Doug Batchelor Preaches Against Women Pastors

[John317]

Quote:

wayfinder:...The reason that Eve didn't blame Adam would be because he was a taken by the serpent as she was. In other words they were both deceived by the serpent.

And here you must realize you are putting your opinion or reason about the testimony of the NT Scriptures. See 1 Tim. 2: 14: "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived..."

Quote:

Eve just took the fruit first. There is no record that Adam protested at any time concerning Eve. Adam only says the woman gave me some and I ate it, like what else was he supposed to do.

And this makes good biblical sense to you? That he would stand there like a bump on a log and not say a word while his wife is talking to a snake who's inviting her to eat from the tree that God commanded Adam not to eat from on pain of death?

God made Adam to be the protecter of Eve. That is why the male was made stronger and bigger. He was made first so he would gain some knowledge of the world before she came along. He had to do a lot of thinking during the time he was naming all the animals. He had to know something about them in order to name them.

Of course Adam didn't protest about Eve's falling for Satan's lies. It was too late to protest; the harm was already done. He knew she was as good as dead when she ate that fruit. He wasn't stupid. He was far brighter than you and me. Would you stand there and watch your wife eat what you know to be poison? Adam had to know that serpents don't talk. That is why there's no suggestion that Adam was there to talk or hear the serpent. Because he certainly would have warned Eve that this was no ordinary serpent.

You make Adam out to be some numb skull, which of course he was not. God made him very intelligent. Eve was also very intelligent but she lacked experiencce, which is the reason she was supposed to stay with Adam. Adam was no dummy-- after all he had studied all the animals and given them names, which requires an incredible knowledge for a man who'd only been alive for a very short time. God made Adam with knowledge already in his brain. He knew an incredible amount of language and must have known things about biology and zoology as well, all on his first day of life.

Quote:

Wayfinder: Paul uses this to emphesize that fact that women are weak and easily deceived. He emphesizes the point that Adam was not the one deceived, but Eve was deceived, this is why he implies, they shouldn't think for themselves, but just have babies.

1 Timothy 2:12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.

13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.

14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

15 But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.

I think you're misunderstanding what Paul is saying there. He's saying in part that it was from woman that the Christ, the Savior, was the born. The Holy Spirit is also showing us that the woman's main work is in the home, as the mother, to train children up for God, "in faith, love, and holiness." So I disagree with your view that Paul is making woman out to be only good for having babies. I think that's an inaccurate way of viewing Paul's meaning. In some ways, the work that God gave women to do is even more important than man's. Just think who it was who had the greatest influence on the Son of God as He was growing up. It was his mother, Mary. That's an incredible responsibility, and to think that God trusted Mary, a woman, to do it. That says a lot about what God thinks women are capable of.

As I said, if you go back and look carefully at the description of what occurred in the Garden, it makes the best biblical sense that Adam was not with Eve at the time of the temptation and that He didn't know she ate the fruit until she came to him later and gave some to him.

[John317]

Quote:

Olger:

Creation

• Genesis 1 represents a vertical line. Both man and woman are responsible to God. Vertical equality (spiritual) in God’s sight. They are the same in the economy of salvation.

• Genesis 2 is a horizontal line (a Co-ordination). Here is the basis of inequality of role and responsibility. Man directs the partnership, and woman defers to his leadership. Here, man is linked to God and woman to man (an association that follows throughout the Bible).

Role Distinctions

Are there Biblical role distinctions between man & women?

• Notice the times that God speaks to men and women separately. Genesis 3, Ephesians 5, 1 Peter 3.

• The Bible’s assertion that Adam was the first sinner recognizes his position as the federal head of the human race (Romans 5:12).

• After the Fall, God walks through the Garden and calls out to Adam. Why not both of them, or why not to Eve? Because Adam was the head, also implied in His warning to Adam to not eat of the tree (no record of God ever telling Eve exists. It is thus assumed that as Adam was the head of the family, he was responsible to tell her).

...Deborah:

• Passing on a message from God (as He has given it, without expansion, explanation, or application) is not seen as exercising leadership authority.

• Judges were raised up to deal with national defense Judges (2:16), but they had a moral as well as a military function, namely to preserve internal holiness that prevented external attack (2-17-19). The latter role was more prophetic than judicial. They were not agents of a centralized government (Gideon refused to found a royal dynasty, on the ground of divine rule (Judges 8:22-23). Among them is Deborah who thus judged Israel. Three facts about her are stated:

• She was a wife of Lapidoth, she was a prophetess, and she settled disputes. She was able to bring an inspired word of wisdom or knowledge to bear on each case.

• Unlike other judges, she did not lead when invasion threatened, but delegated (or more accurately, the Lord delegated through her) this task to the man Barak. He, with less than masculine courage or chivalry, insisted on taking her into battle, ensuring his forfeiture of the honor of victory (Judges 4:6-9).

• Her triumphal song praised the Lord that the princes (ruling men) took “the lead,” showing that her attitude was maternal rather than matriarchal. She was no Joan of Arc, in spite of the apparent shortage of strong men.

• The entire book of judges is the sad portrayal of confused nation with each person doing that which is right in their own eyes” (Judges 21:24).

Ellen White

• It is often claimed that the prophetic ministry of Ellen G. White authorizes women to exercise leadership over men. Not only is this notion wholly unBiblical, it threatens to make the rare and precious gift of prophecy common and irrelevant. It would be equally unBiblical to conclude that all men are suited for leadership roles because Moses was a man. The Word clearly indicates that leadership is male, and given only to those who meet the Biblical requirements. Godly men are called to serve rather than to rule. So the Bible excludes all women and most men from church leadership roles—requiring all ecclesiastical leaders to meet a unique list of Scriptural requirements.

...• According to Arthur White (Grandson) Grandmother would speak only after James did if he was present.

Aquila & Priscilla The ministry of this married couple to Apollos is occasionally produced as an Apostolic example of women preaching. Does the Scriptural text support this? In assessing the significance of this occasion we should note that the word teach (didasko) is not used on this occasion. Husband and wife did it together, and it was a private context in their home, not a public one in church (Acts 18:25-28).

Jesus’ acceptance of women

• His attitude towards women was in stark contrast to the existing rabbinic customs of the day. Over forty references to women in the Gospels demand attention and analysis.

• Jesus ministered to women. More common in Luke, but a feature of all four Gospels. He included them in His public teaching. He gave them private instruction (Mary of Bethany) and the woman at the well in Samaria.

• He performed miracles for them (Peter’s mother-in-law, to the widow of Nain). He was compassionate with particular feminine diseases (issue of blood). He permitted them into His inner circle of followers. All this was contrary to Jewish tradition and convention. No one treated women with more respect, even those whom others despised (“Simon do you se this women as she really is?” Luke 7:44).

• He received ministry from women.

...

Jesus preference for male leadership

• The Gospels record Jesus’ negative reaction to women who tell Him what to do. It happens first at Cana, when His mother hints that a miracle would be in order. His rebuke is a Hebrew colloquiasm for “Don’t interfere”; and his addressing her as Woman” could either be a reminder of her gender, or more likely a repudiation of her maternal authority, to which he had hitherto been subject. There were also times when Jesus dealt similarly with men who sought His assistance Luke 12:14).

