Washington Conference Grants Females ______

[Kevin H]

On ‎7‎/‎6‎/‎2016 at 2:17 AM, Rossw said:

You know that's just more straw right?

Please explain to me how this is just more straw. As I understand Green Cochoa, he is arguing that we cannot include this information in our discussion or study of the Bible text because we do not have a clear proof text that actually says that these issues were involved that we are not allowed to enter them as acceptable evidence. Tonight I was just reading in a new book by a Dr. Miller at Andrews called "The Reformers and the Remnant" He was discussing how Luther and the reformers had to deal with two ideas: Sola Scriptura, which meant that the Bible is the final authority but that we can look at the text with reason and history and other things that can help us understand the text better, and Solo Scriptura, which says that we have to use only the words of scripture and nothing else. That the reformers rejected Solo Scriptura and taught Sola Scriptura.

Green Cochoa disagrees with the reformers in demanding only Solo Scriptura at the expense of sola scriptura.

No much how much Rossw or Green wish that there was not that protocol among the Rabbis on who does what when a Rabbi sits and teaches. and no matter how much they want woman Rabbis not to be an issue in Jesus' day, that is indeed an issue. Green has just set himself up as a judge telling what evidence will and will not be allowed in discussing the topic with him. He does not care that if this story occurred with any other rabbi except for Jesus it would be clear what the meaning was. He does not care that Jesus had the habit of attending the Synagogue on the Sabbath and therefore the text would infer that Jesus knew what was going on. He does not care that there is in the scripture other texts where there is interactions between Jesus and others such as the Pharisees and Sadducees where he understood the issues and would do actions that either agreed or disagreed with them. Green demands a solo scriptura standard that unless we have a proof text that tells us that this was indeed the issue that we must assume that it was not the issue and not allow that piece of evidence as acceptable evidence.

For the rest of us we have to also deal with the issue of whether we are going to go sola scriptura or solo scriptura. I accept Green's stance that he himself will not accept any facts or evidence except for a solo scriptura proof text. But for the rest of us we have to ask what is the weight of the evidence. Could Jesus have known what was going on in his day and what his actions meant, or was he ignorant of them and any similarity between what Jesus did and what history said about that action was merely an unfortunate coincidence.

But I do have a question for you. Where was the pen of Mrs. White in 1881 and the first decade of the 1900s when the General conference leaders voted to ordain women and when the New York Conference and Atlantic Union wanted to ordain women? Why was she writing those articles that you have to go through like a lawyer looking for loopholes, about women in ministry instead of telling the leadership that they were wrong in wanting to ordain women? Why is your reasoning so much better than hers? Why did she fail us then? Why did the Lord call you to correct her mistake?

[Green Cochoa]

56 minutes ago, Kevin H said:

As I understand Green Cochoa, he is arguing that we cannot include this information in our discussion or study of the Bible text because we do not have a clear proof text that actually says that these issues were involved that we are not allowed to enter them as acceptable evidence.

 

56 minutes ago, Kevin H said:

I accept Green's stance that he himself will not accept any facts or evidence except for a solo scriptura proof text.

First of all, my stance is not my own, it is that of Mrs. Ellen G. White, the very one whom you seek to misuse as an example for what she taught against.

Secondly, I use the Bible and Ellen White's writings both as messages from God, i.e. a "thus saith the LORD."

 

What a day we have come to when people use Mrs. White to teach something opposite to her own teachings!

Here is a statement in regard to that which deserves some attention here.

And now to all who have a desire for truth I would say: Do not give credence to unauthenticated reports as to what Sister White has done or said or written. If you desire to know what the Lord has revealed through her, read her published works. Are there any points of interest concerning which she has not written, do not eagerly catch up and report rumors as to what she has said.   {5T 696.1}   -- Mrs. White.

 

I would like to ask the very pertinent question of "Why do people dwell so much on the 'unauthenticated reports'?"

[Green Cochoa]

1 hour ago, Kevin H said:

But I do have a question for you. Where was the pen of Mrs. White in 1881 and the first decade of the 1900s when the General conference leaders voted to ordain women and when the New York Conference and Atlantic Union wanted to ordain women? Why was she writing those articles that you have to go through like a lawyer looking for loopholes, about women in ministry instead of telling the leadership that they were wrong in wanting to ordain women? Why is your reasoning so much better than hers? Why did she fail us then? Why did the Lord call you to correct her mistake?

As Ross would say, there's a lot of straw here.  There's enough, I think, to feed a healthy horse in the above.  Need I go through and correct your errors point by point?  Or perhaps, as Ellen White may well have done in the time which you are addressing, is it better to remain silent and not encourage debate?

