Man and woman created as equals

[Rossw]

7 hours ago, rudywoofs (Pam) said:

a question for you, Rossw  (and I'm not trying to be snarky... ) ... in saying that the Bible is complete enough in itself to understand what it means, why do you refer to Ellen White's writings?  I guess I'm wondering if you're one of the folks who consider the EGW writings to be on par with scripture — there are some here that do, though I'm not one of them.

That can be a slightly difficult question. I do believe in the Bible alone and in it is more than enough to have sufficient knowledge for salvation. I also believe EGW was a chosen instrument of God. However her writings should not be considered canon. I feel she only wrote in support of the canon instead of trying to add to it. 

In all honesty I would prefer to never use her in an argument or discussion but if she is a messenger of God then her writings do have some weight to it. 

[phkrause]

2 hours ago, whbae said:

No women should be a head over men!

It is very interesting. Those men who oppose women being a pastor or elder but let them allow women to be a principal of a school where many male teachers working under her.  A woman can be are head of a department in a college such as English or Nursing where many males work, but she cannot be an elder or a pastor or a conference president.  This is a dubious idea,  not consistent  standard.

Excellent thought whbae

[phkrause]

2 hours ago, Rossw said:

That can be a slightly difficult question. I do believe in the Bible alone and in it is more than enough to have sufficient knowledge for salvation. I also believe EGW was a chosen instrument of God. However her writings should not be considered canon. I feel she only wrote in support of the canon instead of trying to add to it. 

In all honesty I would prefer to never use her in an argument or discussion but if she is a messenger of God then her writings do have some weight to it. 

I'm in full agreement on this point!!

[Rossw]

12 hours ago, Kevin H said:

I don't have the exact source and reference but Mrs. White said that while we need to know the history and geography to understand the Biblical text, the basic message of salvation is there for even the most simple to see. Why would she say this?

I once saw a documentary on whether the Biblical stories of Moses and Joseph were true. The majority scholarship had a time period later in Egyptian chronology which essentially disputes the possibility of the Biblical narrative. When the time frame is pushed back to earlier the time frame fits including to the destruction of Jericho. 

Of course I am very much a lay person with just a hobbyist interest in history. The lesson though, for me is history must fit with the Biblical narrative instead of the opposite. I don't agree with everything you post, Kevin, but it is interesting to read your perspective on history. Wish I had more time to devote to such studies instead relying on documentaries.

[Rossw]

So, yes I do appreciate history and can learn perspective from it but to use history to prove a doctrine is problematic.

[Tom Wetmore]

Not a doctrine that is being proved.  

[APL]

“The head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor 11:3, RSV)

 

John 17:21-22 That they all may be one; as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 And the glory which you gave me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

 

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to you. Holy Father, keep through your own name those whom you have given me, that they may be one, as we are.

 

Because of sin:

Gen 3:16    .... and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

 

Jackson quoted {6MR 126.3}. Instead of just a proof text, let's read it in context from the original, shall we ?

 

Dear Mary, let your influence tell for God. You must take a position to exert an influence over others to bring them up in spirituality. You must guard yourself against following the influence of those around you. If others are light and trifling, be grave yourself. {Lt5-1861}

 

And, Mary, suffer me a little upon this point: I wish in all sisterly and motherly kindness to kindly warn you upon another point. I have often noticed before others a manner you have in speaking to John in rather a dictating manner, the tone of your voice sounding impatient. Mary, others notice this and have spoken of it to me. It hurts your influence. {Lt5-1861}

 

We women must remember that God has placed us subject to the husband. He is the head, and our judgment and views and reasonings must agree with his if possible. If not, the preference in God’s Word is given to the husband where it is not a matter of conscience. We must yield to the head. I have said more, perhaps, upon this point than necessary. Please watch this point. {Lt5-1861}

 

I am not reproving you, remember, but merely cautioning you. Never talk to John as though he were a little boy. You reverence him and others will take an elevated position, Mary, and you will elevate others. {Lt5-1861}

 

Seek to be spiritually minded. We are doing work for eternity. Mary, be an example. We love you as one of our children and I wish so much that you and John may prosper. Be of good courage. Trust in the Lord at all times. He will be your stronghold and your deliverer. {Lt5-1861}

 

Of course even this is an excerpt, read the whole letter! Do note, that EGW is talking about the home. Is Jackson the head of any other woman than his wife? And what does it mean to be the head, as God and Christ are one? What does it mean to be one? "They are one in purpose, in mind, in character."

 

And the elephant in the room is the person of Ellen G. White. Did she remain silent? Did she speak in church? Did she teach men? Hm...

[APL]

Does an ordained minister have authority over any person?  If so, WHAT authority?  Me thinks you have given ordination unwarranted importance. 

No, I think your use of key texts is insufficient.  In order to understand truth, you need to bring all the scriptures together on the subject you wish to know, then let every word have its proper influence; and if you can form your theory without a contradiction, you cannot be in error. 

 

Your last key text from 1T is out of context and ignores what she was speaking about. 

 

Again, the person of Ellen G. White stands in stark contrast to many peoples view of women and the church.

[Robert]

2 hours ago, jackson said:

We women....

Hmmm?  All this time I thought I was dealing with a male... 

[Rossw]

52 minutes ago, Robert said:

Hmmm?  All this time I thought I was dealing with a male... 

Was a quote by EGW.

[Geoarrge]

Rather than run around in circles with appeals to authority, what does reality say?  Are there asymmetric psychological dynamics between the sexes? Of course there are.  Therefore it should not be expected that men and women are interchangeable even in a purely social context. 
http://www.statisticbrain.com/myers-briggs-statistics/

[Robert]

59 minutes ago, Rossw said:

Was a quote by EGW.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjYoNL4g5Vg

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Rossw said below:

Rossw, you are on the right track and heading in the  right direction!

