Leaderboard

Why did Christ chose 12 men as His disciples? Disclaimer: I don't have a position for or against ordination.

1. The Priesthood of all believers means that we all have the freedom to study the Bible for ourselves. We are free to use the tools. Granted among the tools are the history and geography and culture. We may not have the skills to study them (I'm horrible when it comes to language studies) but we have the right to read what the linguists and historians have to say and evaluate to see if it makes sense or not and to make a final decision based on the evidence we are aware of and having an attitude of "I may be wrong and there may be evidence that I do not yet know about, but here is where the Lord has lead me and here I stand until I see clearer. No you don't have to read everything, but when there is the possibility of honest Bible study that indicates that you are wrong you have the right to evaluate the information. The priest hood of all believers means that I have to be responsible for my actions before God, and that I need to allow room for listening love for my brothers and sisters who may have a different understanding than I have and at least understand where they are coming from even if we end up agreeing to disagree. The priesthood of believers is I have the freedom to express my views. If you find them useful then fantastic. If not you are free to discard them. The Priesthood of all believers would cause me to oppose women pastors of churches out in the middle of nowhere where I'd have to force the ordained women on to people who have not become convinced of it, but allow it in more populated areas where those who believe that it is Biblical can attend and those with a problem can go to another church with an ordained man pastor. The Catholic church had the attitude of they are the correct interpreters of the Bible, any other interpretation is heresy and we have to stamp out heresy. The Catholic church is them imposing their views on the rest of us and demanding us to fall in line even if it goes against our beliefs. The Catholic church is a spirit of "I don't need to question my beliefs and I will avoid the studies that may indicate that I could be wrong because I am not wrong. It is my duty to force on everyone my views of scripture and threat those who question it as heretics. I'm right and they are wrong. (even though we may feel just as right if not more so than you do.) In your posts have you been advocating more the priesthood of believers or have you been pushing a more beastly agenda? 2. Now I have to admit you are not as closed to additional information as Green is. Green has made his views clear and it is my job to be fair to them and respect them. He does not allow history or culture or studies of the textual poetry forms etc. He has some favorite texts and the only thing that he is willing to change is if you have another text that appears to add more information. Like he rejects historical context like the fact that the ordination of women to be Rabbis was a major debate among the Rabbis in Jesus' day. That among Rabbinic Judaism someone sitting at a Rabbi's feet had the same meaning that later was applied to the laying on of hands. He says that unless there is a scriptural text that says that this is what happened that he will reject the history and not see the story of Mary and Martha having anything to teach us about the ordination of women. When there are poetic and literary structures that indicate that his favorite proof texts might be saying something else than he wants them to say, he rejects them unless you can show him another text that says that it is important to know the literary and poetic structures to interpret the text. That is his right. I know that this ties up my hands because I include in evidence the text and the historical and cultural and linguistic background to the text. I do not have the right to push what I allow for Biblical evidence on to Green. I have to realize this is where he is coming from. I have to realize that if I want to convince him that I have to work within his guidelines. I have no problem with this and realizing my weakness in meeting his understanding. What bothers me is how he refuses to see what I see as evidence. He does not need to accept these historical, cultural and linguistic facts as evidence, and I am aware that I am not allowed to appeal to this in trying to talk to him. That is his right which I will respect. But I'm bothered by the attitude that unless I am only limiting myself in my study to his method and his method only, and that I have no right to consider these facts in forming my opinion and that he needs to force his understanding on me and the rest of the church and call us who disagree with him heretics, we are here talking about what concerns us. We have offered to encourage you to look at serious studies. Dr. Jim Fleming has some very powerful biblical, linguistic and historical and archaeological studies in "Attitudes towards women in the Bible" http://www.biblicalresources.net/product.cfm?product=58 I have not see you or Green getting this book and looking at the evidence and