• The transfiguration was shared only with men (three of them).

• The Last Supper was limited to men only, even though women had followed Jesus into Jerusalem. Thus the New Covenant was inaugurated in a totally male context. It must be noted that this original was not seen as a precedent for the young church.

• Only men were present in Gethsemane, and Luke’s language implies that only men witnessed the Ascension (Acts 1:11). But what about church leadership?

• The term disciple is never specifically used of women, even of those who followed Him. Discipleship is spelled out in male terms: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate…his wife” (Luke 14:26; no mention of “her husband”).

• The seventy apostles sent out in Luke 10:1-24 are men. Acts 2:15 speaks of all the disciples and their wives and children. But we must be careful not to read too much into this. Let’s go on.

• The one indisputable fact is that Jesus chose twelve-men to be His apostles. No specific reason is given. The obvious meaning is that Jesus would not put women in a position of directing men. However offensive this may be in our day, it is most consistent with the Scriptures (Old Testament) in which Jesus believed and those writings of the Apostles later recognized as Scripture (New Testament). The foundation of the church was male.

• Jesus announced no basic change in the roles of men and women. Jesus own attitudes and actions are totally consistent with His original creation.

Man is first:

• Woman was made for man; the reverse is not true (1 Cor 11:9). Her primary function is in relation to him; his was already established without reference to her (Genesis 2:15).

• Woman was made after man. His priority in time has other implications. The firstborn carries responsibility for and authority over later arrivals as Paul indicates in 1 Timothy 2:13).

• Woman was made from man. This might be thought to indicate the incompleteness of the man (and the reason he seeks union with her rather than parents; see Genesis 2:24); but Paul uses this to support the headship of the man (1 Corinthians 11:8), possibly recalling that she came from his side.

• Adam names Eve. A legacy of His action is to be found in a wife taking her husband’s surname after marriage.

The Fall

• Order gives way to opposition, accord to alienation. The Fall introduces struggle into their respective spheres.

• After the Fall, God restates the role distinctions (Genesis 3). Note that there are different spheres of activity as man and woman are already differentiated—Adam will be affected in his daily work, Eve in her family relationships. The Fall did not introduced this differentiation; it merely damaged it (Genesis 2:15, 18).

• Having led her husband into sin, she must now live with a continuing urge to subordinate him to her wish and will. His reaction will be to use his greater strength to rule her. In Genesis 3:16 lies the real explanation for the centuries of exploitation and suppression of women, against which feminism is protesting. Incidentally, it also means that a husband who is henpecked has chosen to capitulate, usually for the sake of domestic peace.

• Sin introduced distortion of God’s creation order into an intolerable competition between the sexes. Man seeks to dominate and woman defies him though the outcome is usually in man’s favor because he is the stronger sex. Sin drives this line.

• Correction. Redemption. It is the purpose of redemption to restore creation to its pre-Fall conditions. It is important to note that in the Church, the analogy of male/divine and female/human is still valid and needed. The New Testament sets before us a consistent pattern of the Godly role differentiations that began at creation and continue in re-creation.

Galatians 3:28

....• Because all are sons, all are heirs, which daughters could never be (3:29). So in Christ, there is neither Jew nor Greek, only Jew; neither slave nor free, only free’ not male and female, only male.

• If this verse is taken out of it’s inheritance context and taken to abolish all sexual differences (neutered in Christ), it would contradict Paul’s teachings on homosexual relations (Romans 1-24-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9), on the duties of husbands and wives (Colossians 3:18-19; (Ephesians 5:22-23), on slaves’ attitude to their masters 9Ephesians 6:5-9; Colossians 3:23—4:1) and in particular his qualifications of women’s ministry in the church (1 Corinthians 11:3-16; 14:33-38; 1 Timothy 2:11-14). To accuse Paul of such inconsistency is a grave charge, with implications for the inspiration of the whole Scripture as well as his personal Christian integrity. To enlarge one verse of Scripture into a social or ecclesiastical manifesto is unwarranted and misleading, particularly in view of Paul’s specific teaching on the subject. Christian Feminists have hailed this statement in Galatians as the epitome of their inspiration—and hated him for almost everything else he said on the subject!

Ordination

To focus on the ordination of women is misleading unless the ordination of men is also questioned. There is no New Testament warrant for limiting priesthood to one gender. The real issue is whether any ordination puts woman in a position “over a man”.

• It is in the very context of Gender relationships that we are warned not to malign the word of God (Titus 2:5) and not to imagine that the word of God originated with us (1 Corinthians 14:36).

• The Bible calls for the ordination of male elders in every city and clearly outlines their qualifications (Titus 1:5-9).

• The real issue is whether at any level the relationship between sexes is as God intended it to be.

• The conclusion drawn is that the paradox of gender in creation (horizontal inequality & vertical equality) remains a feature of life in this present world and is consistently maintained throughout the Old and New Testaments.

• To be true to the Bible we must stop putting women in positions of leadership over men.

Unequal Yokes

• When a woman is spiritually ahead of her husband, it is increasingly difficult for her to regard him as the head.

• The church has created many unequal yokes in this way, making possible the breakdown of marriage (1 Corinthians 7:15).

• Without intending or even realizing it, Christians have often encouraged wives to become spiritual leaders to their husbands.

• The best way for a wife to convert her husband is to change herself (1 Peter 3:1-6).

• The marrying of believers with unbelievers is a grave error that the church should avoid. At least let there be extensive premarital counseling prior to marriage of young adults.

Priesthood of all believers

• This is a quote from the preface of the giving of the Law on Sinai. Throughout the history of Israel, the roles and relations between men & women were clear and observed. These roles are also clearly maintained under the New Covenant.

• For Men, more training needs to be given. The answer to the present imbalance is not to weaken the woman’s contribution but to strengthen the men’s. Local churches must give top priority to evangelizing and discipling men as Jesus did.

• It is better to teach a man to lead his wife and family than to provide women’s meetings and youth clubs to compensate for a godless father. It would be utterly wrong to deny leadership to women and do little or nothing about training men for this responsibility. The Word tells us where to go. Godly wisdom tells us how to get there.

• The church has need of spiritual mothers as well as fathers.

• Many Christian women who accept that biblical leadership is male rightly complain that avenues of ministry have been unnecessarily inhibited by male monopoly. There are avenues of ministry that do not in any way involve the direction of men.

• The public ministries of praying and prophesying are effective when exercised by women of spiritual insight and sensitivity.

Very good post, olger. It contains a lot of great points. I've posted above the parts that made the greatest impression on me or that I thought were especially important concepts.

While reading it, something you said suddently made me realize one additional reason the practice of homosexuality is wrong. I'd thought of it previously, but in this post, the idea was expressed more clearly than I'd seen it before, so it occurred to me almost as if it was a new thought. The practice of homosexuality perverts God's intentions because in gay male relationships, the male is submitting himself to another male in a way that God never intended for a male to do. The male does what God only intends for the female to do in relationship to males. In those relationships-- and I do not mean only or even primarily sexually-- males are attempting to dominate other males and the males submit themselves in the relationship as if they are females. I used to enjoy being a part of that, but my eyes are open now to what I was doing. I was making a mockery of God's creation and His plan for humans. I know Satan loves to see people distort and pervert God's designs in humanity.

