Doug Batchelor Preaches Against Women Pastors

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: Woody

. I doubt that Uriah Smith would put his signature on this and lie about her being "Ordained". Nor would our prophet sign it if it wasn't true.

Thanks for posting this about Ellen White. I don't think I'd ever seen a picture of the the actual document. Of course it is true. I doubt if anyone is saying it wasn't true-- at least the historical fact that she signed the document. After her husband's death she needed some legal document stating that she was an official representative of the SDA church, although she had given many sermons long before James died. They didn't have a document showing she was a messenger of God; all they had was the one they gave to pastors and ministers. But she was never a minister in the sense of having jurisdiction over a local congregation. She was more like a missionary, or apostle. That's why she said herself that God called her to a work that included the work of a prophet but which also was more than the name prophet signifies.

I don't believe it has anything to do with the question of whether women ought to be pastors and elders of local congregations. Could you explain why it should be viewed that way?

Ellen White was called of God to be a prophet and her position didn't depend in the least on the people in the church. If every single SDA had rejected her-- or rejected her today-- it wouldn't affect her position as the mouthpiece for God. She was not elected by the church as pastors and elders are to represent the church. She spoke for God, not for the church. It's like the prophets of Israel didn't speak for Israel but for God to Israel.

You are completely missing the point. She was given an ordained minister credential just like the male ordained ministers. She was not given a licensed minister credential like the other women were given that were doing all the things you say she needed a credential for, including those that were unmarried and those working along side of and in the same capacity as their ordained minister husbands. In her time it was not the norm for even the ordained male ministers to be assigned to a specific local congregation as is the norm now. And if she was really just a missionary, why not give her a missionary credential, which the Church still issues to most of the non-clergy employees of the church. That she didn't do all that the credential authorized her to do is very much beside the point. The point is that the credential stood for the fact that the Church recognized her as fully and completely qualified and authorized, with no restriction whatsoever, to do all that an ordained minister of the gospel of the Seventh-day Adventist Church was permitted to do.

By your minimizing logic, the ordained minister credential given to the men meant nothing for them either because many of them were not assigned to a specific local congregation. Many, if not most, of the male ordained ministers were not.

[Tom Wetmore]

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: "The Lord has given Christ to the world for ministry. Merely to preach the Word is not ministry. The Lord desires His ministering servants to occupy a place worthy of the highest consideration. In the mind of God, the ministry of men and women existed before the world was created." - Ellen White, Diary entry March 12, 1891, Ms 23-1891, emphasis added.

In this quote, Ellen White is using the word "ministry" in the same way the NT uses it. It has a very broad meaning there, so that when we say "women in ministry," or "men in ministry," we're really talking about whatever people do to advance the cause of Christ and His kingdom. This comes out in any word studies of diakonos, diakonia, & diakoneo.

I remember on another discussion about a year ago or more, I posted every verse in the NT that used those words and gave a brief analysis of how it affects the discussion about women's work in the church.

Again, you have artfully missed the point. EGW does not distinguish women from women as "His ministering servants to occupy a place worthy of the highest consideration." She reflects that the equal role and status of men and women in ministry has been God's will and design from the beginning, planned even before He created them.

Stop minimizing what she said. WHO is "rejecting" EGW's words? You are doing to her words precisely what you have accused me of doing. When I attempt to explain my understanding of her words (or those of Scripture) that differs from yours, I am rejecting EGW. But when you do the same thing, what is that you are doing?

[Tom Wetmore]

Quote:

Tom Wetmore:

I believe Phoebe was, as Paul identifies her, the minister of the church at Cenchrea. The way Paul describes her leadership it suggests a wider reach.

OK, sure, she was definitely a diakonos of the church at Cenchrea, about 6 miles from Corinth. But remember that Paul does not say she is "the minister," but rather as "a minister." Why did you make this change in Paul's expression, Tom?...

