Moderators Gerr Posted October 22, 2016 Moderators Share Posted October 22, 2016 On 10/9/2016 at 3:51 PM, GayatfootofCross said: On 10/9/2016 at 3:51 PM, GayatfootofCross said: I really like the points made here! by Sigve Tonstad from the latest Op source ...http://spectrummagazine.org/article/2016/10/09/ordination-between-heaven-and-earth * I believe in women's ordination because the Father is not a male, and the Triune God is not a hierarchy. * I believe in women's ordination because the person who first saw and proclaimed the Son risen from the dead was a woman. * I believe in women's ordination because the Spirit is being poured out on all flesh, on sons and daughters, especially on the daughters. * I believe in women's ordination because of the circle of anointed women in Paul's life and ministry, Phoebe, Prisca, Mary, and Junia, to mention just a few. * I believe in women's ordination because of the priesthood of all believers. * I believe in women's ordination because of the promise -- come the day -- when they shall no longer say, every person to his brother and sister, "Know the Lord" because they shall ALL know me. * I believe in women's ordination because the person wielding the highest teaching authority in my faith community was a woman. * I believe in women's ordination because I have seen churches saved, lives transformed, and communities blessed by the ordination to ministry of women, given from above. I really like the points made here! by Sigve Tonstad from the latest Op source ...http://spectrummagazine.org/article/2016/10/09/ordination-between-heaven-and-earth Me: Are these the "95 theses" for which you would risk schism??? * I believe in women's ordination because the Father is not a male, and the Triune God is not a hierarchy. Me: I am not against WO, BUT - Why is God not called Mother? That would clinch the argument for WO, wouldn't it? No hierarchy in the Trinity? They are all equal, but who defers to whom? Check it out.* I believe in women's ordination because the person who first saw and proclaimed the Son risen from the dead was a woman. Me: That's an argument for WO? Paul uses the creation of Adam first to make his case for male preeminence. * I believe in women's ordination because the Spirit is being poured out on all flesh, on sons and daughters, especially on the daughters. Me: Then ordain everyone! * I believe in women's ordination because of the circle of anointed women in Paul's life and ministry, Phoebe, Prisca, Mary, and Junia, to mention just a few. Me: Maybe. * I believe in women's ordination because of the priesthood of all believers. Me: And who is the head priest in the family? The son? The daughter? * I believe: What does that have to do with WO?e in women's ordination because of the promise -- come the day -- when they shall no longer say, every person to his brother and sister, "Know the Lord" because they shall ALL know me. Me: What does this have to do with WO? * I believe in women's ordination because the person wielding the highest teaching authority in my faith community was a woman. Me: You don't to be ordained to teach. So teach all you want. * I believe in women's ordination because I have seen churches saved, lives transformed, and communities blessed by the ordination to ministry of women, given from above. Me: You can do ALL of the above without being ordained. Accomplishing them has nothing to do with ordination by mere men. what matters is the ordination by the Spirit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Gerr Posted October 22, 2016 Moderators Share Posted October 22, 2016 On 10/9/2016 at 1:56 AM, Kevin H said: 1. On the one hand I agree with this. This is NOT one of the "pillars" and should not be that important. However on the anti-Women's ordination side, they are use to hearing the arguments by the liberal churches. These are people who do not take the Bible seriously. They have arguments that Paul was against women leading out in church, but that was because Paul was a victim of his culture so we are not to follow his advise. So they are afraid that if we start ordaining women that it would mean that we are no longer following the Bible and they want us to continue to be a Bible believing church. That is why they are willing to risk this. Me: When Paul argued from Adam being created first, was that cultural? 2. Well, a bit over 100 years ago the church was going to ordain women. The General Conference President supported it but was worried that too many members would not realize that it was Biblical to ordain women and he requested the unions and conferences to maintain the status quo until the church could educate that women being ordained was indeed Biblical. Now the church leaders want to make the ignorance that Elder Daniels wanted to clear up to be official and permanent. There has been over 100 years of maintaining the status quo which was originally to clear up ignorance. How long do we have to maintain the status quo especially when the powers that be want to make the ignorance official dogma. 