Dangers I see in Headship theology

[Kevin H]

The law of God is self sacrificing love/ self renouncing love. No more and no less. We may ask what this means so we have the two great principles; to love God supremely and our neighbor as ourselves. How do we do this? we get the 10 commandments. In the Exodus 20 version breaks into 3 thirds: The first third is 3 commandments telling us how to love God supremely. The last third is 6 commandments telling us how to love our neighbor as ourselves. The middle third is one commandment that tells us that the only way we can love God supremely and our neighbor as ourselves is by resting in a relationship with God. (the three thirds also corresponds to the 3 aspects of the trinity).

 

The foundation of Seventh-day Adventism is that the law is the reflection of God's character. It is a reflection of his very nature. The foundation of sin is that God is a tyrant in imposing upon others a law that does not apply to himself. That the law is outside of him and that he is simply arbitrary that we all submit to him and to each other while he is alone at the top.

 

God is the only self existent one and life only comes from him so we need to submit to him for life. However with in the trinity the law of self sacrificing love/self renouncing love is practiced. For the trinity their neighbors are the other members of the trinity. They all submit to each other and thus live in a righteousness by faith relationship with each other. Each relates to the other as the other is their head. God is NOT the papacy which is how Satan likes to picture the role of God and the rest of us.

 

This new teaching "Headship Theology" is simply Roman Catholicism filtered through Calvinistic philosophy. Seventh-day Adventism is more Methodist, not Calvinistic. If headship theology is true then Mrs. White's thought is not true. We have no reason for being Seventh-day Adventists. Satan wins the great controversy and the Sabbath becomes nothing more than an arbitrary imposition.

[Johann]

We must humbly pray for those who are blinded by the headship theology.

[Daryl]

Have you watched this?

 

 

And this?

 

[B/W Photodude]

I will be watching in total later, but did note that he (1st video) wrote how modern "translations" of EGW writings are changing to text to be politically correct. Not good.

[Kevin H]

It was from listening to these arguments and contrasting them with scripture that I came up with my warning list. This is built on Calvanistic theology and read back into the Bible. Elder Sorke received his doctorate from the Dallas Theological Seminary. When I was working on my Masters at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary and my BA at AUC (late 1970s early 1980s), our professors warned that the Dallas Theological Seminary was one of the most Anti-Adventist schools that there was.

 

Adventist debate whether we should be Fundamentalists or not. Those of us who are Fundamentalists are on the liberal end of the Fundamentalist spectrum.

 

The Dallas Theological Seminary's purpose is to make people very conservative Fundamentalist, Darbyist dispensationalists and Calvinists. My professors told us in the 70's and 80s that the Dallas Theological Seminary and the Seventh-day Adventist Theological seminary are dramatically opposed to each other.

 

It is not that it is necessarily a bad school, and that every student who goes there end up brainwashed to their philosophy. However we need to have flashing yellow lights with we hear someone from that school, only because they are too far to the one extreme.

 

Let's say that someone went to an equivalent school but who was at the other extreme. The professors are good Bible scholars but who believe that the Bible is purely of human origin, some who even doubt God's existence and they have Richard Dawkins come to lecture to the students. The graduate may be a good believing Seventh-day Adventist, but due to the purpose of the school we need to keep our guard up.

 

For some reason we are aware of this danger with the ultra liberal schools, but we set that same guard down with the ultra conservative schools.

 

At the 1919 Washington DC Bible Conference Elder A. G. Daniels and W. W. Prescott were warning the people (who were on their way to the Fundamentalist Bible Conference in Philadelphia) about what they were going to learn in Philadelphia. Daniels, Prescott and Willie White feared that what they were going to hear in Philadelphia would ruin the Seventh-day Adventist Church. The Dallas Theological Seminary is based on what was taught at the Philadelphia 1919 Bible conference with it mixed with Calvinism and Darby's Dispensationalism.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Daryl:

 

Welcome to our forum.  I have often wondered what you were doing as I had not seen you post in CA for some time. For those who may not know, Daryl is the owner of another forum that is similar to Club Adventist in many ways.  However, while there are a very few people who post both in Daryl's forum and in Club Adventist, the majority of people only post in one forum. 