OK. "the" "a" "any" "at all"... Whatever. I will accept that she was "a minister" of a church. But a minister nonetheless. You are left with exactly what point to defend?

[Woody]

Quote:

It reinforces my point and Kevin's point made previously that few really have full knowledge and even fewer are willing to take the time necessary to be fully informed of all the evidence.

This unfortunately is very true. You make some very good points Tom. Thankyou for all your effort to keep us informed with accurate information. Unfortunately some of the same old tired rehashing of wrongly interpreted information continues to be assimilated.

[karl]

"The Lord has given Christ to the world for ministry. Merely to preach the Word is not ministry. The Lord desires His ministering servants to occupy a place worthy of the highest consideration. In the mind of God, the ministry of men and women existed before the world was created." - Ellen White, Diary entry March 12, 1891, Ms 23-1891, emphasis added.

This quote does not say what you want it to say, Tom. It does not say that the ministry of men and women is the same.

No one is denying that women should minister. They should. In their own homes, in the homes of others, to other women and especially to children, women should be very involved in ministry.

EGW often makes the observation in describing women's ministry that they can be involved in aspects of ministry that are just as important or even more important than that of "the minister."

[Tom Wetmore]

And I might add that "John317" is painting a picture of a less than forthright, dare I say dishonest, representation of the General Conference and the Michigan conference which had been issuing her ordained ministerial credentials for many years before that. He is essentially saying that the General Conference was saying that even though she really wasn't a fully qualified and authorized ordained minister with all the privileges and responsibilities of an ordained minister, we will just call her one so that those to whom she may need to present her credentials will think she is one.

Here is the specific language, which may be hard to read in that small photo Woody posted:

Quote:

This is to Certify that Mrs. E.G. White of Healdsburg, Cal. is an Ordained Minister in good standing in the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, and is authorized to perform the duties of said office for the Conference Year commencing November 1 1887

By order of the Conference.

Why would she need any credential at all at that stage of her life? Wasn't she so well known already within the Church that she really didn't need to be verified? Would it have been necessary for the purpose of verifying her position and authority primarily for those outside of the Church? So it would be OK to misrepresent to such outsiders so that they might recognizer her and extend to her all the courtesies, privileges, and benefits of a fully qualified member of the clergy?

This strained view also has the implication of a fraud upon the sacred treasury of the tithe. That tithe was restricted to be used only for those credentialed as ministers. There was a difference in pay for the licensed and ordained ministers. The ordained minister credential came with a pay upgrade over licensed minsters. For her to accept and for the Church to pay her the higher pay which only an ordained minister was entitled to receive is a tangible acknowledgment that she was indeed fully qualified and authorized for it. This is no small matter. It would be a theft of sacred tithe to use it for any purpose other than what it is reserved for.

And doesn't it beg the question of why the General Conference, the highest authoritative body of the Church didn't simply create a new and special credential for EGW - a prophet credential, a messenger credential, a special ambassador credential, a Founder credential, an Official Spokesperson credential... or whatever - to convey her truthful and accurate position with the Church? They certainly had the authority to do so. And if they recognized her as a true prophet, why hide that fact? Could it be that there remained some dispute of that fact, even during her time? That Church leadership were not in full agreement on the status of EGW? But they could apparently come to a consensus that at the very least they could all recognize her as and represent to everyone that she was an ordained minister? On that they could agree and put it in writing with their offical certification.

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

"The Lord has given Christ to the world for ministry. Merely to preach the Word is not ministry. The Lord desires His ministering servants to occupy a place worthy of the highest consideration. In the mind of God, the ministry of men and women existed before the world was created." - Ellen White, Diary entry March 12, 1891, Ms 23-1891, emphasis added.

This quote does not say what you want it to say, Tom. It does not say that the ministry of men and women is the same.

No one is denying that women should minister. They should. In their own homes, in the homes of others, to other women and especially to children, women should be very involved in ministry.

EGW often makes the observation in describing women's ministry that they can be involved in aspects of ministry that are just as important or even more important than that of "the minister."

