Helper for Adam?

[Tom Wetmore]

Read and comment - http://www.godswordtowomen.org/ezerkenegdo.htm

[CoAspen]

Most interesting. But I think that unless EGW confirms such an idea we will continue to have disagreement over meanings. From my point of observation of the actions and words of Christ it would seem to be reasonable. SDA's have a narrow view, at times, of what Christ came to 'straighten out' in the Jewish world, confining His message to points of law. I believe that His message about God being misunderstood was applicable to all parts of our lives. First shall be last and last shall be first has a vast amount of meaning to our lives and should be more thoughtfuly examined. I have always had an issue with God making a person as superior to another or to be above, etc. I don't believe He intended for humans to not strive for that return to pre fall conditions in all parts of our lives and interactions. The life of Christ is a great example as shown in His interactions with all persons.

(2-cents)

[Gordon1]

And this may be why Ellen White told us not to bind up with the

Women's Christian Temperance Union.

"Those who feel called out to join the movement in favour of woman's rights

and the so-called dress reform might as well sever all connection with

the third angel's message." 1 Testimony 457.

[CoAspen]

Oooooooo...just love those out of context quotes!!

Maybe you didn't get my drift....some will follow what the "think" EGW believed or taught while others will continue on their way with the Bible and a realationship with God. Not trouncing EGW!!

[joeb]

Most interesting. But I think that unless EGW confirms such an idea we will continue to have disagreement over meanings. From my point of observation of the actions and words of Christ it would seem to be reasonable. SDA's have a narrow view, at times, of what Christ came to 'straighten out' in the Jewish world, confining His message to points of law. I believe that His message about God being misunderstood was applicable to all parts of our lives. First shall be last and last shall be first has a vast amount of meaning to our lives and should be more thoughtfuly examined. I have always had an issue with God making a person as superior to another or to be above, etc. I don't believe He intended for humans to not strive for that return to pre fall conditions in all parts of our lives and interactions. The life of Christ is a great example as shown in His interactions with all persons.

(2-cents)

Where I bolded your words I disagree with you. I know of very few, if any, SDA's who think that way.

I don't disagree with anything else you said here. I just think you have a warped image of SDA's because of some bad experience, or experiences, and it causes your view of what SDA's say to be warped. I'm not saying SDA's are perfect. I'm just saying you're attributing things to them that the vast majority do not hold to.

[joeb]

I read the article and just can't see how this is an argument for women's ordination. If the guy is right it doesn't change anything, and if he's wrong it doesn't change anything.

Personally, I hold to his point of view that woman was created as an equal to man, something to make him whole, give him strength. And I think that goes both ways, not just one way. That's plain from nothing more than Eve being created from Adam's rib. That pretty much signifies equality. Not above, not below, but even with.

God made man and woman different. Equal in rights, but different. He gave them different roles as is exhibited in the instinctive differences in how the two sexes think. And, after sin He defined them once again. Again, that was God doing the defining, not man. How this affects the wo issue I'm not sure. I don't even have a stand on it.

I just think the entire thing is a red herring. If the devil can get us feuding over this he's happy. Anything other than a clear focus on both men and women becoming Christ-like is a red herring, for that is what the devil fears more than anything else. And when we are all Christ-like will ordination even be an issue? I don't think so. It will resolve itself.

[CoAspen]

Quote:

I just think you have a warped image of SDA's because of some bad experience, or experiences, and it causes your view of what SDA's say to be warped.

Have been an SDA for about 50 years(hmmm...that long?) and have lived in several SDA College towns. Even listening to what one reads in many, many posts on this forum substantiate my observation also. Talk about helping the poor, etc will start a list of who should be helped, most postings in religion sections, and else where, will take you down the rabbit hole of correctness, using out of context quotes from the Bible to 'trump' others or put their ideas and beliefs 'down', etc are not uncommon. Many have come to rely on EGW for the okay on anything rather than studying the principles of the Bible for answers.