3. On the one hand it has been studied ad nauseam, but they have been following the same old study: namely what do we find in church history. How have the great theologians of church history interpreted these texts. The field that has been ignored in all these studies is what can we learn about the history of the text. The anti-ordination people need to learn that there are some very conservative Biblical arguments for women's ordination. Their head is stuck in the sand of thinking we have two choices, either follow they Bible which is against women's ordination or say that we need to reject that part of the Bible and start ordaining women, and the fear that if we start ignoring the Bible on this one topic it will lead to us ignoring the Bible on other topics. The anti-ordination people have not realized that there are some strong texts in the Bible indicating that it supports Biblical ordination. Me: Huh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kevin H Posted October 23, 2016 Moderators Share Posted October 23, 2016 Hi Gerry: As to your first question "When Paul argued from Adam being created first, was that cultural? " may I recommend that you read the passage closer. I'm saying that there are both liberal arguments for women's ordination and there are very conservative arguments for women's ordination. I'm not impressed with the liberal arguments. They are the ones who are saying that Paul was a victim of his culture since women were in a lower class back then and that there are arguments among the rabbi's that put women down. These liberal people would say "Sure, Paul was against women preachers, but that was simply part of the culture back then. We live in a new culture so we should have a different standard than Paul had." And it was this argument that I was attacking. I was not agreeing with them. I think that they would have said that when Paul argued from Adam being created first, was that cultural, I think those people would probably reply "Of course." They see the Bible as of human origin, granted a classic with some good moral lessons like Shakespeare, but don't see it as the word of God. Now, as for me, I do NOT believe that Paul was being cultural. I do believe that the Bible is the living word of God and the final authority. But there are the conservative arguments that place Paul's words with in their literary context and in connection with other things Paul said and did else where in Scripture. Not just ripping a verse out of contexts with it's guts hanging out as we try to fit it into our theology. As for your second comment " Huh? " Again I think that it might be a good idea to re-read my post slowly. I was trying to point out that we have a lot of people who have been limiting their study to two groups of evidence; the first being what the liberals who don't see the Bible as inspired are saying and why they want to ordain women without caring about what the Bible really teaches. And second they look to people in church history like Luther, Augustine, Chuck Swindall, etc. for the interpretation of the text. They are NOT looking at the historical and cultural and linguistic studies of the Bible to see how it would have been understood by Paul and the first readers of the text. In the mid 1800s we started Biblical Geography which lead to archaeology and the rediscovery of the ancient world. I believe that this is a big part of the investigative judgment. But too many of those who are opposing women's ordination are looking in studies from the first court of the heavenly sanctuary instead of moving with Jesus into the most holy place. Thus we find the anti-women's ordination people constantly looking at what the liberals have to say and what theologians have speculated on the text; while there is a whole world out there they have not dealt with looking at what the texts actually meant as pointed out by historical contexts and linguistic context and seeing what Paul says here with what he says and does there to learn it's actual context. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alchemy Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 On 10/3/2016 at 6:54 PM, Stan said: A WORD FROM EGW... "It is the desire and plan of Satan to bring in among us those who will go to great extremes—people of narrow minds, who are critical and sharp, and very tenacious in holding their own conceptions of what the truth means. They will be exacting, and will seek to enforce rigorous duties, and go to great lengths in matters of minor importance, while they neglect the weightier matters of the law—judgment and mercy and the love of God. Through the work of a few of this class of persons, the whole body of Sabbathkeepers will be designated as bigoted, Pharisaical, and fanatical. The work of the truth, because of these workers, will be thought to be unworthy of notice." She goes on to say that people of experience have a great work to do: "they are to guard the cause of God" (Evangelism, 212; taken from The Review and Herald, May 29, 1888). Amen! And I believe the SDA Church at large has abundantly fulfilled this spirit by laboring 45 years or more in trying to bring the truth about WOPE to those who want it! WOPE has never been Biblical. It has never been practiced in Christianity or even in Abrahamic religions. Why? Because God didn't want it practiced among His people. But, 45 plus years is enough. Christian discipline is in order. The GC Session has voted WOPE down three times and that is final. Quote Luke 12:32 NKJV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoAspen Posted November 7, 2016 Share Posted November 7, 2016 Quote ....people of narrow minds, who are critical and sharp, and very tenacious in holding their own conceptions of what the truth means. Can be used in several ways, correct? rudywoofs (Pam) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.