 

I note that you have posted links to two videos that are almost one hour each.  That is a long time for most people to spend attempting to get to a brief formulation of the issues involved.

 

Daryl, I would suspect that the majority of people on your forum believe that the Bible is clear on at what it says about this subject.  They may have some division as to the important issues.

 

NOTE:  In my personal understanding, the Biblical issue is not ordination.  Rather it is the role that women should play in spiritual nurture.  Regardless of the stand that people take on ordination, I believe that those who focus on ordination have missed the main Biblical issue.

 

In any case, I suspect that most of the people who contribute to your forum agree as to whether or not women should be ordained.

 

While I have a personal position on the subject and you probably know what it is, I have come to a different understanding that many people, on both sides have.  I agree with what is essentially the position of the SDA Church, at this point in time.  Perhaps it will change either in July , or at some other time.  My position is that a the Bible does not speak so definitively on this issue that all can come to agreement on it.  I am still searching for why this may be. But, I am leaning to either it is because:  1)  God does not consider this to be fundamentally related to salvation and therefore has not had the need to speak with clarity.  2) God has not spoken with clarity because God want to force people into a deeper study of the Bible.  If the reason is not one of these, perhaps there is another.  In any case, it is the Holy Spirit that is responsible for leading us into truth.

 

  In my personal opinion, while I believe the Bible is the ultimate test of authority, the leading of the Holy Spirit is also instructive.  For about 175 years of our denominational existence, I see a common thread of God leading as to the role that women should have in spiritual nurture.

 

Anyway, what am I getting to in all of this?  I will ask you what your purpose and mission is for the forum that you own and host?  Are you attempting to lead a forum that is dedicated to the proposition of one specific answer to this issue, even though that answer may be founded on what you believe the Bible says/

 

Or are you willing to concede, as a forum, that Bible based Christians can disagree on this issue and that ultimately in the end it will have to be  God that will settle it.  In the mean time, we will live at peace with each other and thanking god for the ministry that each of us is doing?

[Kevin H]

I believe that the reason why we don't have a clear "proof text" is that God wants us to dig deeper. I believe that a big part of the investigative judgment is that we are living in a time where we can did deeper with all we have discovered on the history and culture and geography and linguistic studies that has only started opening up for us in the mid 1800s. Also, at times our clear "Proof Texts" are not saying what we think they say. (For example Ecl. 9:5. We tend to turn first here because it says it clear and concise. But I have yet to find Mrs. White using it in this way. I keep finding her either building the case from other texts or simply quote this text but assuming the building from other texts. While the words make a nice summary of what we understand the Bible to teach, the context is that the author is warning us of dangerous beliefs that were floating around and wanting us to avoid them. One of these dangerous beliefs was that this life was all there is and when we die it's all over.)

 

I have become convinced that the Bible does teach women's ordination. When learning about the debate among the Rabbis of Jesus' day about the issue, and learning how Rabbis ordained a new Rabbi, and we find Jesus doing this with Mary it becomes quite convincing. When we study about what the tassels in Numbers meant to say people in a trade caravan traveling in the middle east it shows that women were not excluded from the priesthood of all believers. And how it was Jesus Ben Sirach who lived about 200 years before our Jesus who started in Judaism the anti-womens ordination and wanted only men to wear the Tassels, thus replacing the word of God for the traditions of man because he was against women's ordination. That becomes quite telling.

 

Greg, have you read the book I've been recommending "Attitudes Towards Women in the Bible" by Jim Fleming? http://www.biblicalresources.net/product.cfm?product=58 I hope you and anyone who wants to study this issue will get this and read it. I wish some places would invite Dr. Fleming to give his five sermon series that goes along with this notebook to help us decide.

