Man and woman created as equals

[Kevin H]

11 hours ago, Rossw said:

Kevin, what makes me feel uncomfortable is if the church scholars are not all in agreement and not in consensus why is WO being pushed on the people in a camp meeting? Seems the Pro-WO movement is undermining the decision process and putting their agenda first in front of reason.

Cano I does seem to have an agenda. The first words out of his mouth in our pastoral search is if we'd like a female.

The way the church grows is through mutual looking at the evidence and study. Allowing both sides to speak and for our members to listen to both sides so that there is knowledge and that every person becomes convinced in their own mind and that we respect each other. We are not to wait for the church to demand us to believe one way. Hey, if the only information I had available to me on this topic was Dr. Holmes's book "The tip of the iceberg" I'd be in the anti- women's ordination camp. It is through sharing that we get balanced views and learn different perspectives and that is how the Holy Spirit leads the church.

[Robert]

9 hours ago, APL said:

We are heirs only at the second coming? No. We are heirs now....

It is at the 2nd coming that sinners become righteous.  We are heirs by faith, not in reality.   If reality then one is self-deceived. 

[Robert]

5 hours ago, APL said:

 "All men are of one family by creation, and all are one through redemption"

 

Me: This applies to the "in Christ" motif. 

 

In Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free. All are brought nigh by His precious blood. (Galatians 3:28; Ephesians 2:13.) {COL 386.3}

 

Me: Ditto 

Again, nothing about ordination. 

[Gregory Matthews]

Green said, below:

I do not know of anyone who would accuse you of insanity.

I find it interesting the Ellen White had many extra-Biblical books in her  library.  It is clear that she read them and sometimes quoted from them in her written works.  Of course, Green would probably tell us that as an inspired prophet God led her in the selection of the books that she read.

Regardless, it establishes the idea that it is O.K. to read books other than the Bible.

 

Quote

Though I be accused of insanity, of unreasoning irrationality, of disrespect of the learned scholar, or of closed-mindedness, I shall continue to stand upon a "thus saith the LORD" in place of an opinion of man.  

 

[Green Cochoa]

I read books other than the Bible.  I don't choose my doctrinal beliefs based on books other than the Bible and Ellen White.

 

But God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines, and the basis of all reforms. The opinions of learned men, the deductions of science, the creeds or decisions of ecclesiastical councils, as numerous and discordant as are the churches which they represent, the voice of the majority,— not one or all of these should be regarded as evidence for or against any point of religious faith. Before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain “Thus saith the Lord” in its support.  {GC88 595.1} 

Many posting here uplift the opinions of learned men.  Mrs. White tells us not to do so.  I regard her writings as messages from God, and therefore, as God's special instructions to me.  It follows, then, that to obey God, it is my duty to demand a plain "Thus saith the Lord."  Anyone trying to dissuade me from this is speaking for God's Enemy.

Women's ordination has no support via a plain "Thus saith the Lord."

[CoAspen]

Quote

Anyone trying to dissuade me from this is speaking for God's Enemy.

From the reading of the posters many words, it would seem that those speaking for WO he considers to be speaking for the Devil.

Hmmm, must be feeling 'secure' in their knowledge. Not like the rest of us poor schmucks, learning as we go but constantly seeking to learn more.

[Kevin H]

2 hours ago, Green Cochoa said:

I read books other than the Bible.  I don't choose my doctrinal beliefs based on books other than the Bible and Ellen White.

 

But God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines, and the basis of all reforms. The opinions of learned men, the deductions of science, the creeds or decisions of ecclesiastical councils, as numerous and discordant as are the churches which they represent, the voice of the majority,— not one or all of these should be regarded as evidence for or against any point of religious faith. Before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain “Thus saith the Lord” in its support.  {GC88 595.1} 

Many posting here uplift the opinions of learned men.  Mrs. White tells us not to do so.  I regard her writings as messages from God, and therefore, as God's special instructions to me.  It follows, then, that to obey God, it is my duty to demand a plain "Thus saith the Lord."  Anyone trying to dissuade me from this is speaking for God's Enemy.

Women's ordination has no support via a plain "Thus saith the Lord."