Let me make one point clear, though, since you asked:  Mrs. White did not make mistakes which I, or anyone else, needs to correct, nor do I seek to correct anything beyond misinterpretations of what she wrote.  To criticize Mrs. White would be to criticize God.  With that in mind, perhaps I can return the question to you and others here:

Why did God instruct us through Mrs. White that men are to be the heads of the home and of the home church, and that men are to be the ordained ministers of the church?  Why did Mrs. White never once publish a statement saying women should be ordained to the gospel ministry or as elders of the church?

[Kevin H]

There are quotes when she comes close to this, but which the critics of women's  ordination look for loopholes to try to say that she was only speaking about ministry in very general terms. It is hard to go with that argument when we find that some of these articles were written when the church wanted to ordain women and the General Conference President A. G. Daniels asked for the conferences and unions to wait just a little bit until the members can learn that it is not against the Bible to ordain women. Please tell me why a number of her articles on women in ministry were written in that historical context instead of her writing articles telling Elder Daniels and the other church leaders that they were wrong? That is where YOU are changing her writings, she wrote articles about women in ministry at a time Elder Daniels promised to try to educate our members that it was indeed Biblical to ordain women. Mrs. White appears to gently be trying to change the hard harts of those who Elder Daniels said he wanted to educate. You have to answer why she did not take advantage of these times to nib the problem in the bud and tell Elder Daniels and the others that they were wrong on wanting to ordain women. Why was she playing into their plan by writing articles about women in ministry when Elder Daniels promised to use similar articles to prepare the church to ordain women.

[Rossw]

6 hours ago, Kevin H said:

Mrs. White appears to gently be trying to change the hard harts of those who Elder Daniels said he wanted to educate. You have to answer why she did not take advantage of these times to nib the problem in the bud and tell Elder Daniels and the others that they were wrong on wanting to ordain women. Why was she playing into their plan by writing articles about women in ministry when Elder Daniels promised to use similar articles to prepare the church to ordain women.

Her pen was also silent when the issue died and went away. If she felt the issue was important and women must be ordained you'd think she would've written then too.

[Kevin H]

2 hours ago, Rossw said:

Her pen was also silent when the issue died and went away. If she felt the issue was important and women must be ordained you'd think she would've written then too.

It is easier to answer her silence than the not opposing when the church wanted to ordain women. She was concerned about people coming to a belief through study and allowing the Holy Spirit to lead them. We know that her friend and who she trained, A. G. Daniels was pro-women's ordination, but he was the one who stopped it in the first decade of the 20th century. He did not want to stop it but wanted us to move this gently and slowly so as to not confuse the people who do not realize that women's ordination is Biblical. The problem is that the anti-women's ordination movement wants to force their view on us in a manner that Daniels did not want to force women's ordination. He felt that other topics were more important and that this topic can wait (topics in like how we are supposed to use the Bible and Mrs. White, which finally got him thrown out of office).

If women's ordination was accepted I would oppose for now a woman to be put in charge of a church out in the middle of nowhere, I'd want it to start out where churches where people have a choice, those who oppose women's ordination to have a church pastored by a male in the area.

Remember Mrs. White put her reputation on the line by giving her food for worms vision when the church planned an evangelistic outreach, they gave the outreach to committee to implement and it got lost as well. Did Mrs. White change her mind and decide that evangelism was not important for her pen to be silent then even though it meant that all who heard that vision ended up food for worms?

Mrs. White talks about the long slow process that God is willing to use to deal with the Great Controversy. A person convinced against their will is of the same opinion still. This is not an urgent point where God had to come out and state something strongly. He prefers taking his time for people to grow. He has us choose of the weight of evidence. He did just enough in the Bible and is teaching us more about the Bible that can make us question. He leads us into this situation of the church wanting to simply start ordaining women, but there are church members who think it's unbiblical, and instead of coming out and saying "It's Biblical so you better do it or else!" God troubles our minds with the questions "Why didn't Mrs. White nip the issue in the bud instead of allowing the seed to be planted?" "Why did she write articles that lean more in the direction of where the church wanted to go, even though we can act like a band of lawyers digging through those articles to find loopholes instead of uprooting the idea" and as more and more people kick against the thorns, and have to wrestle with the evidence, it will be a deciding to accept it by their own journey.

The anti-ordination people are trying to use the methods of using the Bible and Mrs. White that Elder Daniels was trying to prevent and they are trying to make the ignorance that Elder Daniels wanted to dispel by education become official church dogma. They want to shred Mrs. White's articles that were written when the church actively wanted to ordain women to make them of no effect because of all the loopholes they can find in it and explain it some other way than face and historical value.