[Daryl]

I have become convinced that the Bible does teach women's ordination. When learning about the debate among the Rabbis of Jesus' day about the issue, and learning how Rabbis ordained a new Rabbi, and we find Jesus doing this with Mary it becomes quite convincing....

I would like you to show me from the Bible where this was done by Jesus in reference to Mary.

 

From my study of this and watching the various symposiums and forum and group email discussions on the subject of women's ordination, as well as the personal testimony of two locally ordained women as elders, who both believed it wasn't biblical, one of the two who renounced her ordination as being unbiblical, I am presently believing that the Bible doesn't teach that the ordination of women is biblical.

 

I must say that I do find it interesting that there is such a division over the issue of women's ordination from the General Conference President, who I believe is against women's ordination, to the other leaders of our church, some of who are somewhat divided over this issue to an extent, even to the level of a few being rebellious to the previous GC session decisions of the General Conference, which I believe is clearly wrong, to the lay people, some of who are also somewhat divided over this issue in a few of our Divisions.

 

Did you watch the video of a response of the lay people of a NAD congregation over the Q&A Mailing that was sent to all the NAD churches?

 

In case you didn't, you can watch it here:

 

[Gregory Matthews]

To me the issue has moved from women's ordination to how we treat those who differ from us.

[Daryl]

To me t he issue has moved from women's ordination to how we treat those who differ from us.

I feel that those who are for it are the ones who do not treat very nicely those who are against it.

[Gregory Matthews]

Daryl, probably there is fault on both sides.

[Kevin H]

There are three big issues for me.

 

The first and biggest is the way we treat each other. Sadly I see on both sides a lot of unkindness and I have received a lot of unkindness for the information I've presented. In 1888 Mrs. White was more concerned about how we treated each other rather than who was right and who was wrong. I keep watching my heart and fear falling into the same unkindness and one-ups-man-ship, and worry about having fallen into this.

 

The second issue is that I honestly believe that the Bible teaches women's ordination. If it passes in San Antonio we will at least have freedom of choice. Those of us who believe that women's ordination is Biblical have the freedom to listen to both men and women. Those who do not believe it's Biblical can still have the choice of attending churches with only a man pastor. (I have received flack from others but I also support that for churches which are way out in the country where our members don't have a choice should only have male pastors.)

 

The third issue is our willingness to dig deeper into the Bible. For example we have Numbers 15:38

 

Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them fringes in the borders of their garments throughout their generations, and that they put upon the fringe of the borders a ribband of blue: (KJV)

 

If you were living in the ancient world and say traveling with a caravan going from city to city, do you know what that verse would mean to you? Archaeology has discovered that this tassel was a sign of being an ordained priest. As the merchants would go from city to city they would see some people wearing this. If they needed spiritual help they could approach someone with this tassel. When they came into Israel/Judah everyone was wearing this tassel. It was an invitation to approach anyone for their spiritual needs. Men and women. Granted we cannot argue more than that this was a symbol for the Hebrews being a kingdom of priests and the priesthood of all believers. However some who have opposed or been indifferent to women's ordination say that if God commanded in Numbers for women to wear this sign of being an ordained priest, what right do I have to say that they cannot be ordained?

 

On the other hand, we find that 200 years before Jesus there was a Rabbi named Jesus Ben Sirach. His writings were considered for the Bible but finally decided not to be put into the Bible. He had a bad marriage and while he said some good things about God he said some very bad things about women. He argued that the Jews should STOP having women priests and women Rabbis. How do you stop having something unless you already have them. I have had professors who I respect say that in the Old Testament there were women priests. Now I only heard one of their arguments but I need to study here more. (the argument that I have heard is that the linguistics of some of the psalms indicate that they were to be lead out by a woman priest-- now my field is the history so I don't have the linguistic background to evaluate this.) Anyway with Jesus Ben Sirach's wanting Jews to STOP having women priests and Rabbis, he also wanted women to stop wearing this sign of being an ordained priest. He wanted ONLY men to wear that tassel. Thus replacing the word of God for the traditions of man.