There is a big difference between learned men when church leaders just gave their opinion and would argue opinions, argue between views of 2 or 3 different Rabbis or 2 or 3 different church councils, or someone like John Darby or St. Augustine  to learned men who became say like William Tyndale experts in the ancient languages and share what he learned about the ancient languages to help us understand the Bible better. Especially since the mid 1800s when the world of ancient languages became much better known and they learn more every day. And where Biblical geography and archaeology and history. In today's word the learned people don't just give their final decrees like they did in the past but they show us how they got there. They share the evidence. We are free to review the evidence and come to our own conclusions. I read a fantastic article in Biblical Archaeological Review about the red sea. I disagreed with some of the conclusions of the author but the evidence pointed out some fantastic information.

It's not like "this scholar says" but "this historian points out this point of history" "this linguist points out this about the language structure and new denotations and connotations about this word."

For example, the scholars did not know what the word "Kataluma" in Luke 2 meant. they had a basic idea of "guest chamber" but did not know what that meant. They guessed that since Mary and Joseph were traveling that maybe it was another word for "Inn" so we have in Luke 2 the story that there is no room in the inn, we have Christmas plays with where the innkeeper is a major role and Desire of Ages talks about the unkindness of the innkeeper. But in recent decades archaeologists have uncovered  many ancient documents in Greek. The word Kataluma has shown up many times. Guess what, it does NOT mean "Inn" there was no inn in Luke 2. No innkeeper, The Kataluma was a room in the family home for out of town relatives. It was not the local hotel with a No Vacancy sign but Joseph's family that did not have room. (Now we don't know why there was no room. Were there relatives that did not want to help them out since they were not yet married? Or were they welcome but with all the relatives and little Sarah asking about the baby every 10 minutes and little Moshe asking for a drink of water every 2 minutes that they wanted more privacy. Also, recently it's been discovered that often birth was given in the stable area which tended to be caves because the weather in the house was often too hot or too cold and the stable in a cave was more moderate. But after giving birth they should have returned to the guest chamber, the Kataluma with the family. But there was no room so they stayed there and put Jesus in the manger.

Do these discoveries put down the Bible or uplift it as we know more about the Bible because of these studies?

[Green Cochoa]

20 minutes ago, Kevin H said:

Do these discoveries put down the Bible or uplift it as we know more about the Bible because of these studies?

Yes, you are putting down the Bible--in order to pick up something else that you would put greater trust in.  As for me, I will continue to believe Mrs. White and the Bible.  

Angels attend Joseph and Mary as they journey from their home in Nazareth to the city of David. The decree of imperial Rome for the enrollment of the peoples of her vast dominion has extended to the dwellers among the hills of Galilee. As in old time Cyrus was called to the throne of the world's empire that he might set free the captives of the Lord, so Caesar Augustus is made the agent for the fulfillment of God's purpose in bringing the mother of Jesus to Bethlehem. She is of the lineage of David, and the Son of David must be born in David's city. Out of Bethlehem, said the prophet, "shall He come forth . . . that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from the days of eternity." Micah 5:2, margin. But in the city of their royal line, Joseph and Mary are unrecognized and unhonored. Weary and homeless, they traverse the entire length of the narrow street, from the gate of the city to the eastern extremity of the town, vainly seeking a resting place for the night. There is no room for them at the crowded inn. In a rude building where the beasts are sheltered, they at last find refuge, and here the Redeemer of the world is born.  {DA 44.2}  

Angels behold the weary travelers, Joseph and Mary, making their way to the city of David to be taxed, according to the decree of Caesar Augustus. Here, in the providence of God, Joseph and Mary had been brought; for this was the place prophecy had predicted that Christ should be born. They seek a place of rest at the inn, but are turned away because there is no room. The wealthy and honorable have been welcomed, and find refreshment and room, while these weary travelers are compelled to seek refuge in a coarse building which shelters the dumb beasts.  {2SP 17.1}  

[CoAspen]

Some do not want the truth. What Kevin pointed out does not change anything about the birth of Christ, perhaps just the exact location. When we start to base our faith on mere words rather than the message of those words we become prisoners of them. The Bible is about God and His relationship to humans, that is who we worship not the Bible.

I would suggest that by clinging to 'words' without understanding the context and message we truly lose sight of God. The 'words' have become replacement for the message.

[Rossw]

1 hour ago, CoAspen said:

Some do not want the truth. 

What do you mean by that? If the Bible says the flood covered the whole earth yet science cannot explain a world wide flood we must contextualize the Bible to our errorful science? Don't think so

1 hour ago, CoAspen said:

When we start to base our faith on mere words rather than the message of those words we become prisoners of them. 