I can certainly say the very same of you. It is most certainly not saying what you want it to say, karl...

If you are unwilling to or unable to read this and discuss it in the context of ALL the evidence then there is really not much point in us discussing this further.

[Tom Wetmore]

Just doubling back to dig through the avalanche to see what I might have missed... Not much, really, but a few things sort of popped out at me...

I was hoping that people who take the position that the Bible supports women's ordination would show the Scriptural evidence for their viewpoint, and I'm disappointed to see that they're not doing it. They mostly point to the practices of the SDA church in the last 100 years, but they seldom discuss in depth what the Bible teaches.

Either your memory is failing you or you have simply ignored all the Biblical evidence that has been put forward. But I also think you have just minimized it and denigrated it as inferior to your own interpretations of Scripture.

But your dismissive regard to the historical evidence also suggests that if that also refutes or is not consistent with you point of view, it simply is of no value or it is the other side that is distorting the historic position. Another point that you seem to be missing is that "the practices of the SDA church in the last 100 years" are very relevant because they reflect an intentional direction based upon solid Biblical foundation and counsel from the woman prophet that was alive when those practices started out. The reason the way was opened for women to be active in the gospel ministry back in the beginning of the denomination was not a decision made willy-nilly or based on the women's movement or the whim of anyone. The evidence is clear that they thought it out carefully, studied Scripture, debated these very issues vigorously and prayerfully moved forward. As has been pointed out, virtually none of the arguments put forward today are anything new. They were all carefully and fully considered back in the days of EGW.

Originally Posted By: John317

...There are women in China who are doing great work as pastors and doubtless as elders. But that doesn't mean it should be done on a world-wide basis...

What do you think the NAD request was all about at the GC Session of 1995!??! It was a request that NAD, or any other Division where it would work or be acceptable, be permitted to ordain women within their territory. The idea was to allow it where it was culturally acceptable, but not to impose it on a world-wide basis!

Tell me, if it is OK for China, why not permit it in other parts of the world where it might likewise be acceptable and of benefit? Once again, the exception tends to disprove the rule. If it Biblically not right, then China needs to be told to stop what they are doing. But if it is OK for China, how can you honestly tell any other part of the world it is not OK for them?!?!

[John317]

Quote:

Tom Wetmore:

I believe Phoebe was, as Paul identifies her, the minister of the church at Cenchrea. The way Paul describes her leadership it suggests a wider reach.

Quote:

JOHN3:17: OK, sure, she was definitely a diakonos of the church at Cenchrea, about 6 miles from Corinth. But remember that Paul does not say she is "the minister," but rather as "a minister." Why did you make this change in Paul's expression, Tom?...

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: OK. "the" "a" "any" "at all"... Whatever. I will accept that she was "a minister" of a church. But a minister nonetheless. You are left with exactly what point to defend?

Here's the point, Tom:

There is a big differene between "the minister" and "a minister." "A minister" can be anyone from a "deaconess" to anyone who is helping the church in any other way. This has been explained before. The function of the definite article in Greek is to draw attention to an object. Its use with a word makes the word stand out distinctly. It points out individual identity. It's like the difference in English between "the car" and "a car."

Look at the various ways "diakonos" is used in the NT. Its primary meaning is "one who renders service," and includes "an attendant, servant, a deacon," etc. Therefore, the simple fact that she is called "diakonos" is not evidence that she was the pastor of the church. In fact, most Bible scholars do not think she was, and most translations read "deacon" or "deaconess" or "servant." There is good reason for this, which is that there is no evidence that she was "the minister" or "the pastor."

Let me know which part of this you either do not understand or you reject. If you reject it, please explain why.

I'd like to know your thinking on the following points:

If Phoebe were the pastor at Cenchrea, it would mean Paul wrote the letter of first Corinthians to a church near Cenchrea and told the people there that in all the churches, he does not allow women to teach in the church or to exercise authority over men-- yet, all the while, the men reading that letter are being taught and led and ruled by a woman. This appears highly unlikely, to say the least. Don't you agree? If not, why not?