There's also a connection between what goes on in the home and what happens in the church that a lot people are missing. If Satan can get Christians to be confused about the different roles of the sexes in the church, he knows that the same kind of role reversals will happen more and more in the home. The man will abandoned his God-given responsibilities and give up his leadership position to the woman because he sees it happening in the church and so he comes to believe that it's what God wants. But the question arises, if God wants it to happen in the church, then why is it so important for the man to be the leader in the home spiritually or in any other way? My point is that there a direct relationship between what happens in the church and what we can expect to happen in the home.

I'd like to see Tom Wetmore's thoughts about what you posted.

[Woody]

John. Can you define 'alone'?

[teresaq]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: This is related to the discussion, because it has to do with what Paul says in 1 Tim. 2: 11-14.

(1) Woman is not to have authority over the male (Gk "andros"); (2) BECAUSE Adam was created first; (3) And BECAUSE Adam was not deceived but the woman was.

Question: doesn't this show that there's a relationship between Paul's instructions about women's role in the church and what happened in Eden? What's the connection?

Notice that Paul says in 1 Cor. 14: 34 that the woman is to be "submissive," and he then accounts for what he says by referencing "the law."

In the next few verses, Paul goes on to add that if anyone is really spiritual or a prophet, he will acknowledge that Paul is writing the commandments of the Lord. He ends by saying, "If ANYONE does not recognize this, he is not recognized.

Can you explain this? What are your thoughts?

Quote:

teresaq(sda)]: it might help if you read our pioneers arguments and understanding instead of the more literal calvinist understanding. just a suggestion.

Quote:

JOHN3:17:Here's a suggestion: why don't you tell here what you believe our pioneers' arguments and understanding was about this topic, and give some evidence for what you say?

I have been reading our pioneers all my life. What specifically do you refer to?

i started posting what our pioneers biblical understanding on this for those who wish to read it... there is more that as i have time i will post.

you are free to show why you prefer another understanding.

1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach,...

Act 18:26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

1Ti 2:12 ..., nor to usurp authority over the man, ...

G831 authenteō

Thayer Definition:

1) one who with his own hands kills another or himself

2) one who acts on his own authority, autocratic

3) an absolute master

4) to govern, exercise dominion over one

Part of Speech: verb

A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from a compound of G846 and an obsolete hentes (a worker)

it might be just me, but im thinking God is against that kind of behavior in men also.

1Pe 5:1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: ...

1Pe 5:3 Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.

[teresaq]

Quote:

John317: For example, do you accept Ellen White's statements about Adam and Eve in the garden and about God's design for them there and afterwards?

Quote:

teresaq(sda): which is?, according to your understanding.

...

Ellen White wrote that Eve had been told not to seperate herself from her husband. But she did separate from Adam, so that she was alone at the tree when she was tempted. She put her trust in her own reasoning and in her senses more than in the words of God. She reasoned with the devil, which was her first mistake. Later, after she ate of the tree, she "became the agent of Satan in working the ruin of her husband." She went out looking for him in order to give some of the forbidden fruit to him. PP 53, 54, 56.

Ellen White also says that if Eve had sinned and Adam had stayed faithul, God would have made another companion for Adam.

Adam would not have perished if only Eve had sinned. Sin entered the human race through Adam, not through Eve. PP 56: par. 2.

i didnt realize you wouldnt understand ....i meant the bolded part....

[John317]

Quote:

Woody: John. Can you define 'alone'?

Sure. It means "being apart from others; considered separately from all others of the same class." In reference to Eve being alone at the tree, it means that she was the only human at the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Adam was not with her while she was at the tree communicating with the devil. PP 53-56.

[John317]

Quote:

teresaq(sda):

1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach,...

Act 18:26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

This is from olger's recent post:

Aquila & Priscilla. The ministry of this married couple to Apollos is occasionally produced as an Apostolic example of women preaching. Does the Scriptural text support this? In assessing the significance of this occasion we should note that the word teach (didasko) is not used on this occasion. Husband and wife did it together, and it was a private context in their home, not a public one in church (Acts 18:25-28).

Do you agree with this?

Quote:

teresaq(sda): 1Ti 2:12 ..., nor to usurp authority over the man, ...

G831 authenteō

Thayer Definition:

1) one who with his own hands kills another or himself

2) one who acts on his own authority, autocratic

3) an absolute master

4) to govern, exercise dominion over one

Part of Speech: verb

A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from a compound of G846 and an obsolete hentes (a worker)

it might be just me, but im thinking God is against that kind of behavior in men also.

1Pe 5:1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: ...

1Pe 5:3 Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.

In 1 Tim. 2: 12, Paul says, "I allow no woman to teach, or to exercise authority over a man..." (Translation by Helen Barrett Montgomery, The New Testament In Modern English)

Here Paul is prohibiting women from having, or execising, authority over males. He is not prohibiting men from having authority over women or over other males. The Bible distinguishes between "lording" illegitimate power over others and exercising legitimate authority in the Lord.

Elsewhere in the NT, it is made plain that one of the roles of the pastors, bishops, and elders is to manage or govern or rule-- i.e., exercise authority-- in the churches.

See 1 Thess. 5: 12, where believers are urged to respect those who "are over you in the Lord." Hebrews 13: 17 says, "Obey your leaders and submit to their authority."

[teresaq]

Quote:

teresaq(sda):

1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach,...

Act 18:26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

This is from olger's recent post:

Aquila & Priscilla. The ministry of this married couple to Apollos is occasionally produced as an Apostolic example of women preaching. Does the Scriptural text support this? In assessing the significance of this occasion we should note that the word teach (didasko) is not used on this occasion. Husband and wife did it together, and it was a private context in their home, not a public one in church (Acts 18:25-28).

Do you agree with this?

Quote:

teresaq(sda): 1Ti 2:12 ..., nor to usurp authority over the man, ...

G831 authenteō

Thayer Definition:

1) one who with his own hands kills another or himself

2) one who acts on his own authority, autocratic

3) an absolute master

4) to govern, exercise dominion over one

Part of Speech: verb

A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from a compound of G846 and an obsolete hentes (a worker)

it might be just me, but im thinking God is against that kind of behavior in men also.

1Pe 5:1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: ...

1Pe 5:3 Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.

In 1 Tim. 2: 12, Paul says, "I allow no woman to teach, or to exercise authority over a man..." (Translation by Helen Barrett Montgomery, The New Testament In Modern English)

Here Paul is prohibiting women from having, or execising, authority over males. He is not prohibiting men from having authority over women or over other males. The Bible distinguishes between "lording" illegitimate power over others and exercising legitimate authority in the Lord.

Elsewhere in the NT, it is made plain that one of the roles of the pastors, bishops, and elders is to manage or govern or rule-- i.e., exercise authority-- in the churches.

See 1 Thess. 5: 12, where believers are urged to respect those who "are over you in the Lord." Hebrews 13: 17 says, "Obey your leaders and submit to their authority."

[Tom Wetmore]

...I'm also a strong advocate for women in ministry...

I certainly encourage women to be involved in all kinds of ministries. Here are ministries women can work in without violating the instructions in the NT:

Evangelism, Bible instructors, counseling to women, music ministry, canvassing, children's ministries, deaconess, Sabbath School work, prophetess (when called by God, of course), cooking ministry, various health ministries, prayer ministries, welfare ministries, etc...