Neither the Bible nor EGW support your opinion. I don't look at it as a negative to be a slave to the words of God. It might be more intelligent to be a slave to God's word when we then have to give an account for our lives. 

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

1 hour ago, CoAspen said:

I would suggest that by clinging to 'words' without understanding the context and message we truly lose sight of God. The 'words' have become replacement for the message.

It is sad when a professed Christian wants to make a statement like this.

3 It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of[a]overseer, it is a fine work he desiresto do. 2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable,hospitable, able to teach, 3 not addicted to wine [c]or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money. 4 He must be one whomanages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity 5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care ofthe church of God?), 6 and not a new convert, so that he will not becomeconceited and fall into thecondemnation [d]incurred by the devil.

Is the context and the truth of that passage not self evident? Take any component out for contextual reasons and the passage is meaningless.

[Rossw]

I wanted point out this portion that I quoted earlier....

17 so that the servant of God[a] may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

[thur-oh, thuhr-oh] 

adjective

1.executed without negligence or omissions:

a thorough search.

2.complete; perfect; utter:

thorough enjoyment.

[CoAspen]

If you cling to 'words' with out understanding the message in context that why not just follow all  of the words in the Bible, "....if thine hand offends thee, cut it off!" 

[Rossw]

52 minutes ago, CoAspen said:

If you cling to 'words' with out understanding the message in context that why not just follow all  of the words in the Bible, "....if thine hand offends thee, cut it off!" 

Ridiculous. Your argument is a straw man. Do you know what fulfillment means?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

4 hours ago, Green Cochoa said:

As for me, I will continue to believe Mrs. White and the Bible.  

was the above a Freudian slip, listing EGW before the Bible?  

[CoAspen]

I have been told "thus saith the Lord" is what one must use.....not ridiculous, not an argument...just stating what is there!

[Rossw]

2 minutes ago, CoAspen said:

I have been told "thus saith the Lord" is what one must use.....not ridiculous, not an argument...just stating what is there!

You are improperly implying we must still follow the old covenant under a thus saith the Lord concept. The Bible itself gives us context to know the new covenant replaces the old. The old covenant was pointing to Christ in whom fulfilled was made. 

You imply thus saith the Lord is taken overly literalist. This is false yet you still erect straw men.

[Green Cochoa]

38 minutes ago, rudywoofs (Pam) said:

was the above a Freudian slip, listing EGW before the Bible?  

Sure wasn't.  Kevin specifically questioned Ellen White's account in The Desire of Ages.  He questioned the Bible itself as well, but less directly.  That is as I perceived it, at least.  The Bible tells us to believe God's prophets.  The prophets wrote the Bible and a prophet wrote the books of Ellen White.  As the 66 books of the Bible and the books of Ellen White are all God-inspired, to me they are equal.  The strange thing is: people here try to make Ellen White to be more than she actually was, and then try to make her writings to be less than they actually are, at one and the same time.  Kevin was saying Mrs. White was mistaken about Christ's birth.  What kind of prophet breathes out confusion?  God has said He is not the author of confusion, and that we are to believe His prophets.  The details Mrs. White provided in that story extend well beyond what I can find in my Bible.  The only way for Mrs. White to have provided that detail, then, is to have had revelation from God on the matter.  Unless, of course, you want to reject her prophethood and turn her writings into a "she made it all up" category of fancy fiction.  I'm not buying such a bill of goods.  In place of such Enemy-inspired propaganda, I'll continue to believe Mrs. White.  She said the following:

How many have read carefully Patriarchs and Prophets, The Great Controversy, and The Desire of Ages? I wish all to understand that my confidence in the light that God has given stands firm, because I know that the Holy Spirit's power magnified the truth, and made it honorable, saying: "This is the way, walk ye in it." In my books, the truth is stated, barricaded by a "Thus saith the Lord." The Holy Spirit traced these truths upon my heart and mind as indelibly as the law was traced by the finger of God, upon the tables of stone, which are now in the ark, to be brought forth in that great day when sentence will be pronounced against every evil, seducing science produced by the father of lies.--Letter 90, 1906.  {CM 126.2}  

[Green Cochoa]

Oh the irony of the question of equality between Ellen White and the Bible on a thread referencing the equality of man and woman!  Were the men who wrote the Bible superior to the woman who prophesied for God in our time?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

42 minutes ago, Green Cochoa said:

