Pacific Union Info on WO...

[Green Cochoa]

35 minutes ago, Tom Wetmore said:

I sort of seems that you are so presuming...

Since you are the one demanding texts of Scripture, perhaps you could give us just that very text of why ordination (as we are practicing it in the modern era) is of such moral important to God that he would regarding getting it wrong to be a sin.  

Numbers 1:51, Exodus 29:33, Leviticus 22:10, Numbers 3:38, and many other texts tell us plainly that only the Levites were to do the work of the sanctuary, and that anyone else did so on pain of death.  Numbers 3:10 is a good example:

"And thou shalt appoint ^H6485 Aaron ^H175 and his sons, ^H1121 and they shall wait on ^H8104 their priest's office: ^H3550 and the stranger ^H2114 that cometh nigh ^H7131 shall be put to death. ^H4191"

No "daughters" are mentioned here, nor were other tribes permitted to do the work of the Levites.  

This establishes a principle, namely this: God is particular about whom should serve as His ordained spiritual leaders.   God doesn't change (see Mal. 3:6).  So we can rest assured He is still particular today.  This is why 1 Timothy 3 is given us, to teach the Christian church about true gospel order.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Robert, you have given us an interesting and important article.   Thank you.

[Green Cochoa]

45 minutes ago, Robert said:

Notice God gave her these sharp reproofs.  Doesn't that go against your understanding of 1 Tim 2:12

"And I do not permit a woman (e.g., EGW) to teach or to have authority over a man"

No, it doesn't go against my understanding.  Ellen White was not speaking on her own authority.  She was simply a messenger.  Suppose you have children, and you tell your daughter to give a message to your son that if he is not home by 9 pm, he will be grounded for a week.  Did your daughter have "authority" over your son?  Or did YOU have that authority?

[Tom Wetmore]

11 hours ago, Green Cochoa said:

This establishes a principle, namely this: God is particular about whom should serve as His ordained spiritual leaders.   God doesn't change (see Mal. 3:6).  So we can rest assured He is still particular today.  This is why 1 Timothy 3 is given us, to teach the Christian church about true gospel order.

Do we still have priests and a priestly ministry?  Do we have a temple and sacrificial service in which those Levites function.  They were also Jewish.  Should our pastors only be of Jewish and of the tribe of Levi?  What changed?   

[Green Cochoa]

13 minutes ago, Robert said:

Ellen White was a woman

An even greater theological conundrum for thoughtful Adventists is how Ellen White factors into this discussion about women in leadership. One truth is beyond dispute: Sister White was a woman—fully engulfed in ministry.She wielded more global leadership authority than any Adventist male who ever lived. Ponder that while church historians argue whether or not the famous ordination documents that bear Ellen White’s name are valid.

Actually, the Bible doesn’t specifically address the matter of women being ordained. The New Testament discussion focuses on women not teaching men and being silent in church (as mandated by both Jewish and Greco-Roman culture). But Ellen White was anything but silent! She instructed and rebuked entire assemblies of (male) church leaders.

Which raises an interesting point. Those today resisting leadership for women tend to invest supreme authority in Sister White’s leadership and teaching—often as an infallible interpreter of Scripture. How do we explain this inconsistency to our neighbors—or even to our own young adults as we try to persuade them not to abandon their church family?

Let’s hope that our church will cease being in a state of denial regarding women in ministry. Let’s pray that delegates to the General Conference Session will resolve this matter both logically and theologically.

Martin Weber

http://atoday.org/women-in-leadership-a-logical-and-theological-mandate/

This highlights the fact that many Adventists misunderstand Ellen White's position.  She called herself a "messenger" for a reason.  But people want to put her as "leader" instead.  She herself never claimed such.

[Tom Wetmore]

1 minute ago, Green Cochoa said:

No, it doesn't go against my understanding.  Ellen White was not speaking on her own authority.  She was simply a messenger.  Suppose you have children, and you tell your daughter to give a message to your son that if he is not home by 9 pm, he will be grounded for a week.  Did your daughter have "authority" over your son?  Or did YOU have that authority?

Do pastors do differently?  Do they speak on their own authority?  

You are straining the language quite badly.

Do you realize that while EGW spoke of herself as a messenger of the Lord, she also spoke of ministers/pastors as messengers of the Lord?  

[Robert]

1 Peter 2:9 "...you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy."

[Green Cochoa]

11 hours ago, Tom Wetmore said:

Do we still have priests and a priestly ministry?  Do we have a temple and sacrificial service in which those Levites function.  They were also Jewish.  Should our pastors only be of Jewish and of the tribe of Levi?  What changed?   