What part of that is not within the concept of pastoral ministry? Or what part of pastoral ministry is different from or not covered by any or all of those?

If, as EGW suggested and done in her day, consecrated women should be ordained to these functions, is there opposition to women being so ordained? If a women can be ordained to any or all of these ministries what is it about ordination that makes it gender specific?

[Tom Wetmore]

Tom, I notice that you like to talk about Ellen White as a prophet among us and as a great example of women in ministry, yet you dismiss or reject outright many of her counsels and her statements. You have done the same with different parts of the Bible. I find that a bit peculiar, to say the least.

For example, do you accept Ellen White's statements about Adam and Eve in the garden and about God's design for them there and afterwords?

I have a hard time getting a handle on exactly what your position is vis-a-vis Ellen White...

First of all, it is a false statement to say that I "dismiss or reject outright many of her counsels and statements" and even more so the case that I have "done the same with different parts of the Bible." As for Scripture, I have been one of the staunchest advocates of sola scriptura around here, I believe. That my understanding or interpretation of Scripture in whole or any part is different from yours is hardly a rejection or dismissal of Scripture. It would be a dismissal or rejection of your understanding or interpretation. I find it supremely arrogant and insulting if you conceive of such difference with your ideas as a rejection of Scripture. Likewise, I think it of similar effect with regard to the lesser light brought to us by EGW, but of less import because her words are not Scripture nor what my faith is based upon.

I think part of the problem is perhaps born of the perfectionist theology that seeps into Adventist thinking from its fringes. It would seem that some find it hard to consider the idea of an imperfect prophet who could make a mistake. Indeed some have left the denomination and flatly rejected EGW principly because of discovered, or perceived, flaws and mistakes in her writings, no matter how minor or inconsequential. My view is that being a prophet does not make one always right any more than being always right makes one a prophet. And being a prophet does not make everything said and done prophetic.

But I think at its core, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be a prophet. I have tried very hard to honor her own sentiment and desire against being identified as a prophet. I think it was not that she denied the prophetic gift she had received, but that people had a misperception of what that meant. It was better to go with a less loaded and misunderstood, if not neutral title of messenger. Being a prophet does not make one super-human. A prophet is a very human instrument used by God. He is limited by the tools He chooses to use. A broken hammer, even in the hands of a master carpenter will bend a few nails and dent a few boards.

And I also think we have a very distorted understanding of inspiration that is also born of that perfectionist theology that seeps into our thinking. Until we get a grip on what it really means we will have a difficult time grasping the flaws in work that has been inspired.

And finally, unlike you, I think, I am not troubled by uncertainty, incongruity, apparent contradictions or a paradox. I rather think God loves a good paradox. So I embrace such things and wonder at the mystery of the Almighty. He asks that I trust him nonetheless. So I do.

As to the Adam and Eve issue, I have taken EGW at her word. She said to test her words against Scripture and not as so many seem to mistakenly try, to test Scripture against her words. So where she differs from Scripture, I simply accept it as her mistake and go with what Scripture plainly says, just as she said to do. But I don't doubt her spiritual gifts because of it. She doesn't have to be a perfect to have a spiritual gift.

[Tom Wetmore]

It all depends on what 'is' is......

And I wonder how long it would take for the sky to become green if I used the word "green" to mean the color blue...

Can you smell the color nine?

Do you know what you mean when I invent my own secret code meanings for the words you say?

Absurdity does indeed reign and confusion really does make it all seem good...

[teresaq]

As to the Adam and Eve issue, I have taken EGW at her word. She said to test her words against Scripture and not as so many seem to mistakenly try to test Scripture against her words.

[John317]

Tom, I notice that you like to talk about Ellen White as a prophet among us and as a great example of women in ministry, yet you dismiss or reject outright many of her counsels and her statements. You have done the same with different parts of the Bible. I find that a bit peculiar, to say the least.

For example, do you accept Ellen White's statements about Adam and Eve in the garden and about God's design for them there and afterwords?

I have a hard time getting a handle on exactly what your position is vis-a-vis Ellen White...

Quote:

TOM WETMORE: First of all, it is a false statement to say that I "dismiss or reject outright many of her counsels and statements" and even more so the case that I have "done the same with different parts of the Bible."

I sincerely apologize to you for making that "false statement," but at the time I made it, I sincerely believed it to be truth on the basis of statements you made in a discussion regarding the destruction of Sodom.

Do you believe what Ellen White says in Patriarchs and Prophets, pp. 53-55, about the temptation?

I remember distinctly your saying that you reject her statements about Eve being alone at the Tree, and I see at the bottom of your post here that you still say you reject them.

(As for the Bible, I believe I clearly remember you also told me in one of your fairly recent posts that you don't accept the testimony of the books of 2 Peter 2: 6-9 and Jude 7 as regards the reason for Sodom's destruction, which is clearly that it was destroyed because of "sensuality and unnatural vice." Helen Barrett Montgomery's New Testament In Modern English. The NIV quite rightly translates these words as "sexual immorality and perversion." 2 Peter 2: 7 uses the words, aselgeia anastrophees, which clearly denote "licentiousness, lasciviousness." See Greek lexicons and the RSV. The same word is used in Romans 13: 13; Mark 7: 22. Please let me know if you do in fact accept the testimony of 2 Peter and Jude as regards the destruction of Sodom-- that God destroyed it for the Sodomites' gross sexual immorality. Notice that this in no way contradicts the testimony of Ezekiel 16: 48-50. It actually agrees with what Ellen White writes-- that Ezekiel 16: 49 "specifies the particular evils which led to dissolute morals," and these sins "brought upon [sodom] the wrath of God, even to her utter destruction." See Testimonies On Sexual Behavior, Adultery, and Divorce, p. 120.)

As regards the temptation and Fall, Ellen White wrote that the "angels cautioned Eve to beware of separating herself from her husband," because "when she was with him she would be in less danger from temptation than if she were alone." PP 53.

She goes on to say that Adam was not deceived-- that he understood that Eve had transgressed the command of God and that she would die and be separated from him. Ellen White completely agrees with the Scriptures that Eve was deceived but Adam was not. Saint Paul connects this with his teaching that woman should not teach, or have authority over males. 1 Tim. 2: 11-14. That's why I think it is a necessary part of the discussion about the role of women in the church. I believe the statements of Ellen White quoted below shed much light on the connection Paul makes. I'm very interested in your thoughts, whether you agree both with Ellen White's comments here and particularly with my summary of what she has stated.

On page 56, Ellen White: "... having now transgressed, she [Eve] became the agent of Satan in working the ruin of her husband....Love, gratitutde, loyalty to the Creator-- all were overborne by love to Eve. She was a part of himself, and he could not endure the thought of separation. He did not realize that the same Infinite Power who had from the dust of the earth created him, a living, beautiful form, and had in love given him a companion, could supply her place. He resolved to share her fate; if she must die, he would die with her." Once Adam reasoned to this point, he went on to think that the words of the serpant might be true-- that the fruit wouldn't after all result in their deaths. Then he took the fruit and ate. But Adam had already resolved on sharing Eve fate rather than be separated from her. For his love of his woman [Heb. ishshaw], the man defied and disobeyed His loving Creator.

