How much of Scripture is inspired?

[Guest]

I think because pretty much everybody knows, and accepts that adultry is wrong, that is why it has not been brought up. Although it may be brought up later.

[jasd]

That is not the point! It is the matter of reviling one and not the other. That PRACTICE is deceitful.

If one is guilty in one point of the law, be it covetousness, disrespect of parents, adultery..., etc - one is guilty in every point of the law.

It is - abuse of the 'principles of Biblical hermeneutics'.

The reviler will not enter the Kingdom.

[SivartM]

I don't think anyone condoned adultery. It's not deceitful to not mention a particular sin when talking about another sin.

[Guest]

There is no group of people within the church, trying to say that adultry is ok, but there is in the case of homosexuality and some other things. That's why he's pointing those out.

[jasd]

>>I don't think anyone condoned adultery. It's not deceitful to not mention a particular sin when talking about another sin.<<

Two guys in a light plane flying across the ocean blue. They crash and end-up upon a atoll. One panics. The other is

at ease, sublimely so.

When questioned by the panicker, the other waxed eloquent...

I am a multimillionaire. I contribute gobs and gobs of both tithe and offerings to my church. When my pastor finds that I am missing - well, rest assured, we'll be saved before you can say

Jack Robinson!

I'll go out on a limb and hazard that you share your pews with many adulterers who fill the passed velvet baggies or plates with their tithes and offerings - and with nar' a gay.

Hmmm...

It is deceitful for the pastor, or the local church body, or any other part of the .org hierarchy - to ignore the common practice - at the expense of the lesser voice(s).

Adultery is every bit a moral matter to the church body - as is that placed front/center.

The above said, I am like, totally, against the militant gay in a church body.

[Musicman1228]

Good points, jasd. The idea that a particular culture subscribes to a particular set of conditions under which women must operate or be sanctioned is the height of the double standard that we look upon with indignation today. In our culture woman are supposed to be equal under civil law, so why do men feel the need to subjugate them under Biblical law? That answer is simple; because of control.

The excuse has been made for the apostle Paul that his views were cultural and not dictated to him by God. Yet those interested in the continued control of women (notably the Catholic church) site Paul as the authority for the use of the practices that keep women in subjugation to men. Paul either is the God given authority in these matters or he is not. It is evident in his writings (both confirmed in his own words, and implied in the context) that Paul was a misogynist, holding women as subject to men in all things, and then leaving it up to men to decide how this was to play out in the gender role department; what freedoms to be granted or withheld.

Our church today (in the local conferences) ordains women as pastors, including senior pastors. As such they have both spiritual and temporal control over all of their flocks, including the men. This has made many people (granted mostly the older generation) angry enough to leave those churches for nearby churches that still have male pastors. In ordaining female pastors the conferences are establishing policy that at the very least circumvents the intent of the writings of Paul on this and related subjects.

If Paul is truly a legitimate apostle of God then doing this is going against the will of God for His church. If you subscribe to Paul in this capacity then there is NO excuse for not holding to ALL of the testimony given concerning the role and function of women in both the household and in the church; including dress, submissiveness, education, child rearing, etc.

In the same vein, if EGW is the official prophet of God for the end of time and for the church then the same thing should hold for her as for Paul. Many women in the more conservative SDA churches either willingly or through intimidation dress and behave in the 19th century manner prescribed by EGW, and are held in the same degree of social and religious subjection as their earlier counterparts. Men lead, women follow. Therefore, women pastors of any kind should not be tolerated in the church. EGW was never a pastor, and she called Paul the greatest apostle. Yet she regularly went against his direct instructions concerning women speaking or teaching in church, and acting as an authority over men. Even she practiced this double standard. If she was doing this under the direction of God, then was not God also participating in this double standard as well?

This is the double standard of which I speak; If you hold to Paul and EGW as directed representatives of the will of God on earth then you must obey the regulations regarding these issues that they laid down fully and completely as the will of God, without regard for personal beliefs. If you decide that in these specific things they did not speak for God then you must then conclude that they did not speak for God in the other spiritual or social areas with are not now subject to as close scrutiny.

To avoid the double standard you must choose which it is to be. If you are honest with yourself you can't have it both ways.

[Guest]

MM you've been warned to stop highjacking every thread with your Paul bashing.