 

It was because of Jesus Ben Sirach that Harod's temple had something that the Tabernacle and Soloman's temple did NOT have; a court of women where women were allowed no further.

 

Also because of Jesus Ben Sirach, the ordination of women became a hot topic in Judaism. The liberal Rabbis, such as the school of Hillel were strongly influenced by Rabbi Ben Sirach and they would not ordain women. The conservative Rabbis, such as the school of Shammai did ordain women Rabbis.

 

Now if we were to travel back to the time of Jesus and listen to a rabbi teaching. He might be standing or walking in which people would stand or walk with him. However if he was to sit in a chair we would notice something happening.

 

First there would be approximately 82 give or take people who would sit at the Rabbi's feet. Everyone else would stand. With some Rabbis there would be women sitting among the 82 who are sitting at the Rabbi's feet, and women standing listening just like the men. However for other Rabbis the 82 would be all men. And only men would stand listening and all the women would do all sorts of hospitality tasks and try to listen some but their focus was on the hospitality tasks.

 

What we will be seeing is that the Rabbis wanted to have about 12 disciples who had basically 24 hour access to the Rabbi. They represented the 12 tribes. When traveling they would all sleep in the same room. They were privileged to participate in the late night talks with the rabbi and other disciples. They had to be the same sex as the Rabbi. However Rabbis also wanted to have a group to represent the 70 elders who helped Moses. Thus the  about 12 and about 70 would give us 82 more or less. These were the full time disciples of the Rabbi. They were ordained by being allowed to sit at his feet. Only ordained Rabbis were allowed to sit at a Rabbi's feet when he was sitting and teaching. While the 12 had to be the same sex as the Rabbi, if it was a Rabbi from the school of Hillel or other liberal rabbinical school the 70 would also be all men. However if the Rabbi was from the school of Shammai or another conservative school the 70 could be both men and women and yes there were women Rabbis. We have their names in Rabbinical lists (an orthodox Jew responded to the discovery of names of women Rabbis by saying "Her husband must have been the Rabbi, but they forgot his name so they wrote down the wife's name.)

 

Those standing listening to the Rabbi are the NON-ordained laymen. Once again if it was from a conservative school such as the school of Shammai both men and women will stand. If it was a liberal school such as the school of Hillel, again it would only be the lay men who were allowed to stand The women were required to keep busy with hospitality tasks serving the men. 

 

This is the historical context of Luke 10:38-42King James Version (KJV)

³⁸ Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain village: and a certain woman named Martha received him into her house.

³⁹ And she had a sister called Mary, which also sat at Jesus' feet, and heard his word.

⁴⁰ But Martha was cumbered about much serving, and came to him, and said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me.

⁴¹ And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things:

⁴² But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.

 

According to the liberal schools of the Rabbis the women were supposed to serve when a Rabbi sat and taught. Unordained lay men were to stand and ORDAINED Rabbis were allowed to sit at the Rabbi's feet to hear the word.

 

Jesus could have said to Mary "Martha and the school of Hillel are right, women should be serving so please join your sister." Second and even more shocking is that Jesus could have said to both of them: Martha, you do not need to keep serving, you should stand and listen to me with the laymen, and Mary, women are not to be ordained as Rabbis, so it would be wise for you to also stand and listen." However Jesus allowed Mary to sit at his feet, the position that says that she is being ordained as a Rabbi. That she is allowed to be one of the 70 full time disciples who are studying to be Rabbis.