the foot notes and showing where Fleming and the sources he refers to are wrong. (for more information on Fleming see: http://www.biblicalresources.net/about-biblical-resources.cfm) Our scholars have done studies, some end up supporting women's ordination, some opposing it. But people on both sides point out that there are still problems in our understanding of the Bible and that it is not as cut and dry as they would have liked and we encourage you to look at these studies. But we are cut off with an attitude of "The Bible is clear so we don't even need to listen to those who support our view if they say that it's not as clear cut as I say it is, we must assume those scholars are heretics and I must save the church by forcing my clear understanding on the Bible on to you." Dr. Richard Davidson has given several deep Bible studies on how the Bible teaches women's ordination and does not teach headship theology. I'm sad that he died too soon to publish but Gerhard Hassel started out pro- women's ordination, was then won over to headship theology and became anti-women's ordination, then came to understand that headship theology was wrong and that those proof texts that you and Green use are not saying what the headship people say they are saying and again became pro-women's ordination. We keep pointing out when the General conference in the 1800s voted to ordain women and gave it to committee to implement and the only one they ordained was Mrs. White. And how in the first decade of the 20th century the conferences and unions wanted to start to ordain women. General Conference President A. G. Daniels agreed with them that they should ordain women but asked them to wait because there were members who thought that ordaining women was unbiblical and he did not want to confuse and hurt them but wanted them to be educated into seeing that it is indeed Biblical to ordain women. During these years Mrs. White wrote much about women in ministry. To me this is evidence that Mrs. White supported the ordination of women and was trying to educate those who opposed women's ordination. I have not heard you or Green give a good answer to this historical situation, except that Green wants a proof text that says clearly that this is what Mrs. White was doing. Others have argued that we don't know for sure that Mrs. White knew what the church wanted to do and that she could have written those articles out of ignorance and that it was just bad timing on her part and that we have to defend her ignorance of the situation and read those articles from the viewpoint that Mrs. White had no idea what the church was wanting to do, and for some reason the critics of women's ordination believe that they must correct Mrs. White's mistake and write what she would have written had she not been ignorant of what was going on in the church, and that is writings opposing women's ordination instead of those articles about women in ministry which must have been just talking about ministry in general. (and of course someone, I believe it was Green but not positive states his belief that Daniels, Mrs. White's friend and hand picked and trained General Conference President was a heretic.) In conclusion, we are not demanding that you and Green accept women's ordination. I would fight tooth and nail if either of you were stuck in the middle of nowhere where you have no choice but to attend. I would like a little bit of a concession that if the historic information that Dr. Fleming has pointed out about the tassels might be correct, and that yes if women's ordination was a hot topic in Jesus' day and if only ordained rabbis were allowed to sit at the rabbi's feet when he is teaching and that most rabbis opposing women's ordination wanted women to only do hospitality tasks when the Rabbi sat and taught that it does look like Jesus ordained Mary and was inviting Martha to be ordained as well. And if the Greek is correct and the leader is named first then the fact that the Bible's use of Aquila and Pricilla has Aquila the husband and head of the family in the marriage, but that when talked about as a ministerial team it is Pricilla and Aquila indicating that Pricilla was the head elder and Aquila was her assistant pastor. And if the historical and poetic and literary structures in the proof texts used against women in ministry is to be accepted, and if someone was to accept this as evidence then they could consciously believe that they are following the Bible. And if they believe that Mrs. White was aware of the desire for the church to ordain women and write those articles about women in ministry and that someone looking at that history and those articles could come to the conclusion that she was trying to work with what A. G. Daniels said the wanting to teach the members that the ordination of women is Biblical. Ok, so they are not just liberals who are trying to go against the Bible. They have reason for what they believe even though I disagree with their reasons. This and the request of allowing me to follow the Bible and Mrs. White according to the dictates of my conscience and not have to yield to your demands is all that I am asking for.