[Guest]

Ordaining Women as Elders/Pastors.

The discussion of the role of men and women in

ministry also raises the question of cultural conditioning. As one proponent correctly observed, the issue of women's ordination is "a topic that has shaken the church to its foundations."16 It has also afforded some scholars the opportunity both to reinterpret early

Seventh-day Adventist history and to domesticate the historical-critical method in the Adventist church. One evidence of this is the independently published book, The Welcome Table, a pro-ordination volume widely promoted in some church publications and Adventist

Book Centers.17 For this reason the issue of women's ordination warrants a little more attention.

A Brief Background.

The debate in the church over the ordination of women as

elders/pastors arises because, in the face of calls for it from some quarters today, (1) there is no biblical precedent in either the Old or New Testament for women being ordained to serve

in the roles of priest, apostle, and elder/pastor;18 and (2) some explicit biblical prohibitions seem to militate against the practice (1 Tim 3:2; Titus 1:6; 1 Tim 2:11 ff.; 1 Cor 14:34, 35).

Areas of Agreement.

Both sides of the women's ordination question agree that: (1) Men

and women are equal, equally ceated by God in His image and equally saved by Christ's precious blood (Gen 1:26, 27; Gal 3:28; 1 Pet 1:19); (2) Both men and women have been called to soul-winning ministry, to utilize their skills and spiritual gifts (Joel 2:28, 29; 1 Cor 12);20 (3) God has called women to public service in Seventh-day Adventist history as in Bible times;21 (4) Men and women should receive equal pay for equal work; (5) Ordination is the act of the church in choosing, appointing, and setting apart certain individuals (male and female) for assigned services through the laying on of hands.

[Guest]

Points of Disagreement.

The issue that divides them is this: "Since both male and female,

through an act of dedication ("the laying on of hands"), can be commissioned to perform certain specific functions, the debate over women's ordination is not whether women can or cannot be ordained in this sense; the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy suggest that both men and women may be commissioned to do certain assigned tasks on behalf of the church. The key issue to be addressed is whether, among the varied ministries of the church, women may legitimately be commissioned through ordination to perform the headship functions of elders or pastors." The issue is not ordination per se, but ordination to what function?

In other words, the two sides on the women's ordination question disagree over: (1) whether the Bible permits women to be "appointed and commissioned" as elders/pastors or whether the Bible prohibits it; and (2) whether the matter is merely cultural and administrative and can be settled by vote, or whether it is a biblical and theological issue, on which God calls us to obedience. The disagreement is not over whether women can serve as

elders/pastors, but whether God permits them to.

[olger]

`ole

the G

[Guest]

The Heart of the Disagreement.

Four issues lie at the heart of the disagreement:

(1) The headship principle, which asserts that within the loving relationship of male-female equality and complementarity, God calls upon men to exercise Christ-like leadership in both the home and the church. Is this theological principle culturally conditioned

to the days and culture of the Bible writers or is it still valid today?

(2) The relationship between the roles of elder/pastor and prophet: If God can call women

to serve as prophets, what prevents them from serving as elders or pastors?

(3) The position of the early Adventist pioneers on the above two issues: How did the

pioneers understand the headship principle? How did they relate the office of elder/pastor to

that of prophet?

(4) Did the early Adventists ordain women as elders or pastors? Was Ellen G. White

ordained?

[Musicman1228]

MM you've been warned to stop highjacking every thread with your Paul bashing.

I am following the thread, not hijacking it. Paul is a major player in this issue, and his theology on the issue deserves rebuttal. I will read your responses with great interest.

[Musicman1228]

Having now read your thesis I think you did a great job in defining the issues. That being acknowledged there is still the question (appropriately exposed by both of us) of what do you do about women being ordained as pastors and elders? Personally, I am not concerned about what the early pioneers in the SDA church did, we do not live in their cultural era. My question is as stated in my above post; Do you choose to support the Biblical approach (which includes Paul's theology) or do you support the current cultural 'theology'? Whichever you choose, how do you justify the result with respect to the needs and desires of the women of the church? There is quite a moral conundrum here.