 

Do you think that Jesus knew about the debate over women's ordination that was going on among the Rabbis? Do you think that Jesus knew how the Rabbis ordained people? Do you think Jesus knew what he was doing and what it was saying when he allowed Mary to SIT at his feet? If Jesus would not take ordination away from Mary, what right to we do to take it away from women?

[Gail]

Compelling...

[B/W Photodude]

I note that you have posted links to two videos that are almost one hour each.  That is a long time for most people to spend attempting to get to a brief formulation of the issues involved.

 

 

I have watched both of these videos in full. And yes, it does take a time commitment. However, I think it is valuable information especially as we come into another GC session and the times we live in. I know we sometimes want to surf right thru sound bites and give one line answers, but ...

 

Ingo Sorke talk:

 

This was an interesting talk where he took on and discussed many of the rationals given by the pro-ordination supporters and those who are just tired of the whole argument. I found it interesting how much the pro-women's ordination movement depends on feelings and emotions. This is also something we are well warned about. Feelings are not doctrines.

 

Another issue that he discussed is the claim that male headship is a relatively new Roman Catholic doctrine. He listed a couple of reasons why this wasn't so.

 

Sorke also discussed following the Bible and not other sources of wishfull thinking such as misunderstood archeology and other things. The Bible will speak for itself. I do tend to believe that everything needed for church doctrine and policy is in the Bible on any subject. You don't need to go elsewhere for understanding.

 

Dr John Peters talk:

 

Dr Peters listed 26 reasons why male headship existed even BEFORE the fall! We tend to think Eve was to be in submission to Adam because of the fall, Dr Peters show that Eve being subject to Adam was just a re-statement of how things were before the fall. 

 

Dr. Peters was able to compare Eve's "restlessness" to the modern feminist movement. Dr Peters discussed the rise of the women's ordination in the SDA church as a contemporary movement accompanying the modern feminist movement.

 

Overall, these are two very well worth watching videos.

[Kevin H]

Lyndon: you took the commitment to listen to these two sermons. Now are you willing to commit to reading "Attitudes Towards Women in the Bible." I notice that the critics of women's ordination appear to be unaware of this information. We need to be familiar with both to make an informed decision. http://www.biblicalresources.net/product.cfm?product=58 or are you someone who will look at one side of the issue but avoid issues that are not the straw men built and knocked down.

 

Why do they refuse to discuss the tassels that Moses commanded. Whey do they refuse to discuss Jesus Ben Sirach and why Judaism had women Rabbis until he began to oppose the women's ordination. Why do they avoid discussing the debate in Jesus' day over the ordination of women and why Jesus actions were exactly the same debated actions for ordaining women? They like to stick their heads in the sand when it comes to the evidence that Jesus ordained women. Why do they refuse to discuss why A. G. Daniels told the New York Conference and Atlantic Union that wanted to start ordaining women that they were correct but that there were too many uneducated members who thought that it was not Biblical to ordain women and that they needed to be educated. And even more so why did Mrs. White write the articles that Elder Daniels promised the Atlantic Union and New York Conference that he would ask her to write to start to work un educating the members so that the Atlantic Union and New York Conference could start to ordain women. They don't like to talk about why the Holy Spirit loves them better and are willing to tell them what he failed to tell Mrs. White so that she ended up writing those articles. She could have easily have corrected Elder Daniels and the Atlantic Union and New York by telling them that they were wrong. Why has the Holy Spirit chosen to correct his mistake through them?

[B/W Photodude]

1. Lyndon: you took the commitment to listen to these two sermons. Now are you willing to commit to reading "Attitudes Towards Women in the Bible."

2. Why do they refuse to discuss the tassels that Moses commanded. 

3. Why do they avoid discussing the debate in Jesus' day over the ordination of women and why Jesus actions were exactly the same debated actions for ordaining women?

4. Why do they avoid discussing the debate in Jesus' day over the ordination of women

 

1. Probably not. It is one thing to commit to a video, but another to ask people to buy a book on line to read. And this when you have no idea how many books I might already have on the subject or how much pro-women's ordination stuff I have read. I have and find it weak and non-Biblical.