Yes, we still have priests.  We do not sacrifice animals--that changed when type met Antitype at the Cross.  

[Tom Wetmore]

Really?!?! In the Adventist Church we have priests?

[Robert]

6 minutes ago, Green Cochoa said:

Ellen White was not speaking on her own authority.  She was simply a messenger.  

Does a Pastor speak on his own authority or God's?  Hopefully the latter....

Your point?

 

[Green Cochoa]

Just now, Tom Wetmore said:

Really?!?! In the Adventist Church we have priests?

"Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?" (John 3:10)

Every Christian family is a church in itself. The members of the family are to be Christlike in every action. The father is to sustain so close a relation to God that he realizes his duty to make provision for the members of his family to receive an education and training that will fit them for the future, immortal life. His children are to be taught the principles of heaven. He is the priest of the household, accountable to God for the influence that he exerts over every member of his family. He is to place his family under the most favorable circumstances possible, so that they shall not be tempted to conform to the habits and customs, the evil practices and lax principles, that they would find in the world.  {1NL 77.2} 

[Tom Wetmore]

"simply a messenger" -  Like Phoebe was just a servant, a mere helper...

[Robert]

You folks have a good time with your debates....I'm bowing out.  This isn't my cup of tea. 

 

[Rossw]

36 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Rossw quoted the following statement from Ellen White, below:

If one accepted as truth that statement in the year that EGW made it, is should be noted that nowhere did EGW stated that right down to the end of time there would never by a time in which that ratio  changed.  To apply such a statement to our time today is to put words in her mouth that she did not say.  Perhaps it is exactly true today?  Perhaps today it is less than 1 in 50?  Perhaps it is 1 in 5?  One cannot know and EGW did not say.  To speculate today would be going beyond any inspired word, pure speculation without Biblical support and judgemental even if it were said today to be 1 in 1,000.

 

 

 

I would assume the ratio is currently worse with the church on the verge getting spewed. Now we have churches promoting transgendered elders and the denial of homosexuality as sin and even the promotion of homosexuality in a college week of prayer. 

I'm sorry Greg but we know the times of the end are worse and tougher than 100+ years ago.

[Gregory Matthews]

Yes, you would assume.  NOTE  Assumption, even if we all do it, is the worst form of proof that exists as it is often wrong.   In any case, your assumption is putting words in the mouth of Ellen White which she did not actually say.

[Tom Wetmore]

@Green Cochoa Regard the quote you posted above, do you think the mother can also serve as the priest of the family? Do you think that EGW was speaking in a literal sense that the father serve in the same priestly capacity as OT priests under the old covenant?  If she is saying the family at home as a church, is she say that the church at large should function identically  and have a priest. In this quote do you think she was mandating a literal priesthood only for fathers in particular and men in general, or was she speaking figuratively?  In you answer try to reconcile all that with the clear Scripture regard the priesthood of ALL believers.  

[Green Cochoa]

39 minutes ago, Tom Wetmore said:

@Green Cochoa Regard the quote you posted above, do you think the mother can also serve as the priest of the family? Do you think that EGW was speaking in a literal sense that the father serve in the same priestly capacity as OT priests under the old covenant?  If she is saying the family at home as a church, is she say that the church at large should function identically  and have a priest. In this quote do you think she was mandating a literal priesthood only for fathers in particular and men in general, or was she speaking figuratively?  In you answer try to reconcile all that with the clear Scripture regard the priesthood of ALL believers.  

It seems we've been over this ground before.  The priesthood of all believers is much misunderstood.  It is what God said He would make Israel, way back in Exodus chapter 19--before there was a priesthood.  A short time later, God established the priesthood.

But, do you accept that we have priests today?

[Rossw]

2 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Yes, you would assume.  NOTE  Assumption, even if we all do it, is the worst form of proof that exists as it is often wrong.   In any case, your assumption is putting words in the mouth of Ellen White which she did not actually say.

I was being humble in my application of the use of "assume". Many SDAs believe because they are SDA they will be saved but obviously this isn't true and puts the denomination in the position of a cult. Many outside the denomination view us as a cult and for good reason as we give ourselves reason for such belief. 

The assumption may have been made connecting EGW to our time but it is a very very safe assumption. How many Israelites who came from Egypt entered the promised land? They were not safe even though they were from God's own chosen people. 

We also know in the end times men's hearts will grow cold. Just because someone is in the SDA church their heart won't grow cold? We have to stop looking at the denomination as God's Church but are those who believe and continue to follow Him are the church. 