I would add to what you said the following: 

1) The primary mission and ministry of EGW and the reason that God gave her to us was to  guide the developing SDA denomination in the direction that God wanted it to  go.   As part of this, she gave guidance, direction, advice and correction to the leaders in this developing denomination.  We are adminestrtively and organizationaly what we are today as a denomination due to the ministry of EGW.  It was she who gave us the triparte focus on a) health care, 'b) education and c) publishing which in modern times has developed into media miniatry.

2)  While EGW did write on religious/doctrinal and theological themes her mission was neither to add to the Bible nor to replace the focus on the   Bible with her writings.  Rather it was to encourage people to focus their doctrinal foundation on the Bible and to make it the center of belief and practice.

 

Quote

That can be a slightly difficult question. I do believe in the Bible alone and in it is more than enough to have sufficient knowledge for salvation. I also believe EGW was a chosen instrument of God. However her writings should not be considered canon. I feel she only wrote in support of the canon instead of trying to add to it. 

In all honesty I would prefer to never use her in an argument or discussion but if she is a messenger of God then her writings do have some weight to it. 

[APL]

Quote

It doesn't matter what she was speaking about in 1T

That is the problem with proof texting and not reading as a whole. It gets in the way of truth.

[phkrause]

Anyone grow up in a Jewish home??? Yes the man is considered the head of the family, but I tell you what the women is definitely the head of the house!!!!! Personally I don't believe anyone, husband or wife are rulers over anything. From what I gather from reading the Bible, is God is head over his church, and that means all the people in the church!! Which would include pastors, evangelists, deacons, deaconess, etc., etc. He allows some, like pastors, etc., to be in charge of his little flocks throughout the world. And as far as I can tell, it can be a women or a man. There are no definitives that I can see in the Bible or from EGW! My 2 cents!!

[APL]

8 hours ago, jackson said:

Do you really think the fact that she said that " The Scriptures are plain upon the relations and rights of men and women." 1T 421.4  Has to be taken in context?  That is a general statement and needs no context other than the paragraph in which it appears.  Do you think she could logically say in other places that the scriptures are not plain on this issue?

i asked you to give me  the scriptural authority, without contradiction, for your belief in women's ordination, and to give me scriptural contradictions for the scriptures i gave  which commanded male headship in the home and in the church. We could have a more enlightened discussion if you would do that rather than just  say "context, context" with no scriptural references of your own to substantiate your beliefs.

 

Context - Yes, all should be read in context such as Psalms 137:9.  Does it make sense to lift a single sentence out a paragraph and ignore what the paragraph is talking about?  Galatians 3 contradicts your view of the so called "headship" theology. 

[Rossw]

47 minutes ago, APL said:

Context - Yes, all should be read in context such as Psalms 137:9.  Does it make sense to lift a single sentence out a paragraph and ignore what the paragraph is talking about?  Galatians 3 contradicts your view of the so called "headship" theology. 

Paul does not present progressive revelation nor contradicts himself so Galations 3 and 1 Timothy 2 and 3 shouldn't be taken to contradict itself. If reconciled Galations 3 does not dispute headship.

[Rossw]

APL, you mentioned context, how did Jackson take 1 Timothy 3 and Titus out of context. We have the same order set in 2 separate books. Did Galations nullify Timothy and Titus?

[Kevin H]

1 hour ago, Rossw said:

Paul does not present progressive revelation nor contradicts himself so Galations 3 and 1 Timothy 2 and 3 shouldn't be taken to contradict itself. If reconciled Galations 3 does not dispute headship.

Or looking at the historical context and (I've read but don't know how to share) the literary context 1 Timothy 2 and 3 does not contradict Galatians or Jesus allowing Mary to sit at his feet. Moses' tassel, Pricilla and Aquila, and our pioneers who wanted to ordain women.  It is only when people want to read tradition into the text that it teaches headship theology.  

[Rossw]

26 minutes ago, Kevin H said:

Or looking at the historical context and (I've read but don't know how to share) the literary context 1 Timothy 2 and 3 does not contradict Galatians or Jesus allowing Mary to sit at his feet. Moses' tassel, Pricilla and Aquila, and our pioneers who wanted to ordain women.  It is only when people want to read tradition into the text that it teaches headship theology.  

Tradition into the text? The text is explicit and also strongly implicit for headship when taken as "thus saith the Lord".

[Rossw]

Is there any modern meaning at all in 1 Timothy or Titus if taken purely in historical context? How do we decide what is relevant to this day if all Paul's letters are only relevant to the churches he wrote to?

Or is it possible that the meaning of the historical context does not change between the past to the present. I don't believe people are any different now then they were in history otherwise sanctification would be easy.

[Rossw]

The obvious reconciliation between Galations 3 and 1 Timothy/Titus is in Galations it shows we all in the same boat for the need of a Saviour from our sins. That argument for headship stops right there because in Timothy it shows there is a hierarchy within the church management.

[APL]

1 Timothy 3:11-12 Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. 12 Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

 

SDABC: Wives. Gr. gunaikes, “women,” or “wives.” It is impossible to determine conclusively whether Paul is speaking of deaconesses or of deacons’ wives.

 

Is 1 Timothy 3:11 speaking of deaconesses? It sure could be! And what about deacons being the husband of one wife? Polygamy was common, not so with polyandry, so the proscription is on the male. Headship? Nope.

 

Galatians 3:28-29 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you be Christ's, then are you Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

 

[Rossw]

Is an elder the same as a deacon?

What you just told me is you don't have concrete evidence to prove a woman can or cant be a deaconess? But there is no similar proscription for female elders/bishops.

[Rossw]

Don't neglect 1 Timothy 2.