Moderators Gregory Matthews Posted July 10, 2015 Moderators Share Posted July 10, 2015 See: http://equalordination.com/george-knight-on-ordination/ D. Allan and Kevin H 2 Quote Gregory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whbae Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 I strongly believe that Dr. Knight is correct, but no matter what the people say there will be hard-core opponents! D. Allan 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members phkrause Posted July 11, 2015 Members Share Posted July 11, 2015 On both sides not just on one Naomi 1 Quote 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 More sharing options...
Moderators Kevin H Posted July 11, 2015 Moderators Share Posted July 11, 2015 Excellent post! hch 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators John317 Posted July 11, 2015 Moderators Share Posted July 11, 2015 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. Naomi 1 Quote 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 More sharing options...
Administrators Tom Wetmore Posted July 12, 2015 Administrators Share Posted July 12, 2015 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. Quote "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 More sharing options...
Moderators Kevin H Posted July 12, 2015 Moderators Share Posted July 12, 2015 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.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Tom Wetmore Posted July 12, 2015 Administrators Share Posted July 12, 2015 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. Naomi and Kevin H 2 Quote "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 More sharing options...
hch Posted July 13, 2015 Share Posted July 13, 2015 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? Quote His child Henry Bible student/Author https://www.loudcry101.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kevin H Posted July 13, 2015 Moderators Share Posted July 13, 2015 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. lazarus and Johann 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Tom Wetmore Posted July 13, 2015 Administrators Share Posted July 13, 2015 (edited) 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 July 13, 2015 by Tom Wetmore lazarus, Johann and Kevin H 3 Quote "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 More sharing options...
Johann Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 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? Kevin H 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Gregory Matthews Posted July 20, 2015 Author Moderators Share Posted July 20, 2015 (edited) 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 July 21, 2015 by Gregory Matthews Quote Gregory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kevin H Posted July 20, 2015 Moderators Share Posted July 20, 2015 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johann Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 Attitude? Culture? Bias? Moral integrity? Honesty? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johann Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 Is this suggesting that a rejection of woman's ordination is a rejection of the ministry of EGW? Definitely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hch Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 Definitely. As I understand it, rejecting God's prophets is not a good idea. phkrause and Kevin H 2 Quote His child Henry Bible student/Author https://www.loudcry101.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.