 

2. You make much of the blue tassels. You may note in Numbers that all of the sons of Israel were commanded to wear blue tassels. However, we know that not all the sons of Israel were priests. That was limited to the tribe of Levi. Then keep reading and you will note from the Bible the blue tassels were to remember all the commandments of the LORD. Did women ever wear blue tassels? Maybe. But not because they were priests.

 

Numbers 15:37The LORD also spoke to Moses, saying, 38"Speak to the sons of Israel, and tell them that they shall make for themselves tassels on the corners of their garments throughout their generations, and that they shall put on the tassel of each corner a cord of blue.39"It shall be a tassel for you to look at and remember all the commandments of the LORD, so as to do them and not follow after your own heart and your own eyes, after which you played the harlot,… I will say that in the Orthodox Jewish tradition today, only men wear tallit in the temple and the last time I was in a conservative temple it was the same.

 

3. The fact that Jesus had Mary at his feet was in no way a secret sign to the supporters of women's ordination that Jesus was trying to ordain Mary. He was known for upsetting tradition in many ways. And Mary at his feet was just another way. There is no reference anywhere that the disciples sat at his feet either. And his appointed apostle who followed him quite explicitly forbade women to be in positions of authority over men. So, either all scriptures are not inspired or Paul was not following what Jesus wanted. I am sure that if ordination was approved by Jesus, one of the other apostles would have clued Paul in on these new changes. But they did not should writings of support either.

 

4. It is hard to say whether there were women rabbis, but there is nothing in the Bible authorizing it. And the amount of time that Israel spent following the traditions of surrounding nations with the priestesses acting as temple harlots could have influenced the practice of Judaism. So, the burden falls on you to provide a Bible text and not what the people may have been doing establish this as an acceptable practice.

[Kevin H]

We can either study the Bible with it's historical, cultural, geographical and linguistic context; or else we read the Bible and submit it to the context of our imagination. I find the context to be very compelling arguments. If you want to remain ignorant of what others have found compelling then how do you expect to fairly present your view?

 

While not dealing with this topic here is a Video of the author to give you a general idea:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIfCbnhnmYg

[B/W Photodude]

If you want to remain ignorant of what others have found compelling then how do you expect to fairly present your view?

 

It is really not good to suggest someone will remain ignorant for not buying into your arguments. I did answer several of your points in my last post in this thread. However, you answered none of mine, but only tried to get me to read your type of material.

 

What others find compelling may be interesting but I find the anti-women's ordination even more compelling. Especially when the more I read, I find the headship  for some and submission of others to be in place before sin entered into this world and is even the natural order of things throughout the universe. And I suspect that constantly looking for "equality" is just one more way to make people spend more time watching others to make sure they don't get one more bit of anything than you. Which suggests a real problem with selfishness.

[CoAspen]

source:???

 

I find the headship  for some and submission of others to be in place before sin entered into this world and is even the natural order of things throughout the universe.

convoluted:

 

looking for "equality" is just one more way to make people spend more time watching others to make sure they don't get one more bit of anything than you. Which suggests a real problem with selfishness.

Equality=Selfishness

 

Redefining words does not make a truth.

[Kevin H]

I find too much of the arguments of both sides to be quite speculative and trying to build up philosophies that they can hang their view on. I find Fleming's arguments to be "Here is what the Bible says, this is the context where it said it" and you see a clear "Thus saith the Lord."  and all the texts used to try to form philosophies based on Calvinism and which do not fit what I understand Mrs. White's view to be does not measure up to the "Thus Saith the Lord". 

 

I use consistent methods into why I believe that Mrs. White is a prophet, why I believe in 1844 and the Investigative Judgment, and these same hermeneutics lead me to the conclusion that the Bible teaches the ordination of women. I see the arguments for headship as Satan's trogon horse to loosen the foundation and prepare Conservatives when the issues of Fundamentalism come to focus to make of no effect the spirit of prophecy.