By the way, I said 'at times', not all the time, only when it is convenient! No, I don't think bad of the SDA .org or its members, as I am one. But we have a history of blinders and still see them being used today.

[joeb]

Quote:

I just think you have a warped image of SDA's because of some bad experience, or experiences, and it causes your view of what SDA's say to be warped.

Have been an SDA for about 50 years(hmmm...that long?) and have lived in several SDA College towns. Even listening to what one reads in many, many posts on this forum substantiate my observation also. Talk about helping the poor, etc will start a list of who should be helped, most postings in religion sections, and else where, will take you down the rabbit hole of correctness, using out of context quotes from the Bible to 'trump' others or put their ideas and beliefs 'down', etc are not uncommon. Many have come to rely on EGW for the okay on anything rather than studying the principles of the Bible for answers.

By the way, I said 'at times', not all the time, only when it is convenient! No, I don't think bad of the SDA .org or its members, as I am one. But we have a history of blinders and still see them being used today.

My background is similar to yours, at least in where I've lived. I've lived in large SDA enclaves and seen exactly what people are like in those areas. Of course there is legalism in those places because that's why we were warned, as a people, not to congregate, but to spread out.

But, if the only places you've lived are in large enclaves of SDA's you're missing the big picture as to what Adventism is, and what its people are really like. I've lived in a lot of areas where there were few SDAs, and there are a lot of places like that not only here in the US, but also around the world, and the people there are not like the "big enclave SDAs".

Thus, your view of Adventism is warped because you have lived in areas with too many SDAs. Too many people who have ignored the advice given them by Ellen White.

[olger]

I just think you have a warped image of SDA's because of some bad experience, or experiences, and it causes your view of what SDA's say to be warped. I'm not saying SDA's are perfect. I'm just saying you're attributing things to them that the vast majority do not hold to.

That would be a "Yes indeed."

`og

[ClubV12]

Maybe,,, it's NOT warped! Maybe,,, thats the way it is in large Adventist communities?

I wouldn't know as I've never lived in such a place. My experience has been limited to small congregations. My current Church has about 100 members, typically, about half that number who regularly attend. There are a few, every Sabbath, that are opposed to the Church in some way. I was warned that I would find "fanatics" in the country, and sure enough, they are here. Deeply sincere---ly mistaken, but quite outspoken.

One believes the Quarterly will be used as a tool by the evil doer to reach the entire body of believers and deceive them all, thus he doesn't it. He was born/raised Adventist but has removed his membership in protest of "apostasy". Yes, I recognize the Church has significant spiritual problems and even "apostasy". Removing your membership, fighting against it, is NOT the solution.

Others are VERY agrumentative and condem the Church in not uncertain terms, again no longer members of the body.

It's like the wild west around here on Sabbath! Never the less, I am finding my resolve to support the Church in every way growing stronger. As I draw warmth from their coldness, courage from the cowardice, and study harder to find the balance in truth.

On the other hand, we have some members that are just as deeply committed to living the principles and life style the pioneers would approve. I am very thankful to be in this robust Church where those who want to grow will find plenty of fertilizer!

[CoAspen]

Quote:

Thus, your view of Adventism is warped because you have lived in areas with too many SDAs. Too many people who have ignored the advice given them by Ellen White.

You ain't giving up are you! I haven't lived a place with large SDA populations in a long time!

My view of SDA's, if I were to read only what is posted on these forums, I could have a warped view! But then, I don't take much of the postings seriously because they repeat the same thing over and over. Not sure what your reference to EGW is all about, but makes me wonder...how many SDA's is too many in one place? What do you do, keep moving away from them?

[CoAspen]

Okay, enough of this silly off topic chit-chat! Let's try and focus on the topic and thought of the post. I thought it was very..... thought provoking! Adam needed help, not to be by himself and an equal partner. What a novel idea! I liked it!