[Guest]

1. Biblical Headship.

The lack of biblical precedent for ordaining women to the headship

role in the church, combined with the Bible's prohibitions of the practice, raises some questions. Were the Old Testament writers, Jesus Christ, and Paul male chauvinists? Should we explain away the male headship role as an accommodation to the Bible writers' culture and times? If so, how can we account for the fact that at the same time, the Bible also noted the significant role of women in ministry, including prophesying, praying, teaching, etc.? Could it

be that women's exclusion from the Old Testament priesthood and from the New Testament roles of apostle and elder/pastor stems not from mere sociological or cultural factors but rather from God's divine arrangement established at creation?

Those favoring women's ordination argue that the patterns of ordination in the Bible (i.e., ordination of males as priests, apostles, and elders/pastors) and the specific biblical

prohibitions (1 Tim 2:11 ff.; 1 Cor 14:34, 35; 1 Tim 3:2; Titus 1:6) are culturally conditioned to the Bible writers' time. They argue that the headship principle was introduced after the Fall

and reversed by Christ in His life and work.24 Some maintain that the headship principle is still valid in the home, but not in the church.

On the other side, those opposing women's ordination maintain that the patterns of ordination in th Bible confirm the contemporary validity of the headship principle of male headship and corresponding female cooperation. They argue that God instituted headship at creation by assigning men and women differing roles; this was reiterated after the Fall.

Christ's work of redemption did not abolish gender-based roles; rather, it ensures that, even in this sinful world, men and women can realize "in the Lord" the true harmony that results from

living in accordance with God's ideal of complementarity.

Before looking at key hermeneutical questions raised by the headship principle, we must first clarify the relationship between the roles of elder/pastor and prophet. We must also consider how the Seventh-day Adventist pioneers understood the headship principle and

whether they ordained women (including Ellen G. White) as elders or pastors.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: Richard Holbrook

MM you've been warned to stop highjacking every thread with your Paul bashing.

I am following the thread, not hijacking it. Paul is a major player in this issue, and his theology on the issue deserves rebuttal. I will read your responses with great interest.

With moderator's hat on:

You may discuss Paul's theology without making attacks on him and on his writings as being of the devil. That is, you may discuss points where you believe you see contradictions and problems but you will need to stop accusing him of being a false apostle and a liar, etc. If members want to do do this, they should take it to the private thread devoted to those issues.

[jasd]

1 Cor 14:19 Yet in church...

1 Cor 14:23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place,

I think it can be agreed that St Paul was addressing the ‘gathering together of the saints’...

Note:

1 Cor 14:31 For you may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.

1 Cor 14:32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.

1 Cor 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

[...]

1 Cor 14 36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

1 Cor 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

Now, insert the following two verses where I’ve noted the ellipsis.

1 Cor 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; ...

1 Cor 14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

With the insertion of verses 34 and 35 the passage is rendered as syncopated as a thing I might write. The brilliance and flow one expects from St Paul is lost. Verses 34 and 35 are, indubitably,

a scribal redaction – compliments of a, by then, prejudiced hierarchical and male-dominated church engaging a male-oriented society. (What the Protestors elect to protest and/or embrace vis-à-vis that proffered by its nemesis constantly surprises.) :-o

A woman in church cannot both “prophesy” and “keep silence”. The same is applicable to the speaking in tongues...

2 Cor 3:17 ...and where the Spirit of the Lord [is], there [is] liberty...

So very sorry ladies, there is the Gospel of man’s liberty – and there is the Gospel of women’s liberty – according to the one and several .orgs.

Org Inc. Okaayyy...

[Musicman1228]

John,

Read back and you will see that I did not attack Paul by calling him of the Devil and a liar. I merely pointed out inconsistencies in his testimony. This is not hijacking, it is open discussion. JASD brought out some salient points concerning Paul and you have not criticized him or any of his statements so why do that to me. Paul made some statements very critical of women and their role in the church as brought out by both me and JASD and you have not seen fit to respond to those, but only to criticize us for bringing them to notice.

Please clarify for me if it is acceptable to make an analysis of the statements of Paul in relationship to the words of Jesus Christ and current church policy or not. I will, of course, abide by your wishes.

[Guest]

JASD brought out some salient points concerning Paul and you have not criticized him or any of his statements so why do that to me.

There is a difference between a skeptic and a heretic.

[Guest]

Was Paul's Teaching Culturally Conditioned?

A former associate editor of a church publication takes up this issue in discussing 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35 ("Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law . . .), and on 1 Corinthians 9:19-23 ("To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. . . . To those outside the law I became as one outside the law . . . that I might win those outside the law").