"Satan exulted in his success. He had tempted the woman to distrust God's love, to doubt His wisdom, and to transgress His law, AND THROUGH HER HE [satan] HAD CAUSED THE OVERTHROW OF ADAM." PP 57

The same writer says that Adam, "from love to Eve, had deliberately chosen to forfeit the approval of God, his home in Paradise, and an eternal life of joy... Eve had been the first in transgression; and she had fallen into temptation by separating from her companion, contrary to the divine direction. It was by her solicitation that Adam sinned..." PP 57, 58

"Eve was told of the sorrow and pain that must henceforth be her portion. And the Lord said, 'Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.' In creation God had made her the equal of Adam. Had they remain obedient to God-- in harmony with His great law of love-- they would ever have been in harmony with each other; but sin had brought discord, and NOW THEIR UNION COULD BE MAINTAINED AND HARMONY PRESERVED ONLY BY SUBMISSION ON THE PART OF THE ONE OR THE THE OTHER. Eve had been the first in transgression; and she had fallen into temptation by separating from her companion, CONTRARY TO THE DIVINE DIRECTION. It was by her solicitation that Adam sinned, AND SHE WAS NOW PLACED IN SUBJECTION TO HER HUSBAND. Had the principles enjoined in the law of God been cherished by the fallen race, this sentence, though growing out of the results of sin, would have proved a blessing to them; but man's abuse of the supremacy thus given him has too often rendered the lot of woman very bitter and made her life a burden.

"Eve had been perfectly happy by her husband's side in her Eden home; but, LIKE RESTLESS MODERN EVES, she was flattered with the hope of entering a higher sphere than THAT WHICH GOD HAD ASSIGNED HER. In attempting to rise above her original postion, she fell far below it. A SIMILAR RESULT WILL BE REACHED BY ALL WHO ARE UNWILLING TO TAKE UP CHEERFULLY THEIR LIFE DUTIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOD'S PLAN. In their efforts to reach POSITIONS FOR WHICH HE HAS NOT FITTED THEM, many are leaving vacant the place where they might be a blessing. In their desire for a higher sphere, MANY HAVE SACRIFICED TRUE WOMANLY DIGNITY AND NOBILITY OF CHARACTER, AND HAVE LEFT UNDONE THE VERY WORK THAT HEAVEN APPOINTED THEM."

"So long as Adam remained loyal to Heaven, all nature was in subjection to him. But when he rebelled against the divine law, the inferior creatures were in rebellion against his rule." PP 56-57

Let's summarize some of the main points in these statements, and see if we're in agreement on their meaning. Whether you believe them or not is unimportant at this time. For me it's more important right now to agree on what Ellen White wrote on the topic.

1) The angels of God warned Eve that she should stay at Adam's side and not wander away from him, because she would be in less danger when she was with him.

2) Adam was not deceived by Satan whereas Eve clearly was deceived.

3) Satan successfuly used Eve to cause Adam's [and thus, all humanity's] ruin.

4) For his love of beautiful Eve, Adam deliberately chose to rebel against God and forfeit everything, including eternal life.

5) Eve was the first to transgress God's command, but death came through the Fall of Adam, not the sin of Eve. Romans 5: 12-19; PP 56, 59

6) Adam did not realize [the truth] that if Adam had remained loyal to God, the Creator could have replaced Eve with a different companion for Adam. PP 56: par. 2.

7) After the Fall, because of the discord created by sin, the union of man and woman could be maintained and harmony preserved only by submission on the part of either the man or the woman. God gave Adam the supremacy and placed Eve in subjection to her husband, Adam. PP 58

8) The woman was created for man, not man for the woman. 1 Cor. 11: 8

9) The husband and father is the head of the household and the family. AH 215

10) The husband is the head of the wife. AH 215; 1 Cor. 11: 3.

[karl]

Excellent summary, John 317.

You may be wasting your time.

[John317]

Quote:

John317:

I have a hard time getting a handle on exactly what your position is vis-a-vis Ellen White...

I'm glad you say "IF" if I conceive of such difference with my ideas as a rejection of Scripture, because there's a big difference between disagreeing with an interpretation and saying one does not accept certain passages of Scripture or statements of the Spirit of prophecy.

I have in mind your rejection of the testimony of Jude and 2 Peter as to the reasons for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah; and also your rejection of Ellen White statements regarding events she writes about in her book, Patriarchs and Prophets. Those are not matters of interpretation. You are saying you simply do not believe what Ellen White wrote or what the books of Jude and 2 Peter tell us.

These things are important because they are highly relevant to the question of women's role in the church. If you reject those passages having to do with the temptation and Fall, and if you reject the testimony of Jude 7 and 2 Peter 2 regarding the reason for Sodom's destruction, it's necessary to understand upon what grounds you reject them. Answering that question goes to the issue of what you based your beliefs on. Are you able to accept the testimony of Scripture or of Ellen White when they go against your private opinions? Or do you trust your reasoning and opinion more than you trust the word of God or the Spirit of prophecy?

Quote:

Likewise, I think it of similar effect with regard to the lesser light brought to us by EGW, but of less import because her words are not Scripture nor what my faith is based upon.

It's true her words are not Scripture, but no one here or in the SDA church has claimed that they are. She was certainly the "lesser light" to take us to "the greater light." But that is not the issue here. The question here is whether we believe "the lesser light" or whether we reject it. She was just as inspired as any of the prophets of the Bible, even though her writings are not part of the canon. The words of Scripture are certainly primary, and Ellen White's are secondary, but this doesn't mean that her words are unimportant and to be discarded or ignored. God gave her prophetic gift to our church for an important purpose, and that was because we as a church need the guidance Christ gives us through the messages He inspired her to write.

Quote:

I think part of the problem is perhaps born of the perfectionist theology that seeps into Adventist thinking from its fringes. It would seem that some find it hard to consider the idea of an imperfect prophet who could make a mistake. Indeed some have left the denomination and flatly rejected EGW principly because of discovered, or perceived, flaws and mistakes in her writings, no matter how minor or inconsequential.

Well, I don't view Ellen White as a perfect, or sinless, person. I'm well aware that she was a sinner and made mistakes in her lifetime. I've read many books about her, including the biography by Arthur White, and I grew up knowing and talking with Ellen White granddaughter, Grace White. Grace White taught at our elementary school in Loma Linda and she lived on our street there. Besides that, I have been studying her writings and going to the Ellen White Estate in Loma Linda since 1975 when Jim Nix was the director there. I attended the first lectures given in Loma Linda by Ron Numbers and the author of The White Lie, and have read their books. I'm of course very familiar with all the stuff that's found on the anti-EG White web-sites. Back in early 1970s I took classes in the Spirit of prophecy by Robert Olsen just before he left PUC to become a staff member at the Ellen White Estate.

Quote:

My view is that being a prophet does not make one always right any more than being always right makes one a prophet. And being a prophet does not make everything said and done prophetic.

Well, we know that Moses was not perfect, don't we. He was a murderer, although a forgiven one. David was also very imperfect, being an adulterer and a murderer also. Paul and James and Peter were certainly not perfect, either. Yet that imperfection does not mean we cannot depend on their writings, does it? Did Jesus ever indicate that David's imperfections as a man meant that we could not have perfect confidence that what he wrote was the word of God?