Sure wasn't.  Kevin specifically questioned Ellen White's account in The Desire of Ages.  He questioned the Bible itself as well, but less directly.  That is as I perceived it, at least.  The Bible tells us to believe God's prophets.  The prophets wrote the Bible and a prophet wrote the books of Ellen White.  As the 66 books of the Bible and the books of Ellen White are all God-inspired, to me they are equal.  The strange thing is: people here try to make Ellen White to be more than she actually was, and then try to make her writings to be less than they actually are, at one and the same time.  Kevin was saying Mrs. White was mistaken about Christ's birth.  What kind of prophet breathes out confusion?  God has said He is not the author of confusion, and that we are to believe His prophets.  The details Mrs. White provided in that story extend well beyond what I can find in my Bible.  The only way for Mrs. White to have provided that detail, then, is to have had revelation from God on the matter.  Unless, of course, you want to reject her prophethood and turn her writings into a "she made it all up" category of fancy fiction.  I'm not buying such a bill of goods.  In place of such Enemy-inspired propaganda, I'll continue to believe Mrs. White.  She said the following:

How many have read carefully Patriarchs and Prophets, The Great Controversy, and The Desire of Ages? I wish all to understand that my confidence in the light that God has given stands firm, because I know that the Holy Spirit's power magnified the truth, and made it honorable, saying: "This is the way, walk ye in it." In my books, the truth is stated, barricaded by a "Thus saith the Lord." The Holy Spirit traced these truths upon my heart and mind as indelibly as the law was traced by the finger of God, upon the tables of stone, which are now in the ark, to be brought forth in that great day when sentence will be pronounced against every evil, seducing science produced by the father of lies.--Letter 90, 1906.  {CM 126.2}  

okay, thanks for explaining your view that EGW's writings are on the same level as the Bible  ... (I'm one of those heretics who believe that not everything that proceeded from the pen of Ellen White came directly from God.)

[LifeHiscost]

8 minutes ago, rudywoofs (Pam) said:

okay, thanks for explaining your view that EGW's writings are on the same level as the Bible  ... (I'm one of those heretics who believe that not everything that proceeded from the pen of Ellen White came directly from God.)

OK, OTOH one of Gods' special called out men was asked by God, "What doest thou here?" That didn't make him any less chosen of God as one of His spokespersons.

God is Love!~Jesus saves! 

[Rossw]

54 minutes ago, rudywoofs (Pam) said:

okay, thanks for explaining your view that EGW's writings are on the same level as the Bible  ... (I'm one of those heretics who believe that not everything that proceeded from the pen of Ellen White came directly from God.)

Well that puts EGW in a tight spot. She was either Divinely inspired or she wasn't. Her credibility becomes a problem if we aren't sure what is inspired and what isn't thus proving true her many skeptics. We can't have our cake and eat it too with the belief her messages are less inspired by God.

[CoAspen]

Quote

okay, thanks for explaining your view that EGW's writings are on the same level as the Bible  ... (I'm one of those heretics who believe that not everything that proceeded from the pen of Ellen White came directly from God.)

That statement would make you an SDA, not a heretic. That church does not teach her equality with the Bible nor does she, but in fact says the opposite.

That leaves a real problem. Some claim her equality to Biblical writers, then deny she was ever ordained by anyone. Biblical writers were often leaders of men and others. But she being equal to them could not be a leader over men. That is rather confusing.

heretic
noun
a person believing in or practicing religious heresy.
• a person holding an opinion at odds with what is generally accepted.

Will the real heretic standup...anyone...hello......

[CoAspen]

The poster that claim/believes that EGW was Equal to the Biblical writers goes out of their way to disparage, ie, 10 Reasons......, all women, 1/2 of Gods human creation. I wonder if God is happy with that? Although a smiley face was posted at the end, perhaps to suggest it was all in fun, reading the post carefully would suggest that smiley is misleading.

What we need is a list of 'thus saith the Lord' that tell us which is viable and which are not. Because we don't need context and the words being self explanatory.   I have already been told that one of them ' if thy hand offend thee, cut it off' can be explained away. It all gets rather confusing...we need a list!

[CoAspen]

EGW, wrong to buy a bicycle.

EGW, Long dresses, no legs in clothing like men.

EGW, etc, etc, etc

Demanded by God?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Just now, CoAspen said:

EGW, wrong to buy a bicycle.

EGW, Long dresses, no legs in clothing like men.

EGW, etc, etc, etc

Demanded by God?

those are exactly some of the things that I don't believe were from the mouth of God to Ellen's pen...