[ClubV12]

It's pretty simple actually. They're relationship changed significantly AFTER sin entered. All though, Adam was ALWAYS the leader, the head, the one under Christ to govern this planet. When sin entered Christ asked ADAM (not Eve), "Where are you?" He created Adam first, Adam was the responsible party to answer. They were to work equally, but there was always a "chain of command".

"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." Genesis 3:16

Nothings changed from that time to this.

They were no longer equal, Adam was to rule over Eve. In the spirit of Christ of course, as he himself would wish to be treated, with love and tenderness. He would counsel and consider with her, but in the end, his decision would be the final say on the matter. We see the same principle carried out with the leadership of the Church. A matter is considered, opinions offered, research done, counsel of the brethren weighed. Then the final say on doctrine, rules, order is established by those leaders appointed by the Lord to rule over (guide, care for, steer) the Church.

"Striving" to be equal with leadership, any leadership, is a sin. Leadership in the home, in the office, at Church, in our view of appointed leadership. This is fundamentally what it has always been about. Lucifer was striving to be equal with Christ. Korah was striving to be equal with Moses. Christs disciples were striving to sit on his right and left hand. Women equality, in all regards, is simply not in harmony with Genesis 3:16.

Ellen White understood this concept when she said that Eve “was now placed in subjection to her husband.” Of course "man" blew, has blown it, will blow it with his abuse of power toward women. But Genesis 3:16 remains true never the less, for Christians.

[ClubV12]

Consider for a moment:

I have heard, many times, God would have created another Eve for Adam. Hence, Satan could not win dominion over this planet when Eve sinned. He HAD to get Adam to sin to win dominion, because Adam was the one who was responsible for it.

[doug yowell]

Is there no significance to the fact that Paul reminds us that, "Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man."? Or that Adam named the woman after himself; "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh...because she was taken out of me." God did not create two separate individuals and ask them to see if they could manage to work together. The woman's identity was in the man, she was created specifically FOR him, from him. No indication that they were created FOR each other.Was there no reason why the man was created first? Notice that Paul appeals to this creation fact as a reason for the "authority" of the man while stressing that neither man or woman is "independent" of each other? No tension in accomodating both concepts.

[Tom Wetmore]

If you are staking the position on EGW consider these statements by her:

“The spirit that Christ manifests toward His church is the spirit that the husband and wife are to manifest toward each other” (Adventist Home, 95).

“Neither husband nor wife is to make a plea for rulership. The Lord has laid down the principle that is to guide in this matter” (Adventist Home, 106-107).

“Do not try to compel each other to do as you wish. You cannot do this and retain each other’s love” (Adventist Home, 107).

“Remember that your wife accepted you as her husband, not that you might rule over her, but that you might be her helper” (Testimonies, 7:48).

[ClubV12]

All good, balanced quotes on the matter Tom.

The Father and the Son are in perfect unity, as were Adam and Eve before sin. In either case there was never any consideration of who held what position, because their every thought and purpose were in perfect harmony.

Then Jesus took on human nature and something happened, that perfect unity changed. Jesus now acknowledged, accepted and came under authority to the Father, whereas before such thoughts and concepts were never a consideration.

Man has been blinded by sin for so long our inherited and cultivated tendencies toward evil make it difficult understand how to perfectly apply the tender relationship that should exist between a man and woman. Even so, the authority of man over woman was established by the Father, whether we get it perfect or not, it remains.

[doug yowell]

Man has been blinded by sin for so long our inherited and cultivated tendencies toward evil make it difficult understand how to perfectly apply the tender relationship that should exist between a man and woman. Even so, the authority of man over woman was established by the Father, whether we get it perfect or not, it remains.

I think that best sums up the heart of the issue. The sinful heart cannot understand how authority can not involve selfish authoritative domination. So one throws out the baby with the bathwater and the other throws out the baby.

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: ClubV12

Man has been blinded by sin for so long our inherited and cultivated tendencies toward evil make it difficult understand how to perfectly apply the tender relationship that should exist between a man and woman. Even so, the authority of man over woman was established by the Father, whether we get it perfect or not, it remains.