Quote:

But I think at its core, there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be a prophet. I have tried very hard to honor her own sentiment and desire against being identified as a prophet.

Yes, I agree with you that there are many who misunderstand what it means to be a prophet.

Why do you say she did not desire to be identified as a prophet? Is that what she said?

Here are her own statements:

Some have stumbled over the fact that I said I did not CLAIM to be a prophet; and they have asked, Why is this? I have had no CLAIMS to make, only that I am instructed that I am the Lord's messenger; that He called me in my youth to be His messenger, to receive His word, and to give a clear and decided message in the name of the Lord.

"Early in my youth I was asked several times, Are you a prophet? I have ever responded, I am the Lord's messenger. I know that many have called me a prophet, but I have made no CLAIM to this TITLE. My Savior declared me to be His messenger...

"Why have I not CLAIMED to be a prophet?-- Because in these days many who boldly claim that they are prophets are a reproach to the cause of Christ; AND BECAUSE MY WORK INCLUDES MUCH MORE THAN THE WORD 'PROPHEHT' SIGNIFIES." 1 SM 31, 32

"God has made plain to me the various ways in which He would use me to carry forward a special work. Visions have been given me, with the promise, 'If you deliver the messages faithfully and endure to the end, you will eat of the fruit of the tree of life, and drink of the water of the river of life.'" 1 SM 31, 32, 33

"To CLAIM to be a prophetess is something that I have never done. If others call me by that name, I have no controversy with them. But my work has covered so many lines that I cannot call myself other than a messenger, sent to bear a messages from the Lord to His people, and to take up work in any line that He points out.

"When I was last in Battle Creek, I said before a large congregation that I did not CLAIM to be a prophetess. Twice I referred to this matter, intending each time to make the statement, 'I do not claim to be a prophetess.' If I spoke otherwise than this, let all now understand that what I had in mind to say was that I DO NOT CLAIM THE TITLE of prophet or prophetess." 1 SM 35

"I have written many books, and they have been given a wide circulation. Of myself I could not have brought out the truth in these books, but the Lord has given me the help of His Holy Spirit. These books, giving the instruction that the Lord has given me during the past sixty years, contain light from heaven, and will bear the test of investigation."

"During the discourse, I said that I did not CLAIM to be a prophetess. Some were surprised at this statement, and as much is being said in regard to it, I will make an explanation. Others have called me a prophetess, but I have never assumed that title. I have not felt that it was my duty thus to designate myself. Those who boldly assume that they are prophets in this our day are often a reproach to the cause of Christ.

"My work includes much more than this name signifies. I regard myself as a messenger, entrusted by the Lord with messages for His people. Letter 55, 1905.

"My commission embraces the work of a prophet, but it does not end there. It embraces much more than the minds of those who have been sowing the seeds of unbelief can comprehend." 1 SM 35, 36

NOTE: When she said that her commission from Jesus Christ embraces the work of a prophet, she is clearly stating that she is a prophet. It's clear from the above quotes that Ellen White's reason for saying what she did was that the word "prophet" was too often attached to people who were a reproach to the gospel. It was one of the reasons that Christ didn't go around claiming to be the Messiah-- because there were a lot of false messiahs, and He didn't want to be associated with that. Anyone can CLAIM to be a prophet.

Quote:

I think it was not that she denied the prophetic gift she had received, but that people had a mis perception of what that meant.

Of course she did not deny the prophetic gift. That can easily be seen from the above quotes.

Quote:

It was better to go with a less loaded and misunderstood, if not neutral title of messenger.

The reason she chose to use the word, messenger, is that it was the title Jesus Christ Himself used in reference to her and her work. 1 SM 32 She said, "My Savior declared me to be His messenger."

Therefore, it was not a question of Ellen White's thinking "it was better to go with a less loaded and misunderstood, if not neutral title."

Having said all this, do you believes she was a true prophet of God?

I'm convinced she was. As she said, she did the work of a prophet, being given about 2000 visions and dreams during her lifetime, and also having been inspired by the Holy Spirit to write messages for Christ to His people.

Quote:

Being a prophet does not make one super-human. A prophet is a very human instrument used by God. He is limited by the tools He chooses to use. A broken hammer, even in the hands of a master carpenter will bend a few nails and dent a few boards.

Yes, we can see this by studying the Bible prophets such as Moses, David, Noah, Abraham, Elijah, Jonah, and all the others.

However, realizing they are not super-human and that they are (of course!)very human instruments does not detract in the least that what they wrote was God's message and not their own message or opinion.

This is where I believe you are badly mistaken about what Ellen White wrote in Patriarchs and Prophets concerning the Temptation and Fall. If you are right about Ellen White being in error in regard to Adam and Eve, then what she wrote on many other subjects is probably also wrong and then we have no more reason to trust what she wrote than anyone else. It thus becomes anyone's personal whim as to what to accept and what to reject in her writings. Many people already do this with the Bible. If they like something, they accept it; if not, they reject it. It is often not a matter of whether it agrees with the Bible; it depends, rather, on whether it agrees with their interpretation of the Bible.

For instance, you reject what Ellen White says in Patriarchs and Prophets about the tempation of Eve because the Bible says Eve ate the fruit and then says "she also gave to her husband with her, and he ate." Ge 3: 6. But the truth is that many Bible scholars who are well aware of that verse believe that Eve was tempted while apart from Adam. And why? Because the verse doesn't necessarily mean that Adam was with Eve at the moment she was tempted. There's another perfectly good way of understanding it. And as great a scholar and student as John Milton himself, as well as many other close students of the Bible, understood it the same way as Ellen White did. If the verse really means Eve and Adam were together at the tree, Ellen White would be proved to be a false prophet by her own standards and by the standards of Scripture itself.

Being "very human" is no good reason for a true prophet of God to contradict that which God inspired other prophets of God to write. The prophet Isaiah says, "To the law and the testimony-- if they speak not according to this word, it is because they have no light in them." Is. 8: 20. See 1 SM 43

What you regard as error is a significant portion and teaching of Ellen White; it is not just a technical mistake, such as a date or a name. She says that the angels of God warned Eve not to leave her husband's side. That is not merely Ellen White's opinion, nor is it John Milton's.

Ellen White wrote, "You who have been educating yourselves and others in a spirit of criticism and accusing, remember that you are imitating the example of Satan. When it suits your purpose, you treat the Testimonies as if you believed them, quoting from them to strengthen any statement you wish to have prevail. But how is it when light is given to correct your errors? Do you then accept the light? When the Testimonies speak contrary to your ideas, you treat them very lightly." 1 SM 43

"When you find men questioning the testimonies, finding fault with them, and seeking to draw away people from their influence, be assured that God is not at work through them." 1 SM 45

The way some divide up her writings, as well as rejecting parts of the Bible, is one reason for division in our church and also one reason for the many different views within Christianity itself, because not all are reading the same book, much less understanding it the same way.

Quote:

And I also think we have a very distorted understanding of inspiration that is also born of of that perfectionist theology that seeps into our thinking. Until we get a grip on what it really means we will have a difficult time grasping the flaws in work that has been inspired.