There's no internal evidence, or evidence elsewhere in the NT, showing that Phoebe was the minister or pastor of that church or of any other church. There's not a single mention of her apart from Ro. 16: 1,2 in the book of Acts or in the letters of Paul.

[John317]

Quote:

John317: I don't believe it has anything to do with the question of whether women ought to be pastors and elders of local congregations. Could you explain why it should be viewed that way?

Ellen White was called of God to be a prophet and her position didn't depend in the least on the people in the church. If every single SDA had rejected her-- or rejected her today-- it wouldn't affect her position as the mouthpiece for God. She was not elected by the church as pastors and elders are to represent the church. She spoke for God, not for the church. It's like the prophets of Israel didn't speak for Israel but for God to Israel.

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: You are completely missing the point. She was given an ordained minister credential just like the male ordained ministers. She was not given a licensed minister credential like the other women were given

Yes, I got that point. But I'm glad you mentioned this anyway. It raises an important question, Tom. When was Ellen White ordained? Has the church ever given an ordainnd minister's credential to anyone who's never been ordained before?

Yes, only once, and that person was Ellen White. She is the single exception. She was NEVER ordained by the church. The only one who ordained Ellen White was Jesus Christ who commissioned her as His messenger. No church ever ordained Ellen White.

Aren't ministers always ordained by the church before they receive their credential? Yes, certainly. Therefore it is obviously wrong to state that Ellen White was given the ordained minister's credential "just like the male ordained ministers."

[karl]

[

I can certainly say the very same of you. It is most certainly not saying what you want it to say, karl...

If you are unwilling to or unable to read this and discuss it in the context of ALL the evidence then there is really not much point in us discussing this further.

Relevance please?

I consider your reference to "ALL" the evidence as no evidence whatsoever. You must present whatever evidence you wish considered and give us your view just as you did the evidence above, which I responded to by pointing out the fact that it doesn't say what you said it was saying.

By the way, what was the difference, in the 1860's, between ministerial credentials and certificates of ordination?

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: But she was never a minister in the sense of having jurisdiction over a local congregation. She was more like a missionary, or apostle. That's why she said herself that God called her to a work that included the work of a prophet but which also was more than the name prophet signifies.

I don't believe it has anything to do with the question of whether women ought to be pastors and elders of local congregations. Could you explain why it should be viewed that way?

Ellen White was called of God to be a prophet and her position didn't depend in the least on the people in the church. If every single SDA had rejected her-- or rejected her today-- it wouldn't affect her position as the mouthpiece for God. She was not elected by the church as pastors and elders are to represent the church. She spoke for God, not for the church. It's like the prophets of Israel didn't speak for Israel but for God to Israel.

Quote:

Tom Wetmore:...In her time it was not the norm for even the ordained male ministers to be assigned to a specific local congregation as is the norm now.

OK, but the point is, Tom, that the duty of the male ministers and elders was and is to govern, rule, or manage the congregations. This is their assigned work according to the NT. Ellen White was a prophet, or messenger of God, and as such, it was not her role to do the work of the minister or elder, in governing the churches, and she NEVER did. Her work was to receive messages from God and deliver those messages from God to the church or to the individuals they were sent to. See 1 Tim. 5: 17; 3: 4-5; Heb. 13: 17.

Many SDA ordained ministers, however, were assigned to specific local congregations. My own grandfather, and his brother, pastored during those years, 1895 to 1915, and they were assigned to specific churches.

[Neil D]

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

"The Lord has given Christ to the world for ministry. Merely to preach the Word is not ministry. The Lord desires His ministering servants to occupy a place worthy of the highest consideration. In the mind of God, the ministry of men and women existed before the world was created." - Ellen White, Diary entry March 12, 1891, Ms 23-1891, emphasis added.