My answers to the 'Top Ten list...... 10. Suggests women are not loyal and we know nothing of the 2nd part, over all offensive to women. 9. Again, just plain offensive. 8. Unknown, but still rather disparaging....ie..all are called. 7. Uh, not all women have families. 6. Erroneous, and offensive. 5. Unknown, same as #8 4. Erroneous, and offensive. 3. Unknown and an assumption. 2. True, but in which way. 1. A matter of opinion I am troubled by some of the questions as they seem to indicate a rather poor view of women.

Good news from my follow up appointment with my primary care provider, Zach Cash, PC-A. During our appointment Zach looked at a log that I made yesterday that showed my Blood Glucose Levels (BGL) for the morning test, 4 hours after breakfast, 4 hours after lunch, and after the overnight fast. All were well within the normal parameters for a non-diabetic person. I asked Zach about this, and what he thought about the results of the test they did while I was in the hospital, and he said that in prep for my visit he studied my chart from the recent hospital stay, and had already decided that he did not trust the number that was given as a result; 11.3. That is VERY high, and seemed unusual for me, especially since last year my A1C was at 6.0. So we did another A1C test and low and behold the result was 5.9. And while this is a little high, it is actually LOWER than last year, which means I was already doing the right things to reduce my susceptibility to diabetes. Something must have gone wrong at the lab for a result of this magnitude. It really gave me and my wife quite a shock, and would not have been necessary had they decided to to another test to check the result. I am still going to behave as though I am pre-diabetic, which will bring my A1C down to more appropriate levels over the next year. We are going to do another test at the end of October to confirm the diagnosis. God is Good. Now all I have to really deal with is recovery from my second MI over the next six weeks. I thank you for keeping me in your prayers.

Be careful not to apply my discomfort to a different part of his post then where I told my discomfort lays, and thus twist my words into something I am not saying nor implying....

I'd take a little time to read it if you have it via PDF or something online. I am in a place where I cannot obtain books like that most any other way.

Kevin, you have written a powerful post, with which I generally agree. I am reminded of the time when the religious leaders asked if Christ paid the Temple Tax. They had if figured out. As they thought about it, there was no response that Christ could give that they could not use to their advantage. Christ demonstrated that the answer to their question was not the yes or no response that they thought Christ would have to give. This is exactly the type of question that Green asked when he asked me if I would call Jesus arrogant. Well, as I suggested, Green is not God in flesh and therefore not to be compared to Christ.

(I do realise it's in poor taste to count the bodies as points in an argument, and won't do more of it.) In the end, those who will not be convinced by the evidence will continue to be unconvinced. It's not certain knowledge, but it's pretty strongly supported.

This may be of interest: Cindy Tutsch: "Tomorrow [7-21-16] I'm preaching at Soquel camp meeting on EGW's empowerment of women for leadership, including pastoral ministry. This is an educational opportunity. I will begin with youth in leadership and segue into women. You are welcome to listen at 9 am Pacific time at CCC.adventist.org. Click on camp meeting 2016 and then on live stream. If you miss the live stream you can still hear it because it will be almost immediately archived, including the power point. If you are a praying person, I welcome prayers." Green and Rossw, I'd be interested in your commentary. (No, I am not in your excuse to not listen to this, I'd rather have you pass on this offer. [of course I'd like even more so your reading, studying and critiquing Flemings "Attitudes towards women in the Bible".])

Exactly! I agree 100%

From the Richmond Times-Dispatch, VA, USA http://www.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/local/crime/article/OSCR09_20090508-223108/266710/ Quote: Published: May 9, 2009 A laborer recently charged with raping two women in Richmond and Chesterfield County is the head deacon of the Richmond Evangelistic Center of Seventh-day Adventist at 5300 Walmsley Blvd., church members say. The church's pastor and the pastor's wife believe the arrest of Oscar A. Rivera-Licona, 34, is a case of mistaken identity. Rivera-Licona has been charged with multiple counts of rape, abduction, robbery and felony gun charges. "He's a very active member of the church, has always served the people and he works close to my husband," said Rosa Olivera, wife of the church's pastor, Luis Linan-Olivera. "He was very careful with the people, and we don't feel like he's a criminal. We strongly believe that there is another person" responsible for the crimes. But Chesterfield police Capt. Robert Skowron said investigators have DNA evidence linking Rivera-Licona to the armed abduction and rape of a young woman Nov. 14 in the Chesterfield Village Apartments. In that case, police said, a man approached the victim, in her early 20s, as she left her vehicle on Belasco Drive about 11:15 p.m. He displayed a gun and forced the woman into a wooded area, where he attacked her, police said. Chesterfield authorities charged Rivera-Licona on April 23, 13 days after Richmond police charged him in the March 24 rape of a woman in the 2200 block of Ingram Avenue. Assistant Richmond Commonwealth's Attorney Cynthia Mikland, who is prosecuting the case, couldn't be immediately reached for details about that offense. In the Richmond case, Rivera-Licona has been charged with rape, abduction, robbery of a residence and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, records show. Rosa Olivera said she and her husband have known Rivera-Licona for more than five years and that he came here from Honduras with two brothers after their father was murdered by some young delinquents he was trying to help. "They came here because they fear for their life," Olivera said. "When he was in Honduras, they were trying to kill them also. The day before he was arrested, I was talking to him at the church and he was telling me all the horrible things that happened to his family." Rivera-Licona has a wife and child in Honduras and has worked as a laborer since arriving here, Olivera said. As head deacon, Rivera-Licona greeted congregation members as they arrived for Saturday services and oversaw the church's maintenance needs. The church's pastor was in Italy this week and wasn't immediately available for comment, his wife said. Rivera-Licona's most recent address was the 2100 block of Treemont Court in Richmond. He is scheduled to appear in court May 19 on the Richmond charges and June 17 on the Chesterfield charges.