How does your understanding of inspiration affect your view of what Paul wrote regarding the role of women in the church? How has it influenced your view of what Paul wrote about homosexuality? I see these questions and issues as related. Some people explain Paul's instructions by saying they're simply Paul's personal prejudices. Others say that those instructions are not written by Paul but by someone else. Still others say that Paul's writings about women merely reflect the times and culture in which Paul lived, and that it's unnecessary for the modern church to abide by those archaic, obsolete rules.

I don't know if you agree with any of those views that people have taken of Paul's words about women or about homosexuality. I don't agree with any of them because there's no biblical evidencce to support any of them.

Quote:

And finally, unlike you, I think, I am not troubled by uncertainty, incongruity, apparent contradictions or a paradox. I rather think God loves a good paradox. So I embrace such things and wonder at the mystery of the Almighty. He asks that I trust him nonetheless. So I do.

Do you mean what the English romantic poet, John Keats, referred to as "negative culpibility"? Or the paradox's of Franz Kafka or Hermann Hesse? Yes, I'm very familiar with those concepts and ideas, and I'm not "troubled" by uncertainty and apparent contradictions, either. But what you are talking about are actual contradictions, not merely ones that have the appearence of being such. There are many questions we cannot answer-- and there's much that we can't explain-- but that is different from concluding that God's prophet wrote significant false beliefs and teachings or that the Bible contains false doctrines. That is not a paradox but a lie. There's a very important difference.

Your explanation, it seems to me, would mean a false prophet could simply explain away his false statements by saying that he is merely human and therefore we need to expect that he will sometimes make false statements. A true prophet does not write a mix of the true and the false. That's exactly what false prophets do. I have studied the writings of Joseph Smith and found his writings contain a lot of truth, but they also contain important errors. If we were to go by what I understand you to be saying, we would have to conclude that Joseph Smith was possibly a true prophet of God-- despite his very significant false teachings.

Quote:

As to the Adam and Eve issue, I have taken EGW at her word. She said to test her words against Scripture and not as so many seem to mistakenly try to test Scripture against her words. So where she differs from Scripture, I simply accept it as her mistake and go with what Scripture plainly says, just as she said to do. But I don't doubt her spiritual gifts because of it. She doesn't have to be a perfect to have a spiritual gift.

You are giving a half-truth that is often repeated, unfortunately. What Ellen White said was to test her writings by the Bible and if we find that she contradicts the Bible, we're to reject what she has written. She doesn't say that some of it will be good and others will be fit for the trash can. Of course each person is to test her by the Scriptures. And I have tested her, and found her to be a true prophet. She agrees with Scripture. So I do not have to keep testing every sentence she writes to see if the Bible says exactly the same thing. Many things she says are not in the Bible, just as many things in the book of Judges are not in the books of Moses; and just as many things in the Apocalypse are not in any of the previous 65 books of the Bible.

One problem with simply accepting something as a mistake in her writings is that we may be assuming something that is not true but we won't understand it if we just think it's a mistake and move on without studying it further. It's the same with the Bible: people who believe the Bible is full of errors and contradictions are likely never to solve what appears at first sight to be an error. They give up too easily because they expect there to be mistakes. It's best to put such "mistakes" or "errors" on the back-burner, so to speak, and let it simmer until we gain more information, etc.

[John317]

Thanks, Karl.

I understand what you mean, but let's sure hope I'm not wasting my time. I also consider the fact that these threads and posts are read by a lot of visitors and other members, not just the ones we address our posts to. And besides, the truth is I just really love to write. lol

[John317]

John. Can you define 'alone'?

Check out Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 54. There it speaks of Eve as being "alone" at or near the Tree where she was tempted.

If you are walking your dog, do you say you are not alone? Being "alone" means not being with those of the same type as you are, i.e., with human beings. Believers are accompanied by angels, but we still say when we're by ourselves that we're "alone." We don't say that we're not "alone" because there's an invisible angel with us.

Let me ask you, why do you think so many people evidently have a hard time believing that Eve was alone when she was tempted, rather than with her husband, who was supposed to love and protect her?

[John317]

Quote:

teresaq(sda):

1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach,...

Act 18:26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

Quote:

teresaq(sda): ....i wonder if others see the discrepancy here...

What's the "discrepancy"? Please point it out plainly.

Quote:

olga: In assessing the significance of this occasion we should note that the word teach (didasko) is not used on this occasion. Husband and wife did it together, and it was a private context in their home, not a public one in church (Acts 18:25-28).

Quote:

teresaq(sda): so priscilla did not "teach" apollos more fully the way, yet since whatever she did do, she didnt do it in the church, so its ok....

Here's the point: both husband and wife exlained the gospel more clearly to Apollos at their private residence. Apollos went to their home, and Priscilla and her husband gave Apollos a Bible study, probably several. She was not exercising authority over Apollos by studying with him along with her husband at their home. But let's suppose Priscilla had been the pastor of the church or an elder. Those officers are have the governing authority over the church. They determine what is to be taught, who will preach and teach, and what will be preached. They make judgments as to what is true and false doctrine in the church. They exercise authority over both men and women. Can you see how this is different from what Priscilla and her husband did together in giving Bible studies to Apollos in their private residence?

Quote:

teresaq (sda): regardless, john, til we get on the same page as to what we are "discussing" we should probably let it be.

Give me the page number you're on and I'll get on it with you. The topic here is the role of women and men in the church, particularly the question of whether women should be pastors and elders of local congregations.

I'll say it as politely as I can: you appear to me to be rather easily confused about what people are saying and talking about. And you very seldom write discursively or explain your thinking clearly. Instead, most of your posts are quotes with one or two lines added by you. You write as if you expect people to guess what you mean or what you are thinking.

Take for example what you wrote at the beginning of this post: "I wonder if others will see the discrepency..."

It would improve communication if you would explain clearly exactly what you believe the discrepency to be. It could be that no discrepency exists except in your own mind, and it would be cleared up if you told people what you're thinking. But when you don't tell what you have on your mind, you make people guess. Please say exactly what you mean. No beating around the bush. :-)

[John317]

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

As to the Adam and Eve issue, I have taken EGW at her word. She said to test her words against Scripture and not as so many seem to mistakenly try to test Scripture against her words.

apparently for milenia there has been a split between those who believe adam was at the tree and those who see it egws way.

personally, egws view makes sense to me. after all give the poor guy a break. what he did was bad enough, why make him out to be a mindless wimp on top of it?

Yes, I agree she does make sense, but should we only believe what she says if she makes sense and we agree with her?

If that's the only time we should believe what she says, what will we do when she says something we don't either understand or don't like?

But there are many reasons for believing that Adam was not with Eve at the tree. In fact, the only reason for rejecting the Biblical picture is that we want Adam and Eve to be together.

Quote:

teresaq(sda): ...but the main point is that there has been division of thought about adam and the tree since.....?

One reason God raised up a last-day prophet for the Remnant church was in order to keep us from falling into errors that had been common since the first century. But to do that we need to have confidence in the Spirit of prophecy.

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: First of all, it is a false statement to say that I "dismiss or reject outright many of her counsels and statements" and even more so the case that I have "done the same with different parts of the Bible."

Quote:

teresaq(sda)it is too bad that fallen humanity thinks itself quite capable to disregard what peter says concerning pauls writings:

2Pe 3:15 ...even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

How, specifically, have Peter's words been disregarded? Could you please explain?