[snip]

EGW often makes the observation in describing women's ministry that they can be involved in aspects of ministry that are just as important or even more important than that of "the minister."

It occurs to me, given the time and culture of EGW's time [denigration of women to be just a thing aquired], that the emphasis of "and women" makes it MORE important than men...after all, "His ministering servants occupy[ing] a place worthy of the highest consideration" would place women over men...If one is to direct a ministry, anyone in leadership position would be over all, men over women and women over men....based upon leadership....not headship...

Leadership is a character trait...which the bible is attempting to instill into the person...thru the merits of Jesus's sacrifice. Therefore, women would have leadership qualities, and be able to minister over men....

It is said, that a woman is to neither be lorded over nor trampled under foot...Women want equality, but of a nurturing kind...The studies I have done on headship trample women and denegrate them to things....and not really even people....

Good luck on trying to bring headship back into vogue...

[Neil D]

John-

You will not deny that EGW had a 'pastoral' role in our church, right?

Your exception to her being an ordained minister is what? What qualifies her to be a minister, but not an ordained minister? Is there a difference between minister, ordained minister, or licensed minister?

Or are we all talking semantics? It looks from this side of the computer that semantics is playing a large part in obscuring the reality of EGW.....

Either EGW was all messenger of God, and therefore prophet, and pastor and minster, or she was not....which is it?

[Neil D]

How do you all treat this statement by EGW-

R&H July 9, 1895

Women, who are willing to consecrate some of their service to the Lord, should be appointed to visit the sick, look after the young, minister to the necessities of the poor. They should be set apart to this work by prayer and the laying on of hands. In some cases, they will need to counsel with the [local] church officers or the [conference] minister; but if they are devoted women, maintaining a vital connection with God, they will be a power for good in the church. This is another means of strengthening and building up the church. We need to branch out more in our methods of labor. Not a hand should be bound, not a soul should be discouraged, not a voice should be hushed; let every individual labor, privately or publically, for this grand work.

In the aftermath of this statement, at least 3 women were ordained as deaconesses in the Australian conference in the 1890s.

If women can be ordained as deaconesses, why not elders and ministers? If we deny women the opportunities as described above in her quote, would we not be running counter to the solution and practicalities of the above admonition-

"Not a hand should be bound, not a soul should be discouraged, not a voice should be hushed; let every individual labor, privately or publically, for this grand work.

Would that not also include ordaining women as ministers?

[karl]

"In early times the father was the ruler and priest of his own family, and he exercised authority over his children, even after they had families of their own. His descendants were taught to look up to him as their head, in both religious and secular matters. This patriarchal system of government Abraham endeavored to perpetuate, as it tended to preserve the knowledge of God." Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 141.

[Tom Wetmore]

Regarding Phoebe, you are connecting dots that simply are not there creating an inapposite context. Simultaneously you are ignoring the immediate and absolutely relevant context of the entirety of verses one and two.

You really have to stretch to connect the special message to Corinth addressing a particular problem. But the immediately textual context of Paul's statement includes words diakonos, hagios and prostatis which all must be read together with the specific instructions Paul gives the believers of how they are to relate to Phoebe. It is very hard to read all of that together without a clear impression that Paul is speaking of an extra-special lady that is to be looked up to, listened to and whose directions are to be heeded. That is entirely inconsistent with the lowly servant/helper role of one that we traditionally associate with a deaconess.

Such a lowly servant functionary, no matter how good a helper she might be, would seem to be an improbable person, man or woman, to be entrusted with the important and far from simple task of delivering this particular letter. That it is a special letter of spiritual instruction should be self-evident. Of necessity the person delivering the letter did far more than hand it over to the people. She was to read it to them since there was but one copy and many of the believers were most probably illiterate. And the one to deliver the message would have also been designated to explain it and answer questions about it.

"The" vs. "a" is rather beside the point. If not The minister of Cenchrea, she had to have been a minister of some significant standing in Cenchrea and perhaps beyond.