'No Man is an Island' No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as any manor of thy friends or of thine own were; any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind. And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. John Donne - 1624

Not sure what you mean? If the evidence in inconclusive, incomplete, or refutable then it's not that the evidence isn't accepted but it is just refuted. I don't think so. If your summary is false then that which you summarize must be false too. No need to read every single pro-WO article. I personally don't necessarily believe them to be apostate yet. I put more stock in Scripture than into Scholarship. The scholarship can be wrong and not apostatize but if their agenda is to push WO hell or high water than yes they are apostate. I do read books by scholars but never take them as gospel. If they disagree with Scripture then that are wrong...simple. I have my own beliefs and am not accountable for the beliefs of "scholars". I believe in "thy word is a lamp unto my feet". Very few see that anymore. Yes I do believe in the IJ, etc. But, Hiram Edson studied the IJ for himself with inspiration from the Holy Spirit. We are no less capable of coming to conclusions through diligent study. Through my study I do not see a denial of headship nor an allowance of WO. What I do see is those who are pro-WO use extra Biblical sourcess citing extra-biblical traditions to promote WO. Isaiah 1 comes to mind. The push for a reliance on scholarship brings to mind the control the church had during the dark ages. The ability for men to read Scripture for themselves brought light into the darkness.

Gree3n asked below: Green, I do not equate you to Jesus. I consider both you and I to be subject to error.

Would you consider Jesus to have been arrogant, Gregory? And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. (Matthew 18:2-5) If we don't become as little children, we will have insufficient understanding to reach heaven. It's quite simple, actually. Do you hear the Holy Spirit in Jesus' words? in the Bible texts brought here?

Green: Again, the denomination has extensively studied the issue. The official reports of those multiple study groups have been posted on the Internet. They do not agree. You are entitle to your position. I can even understand how your would arrive at it, as I also understand how other people arrive at their position. Your statement to the effect that a child could understand it in the same manner that you understand it reflects an arrogance and an implication that those in the study groups who do not agree with you are less than children in their spiritual understanding. I do not fault you for the position that you have taken on the issue even though I disagree with you on some aspects. But, I will criticize you for the arrogance that you often reflect and the dismissive way in which you often relate to other people. Ultimately, if the SDA denomination is to come together in a common agreement on this issue, it will have to be the Holy Spirit that brings us to a common understanding. I do not hear the voice of the Holy Spirit in the manner in which you often respond on this issue. I find it interesting that the recent study groups that failed to come into a common agreement on this issue, did in fact come into a common agreement on one point. That point on which they agreed was on how they should relate to each other. That relation acknowledged that each side was honest, sincere, seeing the Bible as an authority in spiritual life and all were seeking to understand what the Bible taught. It also acknowledged that each side had some very valid questions. I will suggest that when you can come to this same manner of relating to people you will serve your side much better. You are intelligent and an in-depth student of the Bible. But, the manner in which you sometimes present yourself tends to cause people to dismiss you and not dialogue with you. That does not serve your purpose well.

What is absent from the above context is a congregational setting or am I missing something?