 

I cannot accept the arguments for headship without having my reasons for being a Seventh-day Adventist tumble down and I'd have to become a Baptist or something else. And what I mean by "ignorance" is not in being ignorant. It is in I see a whole bunch of arguments as to why I should not support women's ordination. These do not fit with my understanding of the Bible, Mrs. White or the investigative judgment. If I was say a member of say the Unitarian Universalists or another very liberal group these arguments might make sense. Those who present those arguments may be convincing to those who are seeing these liberal reasons for ordaining women. However I do not see it answering the "Thus Saith the Lord" that I read. I do not find it in harmony with my understanding of Mrs. White and my view on the ordination of women are from the same hermeneutics that convince me that we are indeed living in the time of the investigative judgment. That this is a lost Bible truth that as our forefathers rediscovered the Sabbath, so we have rediscovered the lost Bible truth about women's ordination.

 

As to your 4 points

 

1. I appreciate your honesty. However you need to be aware that when it comes to say my views you are barking up the wrong tree. You can try to tell that the Seventh-day Adventist church should stop encouraging vegetarianism because Hindus believe that cows are gods and in eating cows we affirm that they are not a god.  You may be an expert in the Hindu faith but that is not why I have vegetarianism as a goal.

 

2. If I was living in the ancient world and happen to pass through Israel or Judah, what would those tassels mean to me? What was their cultural significance to say someone from Africia, or Egypt or Babylon, or Europe or Asia etc. They would routinely run into these tassels However in Israel/Judah everyone was wearing them, not just a few. But I believe I said that the tassels as such cannot be argued for more than a reminder to Israel that they were a kingdom of priests and the priesthood of all believers. It was Jesus Ben Sirach who wanted women to remove them because he wanted the Jews to STOP having women priests and Rabbis.

 

3. Who said anything about it being a "secret" sign? It is no more secret than Jesus riding into Jerusalem on a donkey. It is a very blatant stand. The Rabbis were arguing over whether or not women should be ordained. Jesus made a open and blatant stand as to which side of the argument he was on. 

 

4. First of all may I remind you that it was not only the priestesses who were temple harlots in Paganism, but the priests as well. Using that as an argument opposing women's ordination sounds like "God was afraid of female harlots, but did not mind confusion over homosexuality." why didn't God simply have no priesthood since priests were prostitutes in paganism? Now again I will say that I have not heard any argument except for linguistic arguments in the Psalms for women priests. Only that some scholars I strongly respect have commented that there were both male and female priests. What I do know is that Rabbi Jesus Ben Sirach wanted the Jews to stop having women Priests and Rabbis. And YES there were women Rabbis. Ancient lists of Rabbis have been discovered and there are women's names on them. We know how Rabbis were ordained. We know that the liberal Rabbis were opposed to women's ordination while the conservative Rabbis supported women's ordination. And we know how Jesus responded to this argument.

[Tom Wetmore]

... It is one thing to commit to a video, but another to ask people to buy a book on line to read. And this when you have no idea how many books I might already have on the subject or how much pro-women's ordination stuff I have read. I have and find it weak and non-Biblical...

No need to worry about spending money on a book. There is substantial info available for free right at your fingertips. The GC Archives has posted on its website all of the papers submitted for TOSC. And the pinned topic at the top of the topic menu for this section entitle "Pacific Union Info on WO..." has a link to a substantial amount of info beyond that, including videos. Have you read and viewed all of that?

[B/W Photodude]

An Appeal to the Delegates of the 2015 General Conference Session

 

Larry Kirkpatrick discusses what is behind the WO movement:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNChPlSxRQA

[B/W Photodude]

There is substantial info available for free right at your fingertips. The GC Archives has posted on its website all of the papers submitted for TOSC. And the pinned topic at the top of the topic menu for this section entitle "Pacific Union Info on WO..." has a link to a substantial amount of info beyond that, including videos. Have you read and viewed all of that?