[Tom Wetmore]

Just as EGW herself said, you are placing far too much importance on the ordination ritual of laying on of hands. The meaning, symbolism and purpose of it is to simply and openly demonstrate a recognition of the Church of the calling. Would not the General Conference action to authorize the issuing of the credentials and the issuing of the credentials serve the same purpose?

What you are again suggesting is the invalidity of the credential or that it is just a plain old lie of the General Conference to give a ordination credential to someone that in fact had not actually been ordained. But that is where you would be wrong. The certificate is what we would call in legal terms, a self-authenticating document. It is evidence enough with no further proof necessary for the fact that it represents. She was in fact ordained by the Church, because the General Conference authenticated that fact by issuing the credential. It is self-evident.

Otherwise, we are forced to question all holders of such a credential to be sure they have undergone the ritual blessing before we will accept that they too have really been ordained. That of course is absurd foolishness, just as your arguments minimizing her ordination.

I think that you will be hard pressed to offer any evidence that all of the first male ministers that founded the denomination had undergone the ritual either. Would you please give me documented evidence that James White or Uriah Smith, for example, were actually ordained. After you do that, move on to all the rest of the names of the ordained ministers in the early 19th Century Church. Of course, I think we can also start a similar inquest into the ordination of all the men that are identified as holding offices in the NT Church. Show us the same proof of their ordination.

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

[

I can certainly say the very same of you. It is most certainly not saying what you want it to say, karl...

If you are unwilling to or unable to read this and discuss it in the context of ALL the evidence then there is really not much point in us discussing this further.

Relevance please?

I consider your reference to "ALL" the evidence as no evidence whatsoever. You must present whatever evidence you wish considered and give us your view just as you did the evidence above, which I responded to by pointing out the fact that it doesn't say what you said it was saying.

By the way, what was the difference, in the 1860's, between ministerial credentials and certificates of ordination?

That you have to ask its relevance pretty much speaks for itself. If you take such a dismissive attitude to what others offer as the basis and relevant to their point of view does nothing to facilitate understanding or dialog. What is the point in discussing anything with you if you will not even consider the evidence offered that is the foundational information for the whole topic under discussion? As I said, when you have read it all, let's talk. Until then, any further interaction with you on this topic is meaningless.

[John317]

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: And I might add that "John317" is painting a picture of a less than forthright, dare I say dishonest, representation of the General Conference and the Michigan conference which had been issuing her ordained ministerial credentials for many years before that.

I don't get into personal disputes. You shouldn't be talking about people's motivations since you can't know what's in people's minds and hearts.

Let's stick to the topic and rebut the evidence and reasoning but not persons.

I believe she was first given a ordained minister's credential for the first time after her husband James died. I'm not aware of her having been issued an ordained ministerial credential many years before the death of James White.

If you know this to be wrong, when did she first receive one? How many times was she issued such a credential? Please post the reference or evidence.

Let's please remember that we're talking about the Bible and things of God. When we do that, our attitude towards one another will be Christ-like, even though we disagree on the topic and draw different conclusions. If you have something to say to people of a persoanl nature, such as "dishonesty," please send it by Private Message. Thanks.

[Neil D]

"In early times the father was the ruler and priest of his own family, and he exercised authority over his children, even after they had families of their own. His descendants were taught to look up to him as their head, in both religious and secular matters. This patriarchal system of government Abraham endeavored to perpetuate, as it tended to preserve the knowledge of God." Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 141.

You are correct, Karl...It WAS once a way to preserve the knowledge of God. What you forget is that Abraham was also prophetic in his relationship with God. As Abraham was able to pass on the knowledge of God to his descendants and friends, so EGW was able to bring together the knowledge of God thru her writings.

Yeah, EGW was a pretty special lady with her relationship with God. And she, in her years in Australia, was able to promote the idea of ordination for women....and she says so...thru the tradition of 'laying on of hands', ordination of deacons and pastors and ministers was possible...So also is the laying on of hands with prayer, women are to be used to build up the work in "new and distinct ways"..