I think that best sums up the heart of the issue. The sinful heart cannot understand how authority can not involve selfish authoritative domination. So one throws out the baby with the bathwater and the other throws out the baby.

It's not about authority. Sin introduced that concept.

[ClubV12]

Point well taken Tom!!! This concept of authority was never a question for the created beings until it was introduced by the evil doer. It is the essence of the Great Controversy.

We even see it in the garden with Christ asking the Father to let this cup pass. Jesus asking for something of the Father that could not be granted? An unthinkable situation, before sin.

Authority, correctly understood and put into practice, was designed to be a blessing. To protect us from evil and harm, as it protected Jesus when His request to let this cup pass was denied. Imagine the horror had the Father granted that request, no Saviour for mankind, a planet doomed, authority forever under question, sin immortalized.

[doug yowell]

Point well taken Tom!!! This concept of authority was never a question for the created beings until it was introduced by the evil doer. It is the essence of the Great Controversy.

We even see it in the garden with Christ asking the Father to let this cup pass. Jesus asking for something of the Father that could not be granted? An unthinkable situation, before sin.

Authority, correctly understood and put into practice, was designed to be a blessing. To protect us from evil and harm, as it protected Jesus when His request to let this cup pass was denied. Imagine the horror had the Father granted that request, no Saviour for mankind, a planet doomed, authority forever under question, sin immortalized.

An excellent observation, Club. It is, in fact, the whole issue in the Great Controversy. It was Satan's claim that God the Son had no more right to be the authority than anyone else. It was Satan's charge that Eve could be an authority like God knowing good and evil.Or as Jesus put it in His parable, "We will not have this man rule over us." The Rebel tells us that authority is a restriction of our freedoms. The Sovereign tells us that authority is a protection of our freedoms.Authority demands responsibility for the happiness and welfare of those under authority. The absence of authority is not freedom it's anarchy.

[Twilight II]

I think many Adventists are falling into the trap of following:

"Thus says secular culture and secular subjective morality".

And then trying to cut and paste that into the scripture.

The distinctive role of man as leader of the home and church is clear from scripture and God has ordained man into that role.

Why would we want to correct God?

The idea that that distinction should be done away with stems completely from secular ideology and not the scripture.

Some would seem to think that adopting the worlds "fashionable" ideologies and ignoring the Bibles clear instruction, will somehow win people to follow the Bibles clear instruction...

You argue from the truth, to the truth.

You do not argue from error to the truth...

You argue from error to error.

We have to stand on the Bible, especially when it is unfashionable to do so...

[Twilight II]

On the back of this womens ordination is the rest of the secular agenda...

Acceptance of homosexuality, homosexual pastors, it is where it leads, because that is the secular agenda.

To remove Gods standard of morality and edicts and replace them with "mans (aka satans)" standards and edicts.

"Ye shall be as gods legislating good and evil..."

[CoAspen]

Quote:

On the back of this womens ordination is the rest of the secular agenda...

Really? Often spoken but never proven! Tis so easy to say their is a slippery slope but it hasn't even rained!!! Repeat something often enough and soon people take it as truth. But of course, it is still false. Truth has become relative, especially when it supports a cherished opinion. The pasture is full of pies, but a person can step around them.

[ClubV12]

I certainly agree Twilight! We ARE on that slippery slope already. There is not a shadow of a doubt in my mind that some Seventh-day Adventist Church, Conference, Union or District will at some point allow for LGBT marriage and perhaps even Pastors! While thumbing their nose at the World Church. We ARE seeing that happen right now with W.O. AND we see plenty of the arguments as to why it's OK.

Whether or not it's OK, it's a very serious challenge to the authority of the World Church!

LGBT issues will be done in the same way as it is being done in the secular world today, but within the Church.

The question I ponder is how will the World Church (the G.C.) react to LGBT Ministers or marriages being accepted? I don't believe the World Church will accept it, while some of those UNDER it's authority surely will. Just as we have seen with the W.O. issue.