Part of Eve's mistake was stopping at the tree and engaging in conversation with the serpent! I have read enough on the pro-side and have not been convinced. I do think there is too much altering of scripture in the pro-women's ordination movement and it opens the door for many other heresies to come in. You may not accept that, and it is your choice. The concerns I have are much the same as Larry Kirkpatrick outlined in the immediately proceeding link. You may choose not to watch it if you feel I am not watching your stuff. I do have my own paper coming out with my review of headship as soon as I am done editing and proofing it. I think I have some issues from the Bible and EGW that have not come up yet!

[Tom Wetmore]

Part of Eve's mistake was stopping at the tree and engaging in conversation with the serpent! I have read enough on the pro-side and have not been convinced. I do think there is too much altering of scripture in the pro-women's ordination movement and it opens the door for many other heresies to come in. You may not accept that, and it is your choice...

Really, the same could as easily be said about the anti-WO side. I should think that given the less than convincing testimony of your own "diligence" of investigating the pro-WO perspective, among other antithetical postures you have taken, you would be a bit more subdued in chastising those of us who were skeptical of these videos you posted and disinclined to spend the time with them. It takes a certain amount of hubris, I think. Maybe if you yourself actual spent more time seriously considering rather than having just "read enough" to know you want to avoid exploring further, you might be in a less hypocritical posture to urge us to spend the better part of an evening watching those two videos.

Some of us have spent decades studying this topic which of necessity requires repeated reviews of the endless repetition of the same old arguments and a steady stream of ever changing arguments when those fall flat or fail. We have had to meet those arguments headon for decades. But the stubbornness with which they are so often maintained, even when convincingly refuted with overwhelming evidence by people, far more qualified than either you or me. So forgive us for lacking much enthusiasm to endure yet another round, especially a couple hours worth.

[Johann]

I would like you to show me from the Bible where this was done by Jesus in reference to Mary.

 

From my study of this and watching the various symposiums and forum and group email discussions on the subject of women's ordination, as well as the personal testimony of two locally ordained women as elders, who both believed it wasn't biblical, one of the two who renounced her ordination as being unbiblical, I am presently believing that the Bible doesn't teach that the ordination of women is biblical.

 

I must say that I do find it interesting that there is such a division over the issue of women's ordination from the General Conference President, who I believe is against women's ordination, to the other leaders of our church, some of who are somewhat divided over this issue to an extent, even to the level of a few being rebellious to the previous GC session decisions of the General Conference, which I believe is clearly wrong, to the lay people, some of who are also somewhat divided over this issue in a few of our Divisions.

 

 

Daryl, just a few days ago I received a note from one of the persons working for a division about as far from Europe as you can get. I was told that most of the delegates from that division will be voting "yes" to the proposal in Texas, and that is becaue they are convinced that WO is Biblical.

 

In my early youth I learned to read the Bible the way our pioneers and Ellen G White did, and not the way the fundamentalists from Dallas are teaching and which has infiltrated among many SDA's who wrongfully label themselves as "Conservative". It was through my Bible study I learned from Paul in 1 Timothy that the ordination of women is Biblical. This happened about 30 years ago, and therefore I saw it as unbiblical what took place at the GC session in 1995.

 

Daryl, you should take some time to read how our pioneers read the Bible around 1850 when our enemies were attacking the new Advent movement becaue it was following the preaching and teaching of a female prophet. Now the Dallas people are still using the same texts against us,  but not as obvious as people did then. What they have managed in stead is to turn the heads of many SDA to understanad the bible like a harlot by making us using the texts they in the past were using against us, so we now use the same texts against ourselves. You see how smart our enemies are? Are we to follow their devices against ourselves?

 

You will be in my prayers, Daryl.