Consider in the last days that even our daughters are to prophesy...that makes them leaders by office...

[Tom Wetmore]

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: And I might add that "John317" is painting a picture of a less than forthright, dare I say dishonest, representation of the General Conference and the Michigan conference which had been issuing her ordained ministerial credentials for many years before that.

I don't get into personal disputes. You shouldn't be talking about people's motivations since you can't know what's in people's minds and hearts.

Let's stick to the topic and rebut the evidence and reasoning but not persons.

I believe she was first given a ordained minister's credential for the first time after her husband James died. I'm not aware of her having been issued an ordained ministerial credential many years before the death of James White.

If you know this to be wrong, when did she first receive one? How many times was she issued such a credential? Please post the reference or evidence.

Let's please remember that we're talking about the Bible and things of God. When we do that, our attitude to wards one another will be Christ-like, even though we disagree on the topic and draw different conclusions. If you have something to say to people of a personal nature, such as "dishonesty," please send it by Private Message. Thanks.

Please read that more carefully before you respond.

I was in fact sticking to the topic and rebutting the evidence and reasoning that you have offered. It is hardly a personal attack on you. I was specifically addressing the fallacy of the argument you have pressed here. (It isn't new or original with you anyway...) The logic of your argument calls into question the validity of the General Conference and the Michigan Conference before that, even issuing ordination credentials to EGW. Either they mean exactly what they say, or they are nothing but a sham, a false document that means nothing. I am not calling you dishonest. I am saying that the argument you have made is painting the Church as less than honest to issue an ordination credential to someone if they knew she had not in fact been ordained.

[John317]

teehe

Quote:

There are lots of points made, and texts, in the discussion, that no one has responded to so far.

If all someone can do is come on the threads and post those kinds of comments, they are merely showing they either don't know the evidence or they don't have any. If that's the case, they are better off going to discussions where they can help advance the conversation.

Do you feel, then, that all further discussion is either redundant or without meaning because all the answers are well known?

If so, then you may not want to take part. However, please be courteous and let others continue the discussion.

If you feel that all questions have been answered over and over and that people are simply not accepting the answers, why do you come on this discussion only to make demeaning and denigarating comments? What have you said that is contributing in a positive way to the discussion? If you will talk about the issues and the evidence, you are welcome on this discussion. Otherwise, if you only want to come here to say things like you have here and in your previous post on this thread, then please go to another discussion where you are interested in making a positive contribution by talking about the topic and not about people.

Quote:

Your position has always been "if you don't accept my evidence than you haven't studied enough or you just don't know or...etc...etc"! Wasn't born yesterday, such tactics get rather boring.

You are wrong here. I'm trying to engage people in real dialogue and exchanges about biblical evidence and the conclusions this evidence leads to. I have no trouble changing my mind about a topic such as this, but I won't change just because people make cutting remarks about people instead of presenting evidence and showing good reasoning.

Here below you will see evidence that it's Tom who is saying if people don't accept his evidence and reasoning, or if they haven't read "all that," Tom is not ready to discuss the subject with them:

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: ... As I said, when you have read it all, let's talk. Until then, any further interaction with you on this topic is meaningless.

... If you are unwilling to or unable to read this and discuss it in the context of ALL the evidence then there is really not much point in us discussing this further.

....It reinforces my point and Kevin's point made previously that few really have full knowledge and even fewer are willing to take the time necessary to be fully informed of all the evidence. (Just like reading all the material in the At Issue link I have repeatedly posted... I sincerely doubt you read it all in the hour and a half it took you to respond to my post suggesting you had done so before we could discuss it... there ar etwo complet books and more than twenty articles/essays posted there. And there are references to more than 30 more sources listed at the end without the full tesxt being uploaded there. Can you honestly say you have read all of that?)