According to this Adventist editor, these texts indicate that Paul accommodated his teaching and lifestyle to his culture. What he fails to address is whether Paul compromised the truth by "accommodating" to culture--the crucial question distinguishing proponents of the

historical-critical method from Bible-believing Adventists.

He explains Paul's "seemingly inconsistent conduct under varying cultural circumstances" in this manner: "Beyond any question, Paul's personal conduct [1 Cor 9] and his counsel [1 Cor 14] as a representative of Jesus Christ were both culturally conditioned to the

circumstances in which he found himself and to which he addressed his teaching. The important thing--the principle involved--was an adaptation of his own lifestyle and his directives to the culture-conditioned beliefs, mores, and practices of the people he aspired to win to Christ.

Some may wonder whether indeed this author's opinion is "beyond any question." Our concern, however, is how he arrived at "the principle involved" in Paul's "seemingly inconsistent conduct under varying cultural circumstances."

[Guest]

Did Paul Err?

Another question deserves a response: Did Paul err in his understanding

and interpretation of the Old Testament? Aside from the contentious issue of what is involved in Paul's prohibition of women to "teach and have authority over man," when the apostle forbids such "teaching and authority" to a woman on the grounds that "Adam was first

formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman . . ." (1 Tim 2:11-14), can we dismiss this statement as culturally conditioned to Paul's time? Can the Christian accept the

suggestion by some that Paul's argument--which is not cultural but theological, grounded in Creation and the Fall--is not God's logic but Paul's? Is it merely an example of the rabbinic midrash that was in vogue in his day?

[Guest]

Refuting Gnostic (Feminist) Heresy?

A retired professor of religion voices the same

"culturally-conditioned" argument. He bases his argument upon the questionable work of a non-Adventist scholar who theorizes that in 1 Timothy 2 Paul was responding to a Gnostic heresy in Ephesus, which held that woman (not man) was created first and that man (not woman) was deceived. This hypothetical, syncretistic theology allegedly encouraged women to domineer over men in public church meetings. On this fanciful speculation, our own professor suggests that the apostle's teaching regarding male-female relationships is culturally conditioned to the local situation in Ephesus. Therefore, he claims, it may not have validity today: "The passage does not give a universal prohibition of women from the ministry, but instead is a refutation of Gnostic error."

The crucial hermeneutical question is not addressed: Was Paul inspired when he apparently saw the male-female relationship established at creation before the fall ("Adam was formed first"), and confirmed after the fall (Eve "being deceived . . .")? Should we accept

the suggestion that an alleged Gnostic heresy is the basis for Paul's statement rather than the Old Testament account of the creation and fall as Paul himself maintains? How can Adventist scholars continue to recycle the discredited Gnostic hypothesis when it has been shown

convincingly to be founded on disputable assumptions and questionable inferences?

In view of the ideological dogmatism and fanciful speculations attending the interpretation of 1 Timothy 2, Adventists desiring to speak knowledgeably on 1 Timothy 2:11ff. will benefit greatly from consulting the excellent review of the arguments and literature in the recent book

Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9-15.

[John317]

John,

Read back and you will see that I did not attack Paul..... I merely pointed out inconsistencies in his testimony.

With moderator's hat--

Your post #286293 is fine, MM. Pointing out what you or others view as inconsistencies, etc., is OK.

The main things we want to avoid are hijacking threads and calling Paul and other Bible writers disrespectful names. I apologize if I gave the impression that you did those things in that particular post. I simply intended to give a reminder because of what I found on another thread about the same time and because of where it seemed to me this thread could be headed at that time. I should have made that clear.

[Guest]

Inspiration and Relevance of Ellen G. White's Writings.

But just as historical-critical assumptions influence scholars' treatment of the inspired writers of the Bible, so also do these

assumptions shape views on Ellen White's writings. To diminish the binding authority of the Spirit of Prophecy, some apply the cultural-conditioning argument to the Spirit of Prophecy.