[Tom Wetmore]

@Rossw -  Bottom line is still, we don't know. No more than the hour of His coming.  Not our task to count the days nor estimate His ETA. Nor is it for us to travel down that path of counting noses, as it too easily makes us ignore our own heart and readiness in favor looking at others to try to judge them and their readiness.  That this question has even come up in the context of this topic tempts us over that very dangerous line of finger pointing.  Who will stay, who will go.  If they support this idea or that idea, do they forfeit their promised place in God's eternal kingdom. 

This is a diversion and evasion from seriously addressing the topic at hand. Let's get back to the topic.

[Tom Wetmore]

1 hour ago, Green Cochoa said:

It seems we've been over this ground before.  The priesthood of all believers is much misunderstood.  It is what God said He would make Israel, way back in Exodus chapter 19--before there was a priesthood.  A short time later, God established the priesthood.

But, do you accept that we have priests today?

Not an answer to the questions I asked.... Just answer my questions and I am quite confident you will discover my answer to yours.

[Gregory Matthews]

Rossw said, see below:

Whether or not it is true could be discussed.   It  might be true.  It might not be true.  But, the truth of it is not my focus.  My  focus is sthat we should not put words in the mouth of EGW that she did not utter and then use such to support our own thinking.

If you want to use EGW to support your thinking.  O.K.  But, use her accurately.

The assumption may have been made connecting EGW to our time but it is a very very safe assumption. How many Israelites who came from Egypt entered the promised land? They were not safe even though they were from God's own chosen people. 

[Tom Wetmore]

14 hours ago, Rossw said:

What I see quite a lot from the pro-WO are arguments founded in SDA church history. Does what the church did historically set any precedence over what is written in Scripture? Is the SDA church infallible. If the church is fallible how do we use it as evidence? 

That is to a great extent the result of the apparent lack of even the most basic understanding of our own Church history.  A very large part of the opposition comes from the millions of converts within this generation.  And another very vocal segment of the opposition are those that claim to be historical Adventists that claim to be reviving the historic teachings and standards of historic Adventism.  The problem with these two groups is that they are either intentionally ignoring or simply ignorant (not in a derogatory sense, but in an uniformed or uneducated sense) of our own history on quite a few issues, but especially on the role and function of women within the early Adventist Church. The importance of considering what the Church did in those days is also very important because of the fact that it was when EGW was alive and actively providing  inspired guidance to the Church at that time on things it was doing or not doing, or should be doing, or not doing. 

That is why it is relevant.

[Rossw]

54 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Rossw said, see below:

Whether or not it is true could be discussed.   It  might be true.  It might not be true.  But, the truth of it is not my focus.  My  focus is sthat we should not put words in the mouth of EGW that she did not utter and then use such to support our own thinking.

If you want to use EGW to support your thinking.  O.K.  But, use her accurately.

 

 

I did use her accurately. Many think they are saved but will "cry Lord, Lord".

[Rossw]

12 minutes ago, Tom Wetmore said:

That is to a great extent the result of the apparent lack of even the most basic understanding of our own Church history.  A very large part of the opposition comes from the millions of converts within this generation.  And another very vocal segment of the opposition are those that claim to be historical Adventists that are reviving the historic teachings and standards of Adventism.  The problem with these two groups is that they are either intentionally ignoring or simply ignorant (not in a derogatory sense, but in an uniformed or uneducated sense) of our own history on quite a few issues but especially on the role and function of women within the early Adventist Church. The importance of considering what the Church did in those days is also most relevant because of the fact that it was when EGW was alive and actively providing   inspired guidance to the Church at that time on things it was doing or not doing, or should be doing. 

That is why it is relevant.

So, the church did err at that time and required the guidance of EGW? There is a difference between understanding the church's history and learning from the good and bad from it or just picking and choosing church history to set precedence to support an argument. 

In my readings of the church's historical evidence on WO there is more to the scenarios then is what is presented here. This leads me to believe the historical evidence is continually used in a dishonest way.

[debbym]

13 hours ago, Robert said:

Again, it is not a major issue with me.  As I said, I prefer men as Pastors.  Why?  Because that's what I am accustom to....

Also keep in mind I am a non-attending Christian.  I left the local SDA church because I believed they were teaching a subtle form of legalism.

Besides this legalistic, perfectionism helped turn me into tyrant at home.  I know how men can abuse their power - as in it's my way or the highway.  Been there, done that....

when we believe our authority is the authority of God, and feel it is our responsibility to make others know the truth and make children obey the Lord... we step into all the risks of abuse of power.  The Law of kindness is to rule our hearts then our home.  David said, Thy gentleness hath made me great.  we are not to be lording anything over anyone.  i grew up in a fearful authoritarian adventist home... and i tell you the truth can be made to serve a lie.