No one but Tom has insisted that others read "all that," or that since they haven't read it, there's not much point in discussing the topic further with them. Let's get beyond that-- and all other personal remarks-- and stay on the topic and focussed on the evidence.

If people haven't read all the evidence, it's OK. I doubt if anyone on the thread has read and studied ALL the evidence. There are many wonderful books on both sides of the issue. For instance, there's the outstanding book, Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood, edited by John Piper & Wayne Grudem. About 500 pages long, it includes 26 chapters written by various Bible scholars and professors at different Christian universities and colleges. They're all very well written and argued on the basis of Bible evidence. Some of the titles include the following: Male-Female Equality and Male Headship; Women in the Life and Teachings of Jesus; "Silent In the Churches," Role Distinctions In the Church; Husbands and Wives as Analogues of Christ and the Church; The Valuable Ministries of Women in the Context of Male Leadership; The Church as Family: Why Male Leadership in the Family Requires Male Leadership in the Church; Men and Women In the Image of God; and Wives Like Sarah, and the Husbands Who Honor Them.

If interested, the ISBN # is 13: 978-1-58134-806-4

Publisher: Crossway. www.crossway.com

I favor reading books and articles and esssays from both sides of this issue. I've been attending SDA churches most of my life where women are pastors. I like women very much and in fact identify with them more than I identify with men. I'm totally open to the concept of women as pastors, but I am looking for biblical evidence and arguments, not ones based on church tradition. Nor am I persuaded by people who come on discussions and merely make attacks on persons rather than attacking evidence and reasoning. Let's keep the dicussion forcussed on evidence and reasoning and away from personal comments unless they can be positive ones. My experience is that there are also many women in the SDA church who oppose the ordination of women to postions of pastor and elder, and their reasons are all based on what they believer the Bible teaches. It's an issue, I believe, that can only be solved theologically.

Quote:

Lighten up...smile a little..live longer...this ain't life and death!!!!

OK, I'm smiling-- I'm smiling. You see my picture? That's how I look all the time. Ask anyone on here who's met me in person. If I met you and talked to you, I'd be smiling and friendly all the time, even if we're disagreeing. Aks our good friends, Norman, Cyberguy, Neil D., Stan, or Taylor.

You're quite right it's not "life and death," but then no one has said it is. But it is an important and interesting topic, don't you agree?

Let's get back, now, to talking about the topic and the evidence.

I haven't seen your viewpoint and understanding of 1 Tim. 2: 8-15 and 1 Cor. 14: 33-40. Those are two primary texts dealing directly with the topic under discussion. I'd sincerely like to know what your conclusions are and the biblical basis for them. Do you think it applies to our church today, if so, how do you apply it? What is Paul saying?

If you feel that you have already answered these questions, please point me to the post(s) where you wrote about them.

[Tom Wetmore]

OK "John317". Who is attacking who here?!?!?

You are misrepresenting what I said and the context of why I said it to karl. And what is most of the above post but a personal attack against me within a personal rebuke to CoAspen for his justifiable expression of frustration with the endless merry-go-round of this debate.

And in response to your off topic personal attack against me, it is rather pointless to carry on a discussion of historic evidence with someone that admittedly refuses to take the time to consider the evidence, or even consider it at all relevant, as karl has done. I am sorry that this may have offended you or him. But what is the point in discussing any of that evidence with someone who views it that way!

You are one of the few exceptions around here. Although I disagree with many things you say, you do at least give every effort to be informed of all the evidence and relevant material. Would that everyone would do likewise before they weigh in on the issues! We might actually be able to generate some light instead of just heat.

[Neil D]

Quote:

Your position has always been "if you don't accept my evidence than you haven't studied enough or you just don't know or...etc...etc"! Wasn't born yesterday, such tactics get rather boring.

You are wrong here. I'm trying to engage people in real dialogue and exchanges about biblical evidence and the conclusions this evidence leads to. I have no trouble changing my mind about a topic such as this, but I won't change just because people make cutting remarks about people instead of presenting evidence and showing good reasoning.