on them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

If you find some value to this community, please help out with a few dollars per month.



×
×
  • Create New...