"Massive Re-Education." Thus, a former college president, now a professor of English in an Adventist university, has urged the church to "take a serious look at the entire issue of Ellen White's inspiration. As a church we have never yet formed a definitive position relative to revelation found in her writings as differentiated from her devotional messages." Such a

course, he explains, "would require massive re-education of church leadership, church ministry, and laity." Adopting this suggestion, he concludes, "would force us to say that The Great Controversy, including specific teaching relative to last-day events, represents the conviction of its author, who might have written otherwise today. Such a position would seriously trouble those who have been conditioned to believe that while Ellen White's

writings may be a lesser light than the Bible, they are all still sacred in a revelational way."

Is such a "massive re-education of church leadership, church ministry, and laity" underway? Today we hear increasingly that the message of Ellen White was conditioned by

her "Victorian culture." Consequently, we are told, we can no longer take all her writings seriously; they are good as "devotional messages," but we cannot take all her writings "in a

revelational way." When the author states that "revelation [is] found in her writings," he is actually saying what others say about all inspired writings--the Bible or Spirit of

Prophecy--namely, we cannot take everything as inspired. Some things in Scripture an the Spirit of Prophecy are not inspired. Since some portions are inspired and others are not, we

need the enlightened scholar's "massive re-education" to know how to pick and choose the inspired writings. The Bible is not an inspired Book; rather it is an inspiring booklet. Pick your favorite parts, cafeteria style.

[Guest]

New Views of the Spirit of Prophecy.

To help in the "massive re-education" concerning

the writings of Ellen White, a chaplain and teacher at an Adventist university who holds a "dynamic," "developmental," and "Christ-centered view of inspiration" has proposed re-conceptualizing the Adventist understanding of the Spirit of Prophecy: "Ellen White must

be seen as a uniquely gifted woman who used the talents she was given to God's glory, just as other women in the church may do with their respective gifts if they are properly recognized.

The church has traditionally set her too far apart from other women, and all other human beings for that matter, by claiming too much for her, and by claiming too much for what the

gift of prophecy entails."

Does this mean that all individuals who fully employ their "gifts" and "talents" to the glory of God have the gift of prophecy? Is that the sense in which we are to understand the prophetic ministry of Ellen White?

According to the above author, "Adventists, who accept Ellen White as a post-Biblical prophet, would also recognise the prophetic ministry of individuals such as Joan of Arc, Martin Luther, John Wesley, Martin Luther King [Jr.], Desmond Tutu, etc. These individuals

have not only issued radical calls for repentance and justice, but more importantly from a Christian perspective have pointed humanity back to Jesus Christ as the only perfect source of

truth." A former book editor of one of the church's publishing houses made this point explicit: "Beyond her [Ellen White's] visions, I have no reason to believe she was more of a prophet than Martin Luther or Mother Theresa. But I do have reason to believe she was a

prophet nonetheless. And a mighty one at that. . . . Why do I believe she was a prophet? For one thing, she was a mystic, and I think people who enjoy a direct, unmediated connection to

God are prophets prima facie."

Notice the implication. If Ellen White's "prophetic ministry" is little or no different from that of Martin Luther, Mother Theresa, and "all other human beings for that matter," it stands

to reason that we must treat her writings in much the same way as we do other human books. Her writings are "inspired" in the sense that they are inspiring--or if at all uniquely "inspired,"

they are not fully inspired.

Also, since Ellen White is compared to the biblical prophets, it stands to reason that their writings also will not be fully inspired; some things in them are inspired and others are culturally conditioned by the limitations and mistakes of their times: "The writings of Ellen White contain historical, scientific, medical, theological and other informational errors, which reflect the misconceptions that existed in her day. Her writings fit well with the thinking of her age, and did not contain significant ideas which were unheard of at that time."

[Guest]

Summary.

Let us briefly summarize the new understanding of the "prophetic ministry" of Ellen White, and for that matter our own gifts of prophecy. Prophetic ministry is using one's

unique gifts and talents to their highest potential, having vision (as opposed to visions) and courage to address the important issues of one's day. In the case of Ellen White, it meant that

she made "mistakes" and "misquoted and misinterpreted scripture (also as did Bible writers)." Later in this chapter, we shall point out the implications of this new view of Ellen White's writings. Right now, however, we should only note that this understanding of the

nature of inspired writings stems from higher-critical assumptions which many scholars have embraced.

In fact, the Adventist university chaplain cited earlier states that the new view of inspiration is the result of "a broader understanding of the nature of inspiration that has come through Adventism's exposure to higher educaion, and the application of the historical-critical method to both Scripture and the writings of Ellen White."