[wayfinder]

The angels had cautioned Eve to beware of separating herself from her husband while occupied in their daily labor in the garden with him she would be in less danger from temptation than if she were alone. But absorbed in her pleasing task, she unconsciously wandered from his side. On perceiving that she was alone, she felt an apprehension of danger, but dismissed her fears, deciding that she had sufficient wisdom and strength to discern evil and to withstand it. Unmindful of the angels caution, she soon found herself gazing, with mingled curiosity and admiration, upon the forbidden tree. The fruit was very beautiful, and she questioned with herself why Hod had withheld it from them. Now was the tempter's opportunity PP 53,54

This discription does not fit with the account in Genesis 3 at all.

First, it is the Serpent who asks the first question, it is not the woman. The serpent asks "did God say you shall not eat from any tree in the garden". The woman's response clearly indicates that she is nowhere near the tree.

Genesis 3:3 but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it lest you be put to death (die).

If the woman was standing in front of the tree, she would have said "this tree", instead she indicates that the tree is in the middle of the garden. According to her response she is in another part of the garden, ostensibily, with her husband. The serpent initiates the conversation with the woman, this may explain why the woman, and not Adam responds.

It isn't until after this conversation with the serpent that the woman studies the tree and it's fruit.

Ellen White also indicates in PP that the woman thought that she had sufficient wisdom and strength to discern evil and withstand it. But the whole purpose of the tree of learning the knowledge of good and evil was to gain knowledge of evil. Eve could not have discerned with wisdom and strength about a condition which she had no knowledge of. The serpent knows this and says to the woman " you will become like the elohim, knowing good and evil. Obviously if the woman already knew what evil was she would this imparted knowledge from the tree would be unnecessary.

If the woman succomed because she "left her husbands side" this would seem to be an important point, why would God not indicate this. In fact the way it is written it would appear that Adam was with her at the tree. Another point to consider is, if Adam was not with her, why did Eve not realize her "nakedness" until she found Adam and gave him some of the fruit? It would appear that they ate the fruit at the same time, the woman first bite and then offered it to Adam.

My whole point here is this. The subject of this thread is, should women be pastors. It would appear to me that the serpent knows that if he can limit the number of Pastors he is at an advantage. If we argue and disscuss weither women should be pastors we are then not taking care of the important matters for salvation. We had an exellent woman pastor in our church and she was much better than many of the male pastors I have known. The important point is, if a woman can lead a church with wisdom and love, then there should no law against it. God needs as many qualified workers as are willing to work.

[Tom Wetmore]

...I remember distinctly your saying that you reject her statements about Eve being alone at the Tree, and I see at the bottom of your post here that you still say you reject them...

...I have in mind your rejection of the testimony of Jude and 2 Peter as to the reasons for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah; and also your rejection of Ellen White statements regarding events she writes about in her book, Patriarchs and Prophets. Those are not matters of interpretation...

"Reject" and "rejection" are your words, not mine. That is a false and misleading characterization that you apply to what I have said on both topics. It IS a matter of interpretation and understanding of all the evidence. And again, if there is any rejection, it is of your interpretation and understanding of those topics. I am rejecting your interpretation and understanding of Scripture and EGW. I am not rejecting Scripture or EGW. There is a world of difference between the two. And as I said before, it is arrogant of you and insulting to me to say that to reject your ideas is a rejection of Scripture or EGW.

I would invite you to do as I have just done. Use the search function and go back and read everything I have ever posted on those two topics. I think your recall is faulty. And I believe that then and now you misinterpret, mis-characterize, distort and misrepresent much of what I have said and seem to completely ignore major parts of it. That does not help your credibility on other topics.

Originally Posted By: John317

Well, we know that Moses was not perfect, don't we... Yet that imperfection does not mean we cannot depend on their writings, does it? Did Jesus ever indicate that David's imperfections as a man meant that we could not have perfect confidence that what he wrote was the word of God?...

Well actually, read what the gospel writers record regarding Jesus' view of Moses and what he called the law of Moses (notice he doesn't call it the law of God...). And consider carefully Jesus' reinterpretation of what Moses wrote - "You have heard that it has been said... But I tell you..."

Originally Posted By: John317

...Having said all this, do you believes she was a true prophet of God?...

Yes, of course. But I think your understanding and my understanding of what that means may be a bit different.

Maybe begin with "But he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men." Might we find edification, exhortation and comfort in a wide variety of sources? Would such a source speak with a prophetic voice? How widely do you see the gift of prophecy as being distributed? Is such a gift of the Spirit the province of but one person at a time or in our time?

[Woody]

Thank you Tom for all your contributions. They are greatly appreciated. I also have noticed the distortions presented. It appears that some do this just for the purpose of picking an argument. But, the record is clear for all of us to see.

Keep up the good work of presenting the truth of both Ellen White and scripture.

[teresaq]

"Eve had been perfectly happy by her husband's side in her Eden home; but, LIKE RESTLESS MODERN EVES, she was flattered with the hope of entering a higher sphere than THAT WHICH GOD HAD ASSIGNED HER. In attempting to rise above her original postion, she fell far below it. A SIMILAR RESULT WILL BE REACHED BY ALL WHO ARE UNWILLING TO TAKE UP CHEERFULLY THEIR LIFE DUTIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOD'S PLAN. In their efforts to reach POSITIONS FOR WHICH HE HAS NOT FITTED THEM, many are leaving vacant the place where they might be a blessing. In their desire for a higher sphere, MANY HAVE SACRIFICED TRUE WOMANLY DIGNITY AND NOBILITY OF CHARACTER, AND HAVE LEFT UNDONE THE VERY WORK THAT HEAVEN APPOINTED THEM."

"So long as Adam remained loyal to Heaven, all nature was in subjection to him. But when he rebelled against the divine law, the inferior creatures were in rebellion against his rule." PP 56-57

Let's summarize some of the main points in these statements, and see if we're in agreement on their meaning. Whether you believe them or not is unimportant at this time. For me it's more important right now to agree on what Ellen White wrote on the topic.

1) The angels of God warned Eve that she should stay at Adam's side and not wander away from him, because she would be in less danger when she was with him.

2) Adam was not deceived by Satan whereas Eve clearly was deceived.

3) Satan successfuly used Eve to cause Adam's [and thus, all humanity's] ruin.

4) For his love of beautiful Eve, Adam deliberately chose to rebel against God and forfeit everything, including eternal life.

5) Eve was the first to transgress God's command, but death came through the Fall of Adam, not the sin of Eve. Romans 5: 12-19; PP 56, 59

6) Adam did not realize [the truth] that if Adam had remained loyal to God, the Creator could have replaced Eve with a different companion for Adam. PP 56: par. 2.

7) After the Fall, because of the discord created by sin, the union of man and woman could be maintained and harmony preserved only by submission on the part of either the man or the woman. God gave Adam the supremacy and placed Eve in subjection to her husband, Adam. PP 58

8) The woman was created for man, not man for the woman. 1 Cor. 11: 8

9) The husband and father is the head of the household and the family. AH 215

10) The husband is the head of the wife. AH 215; 1 Cor. 11: 3.

is this the reasoning you use to come to your conclusions?

if so, would you mind terribly if others were to come at this from other angles, and take much more into consideration? :)

[John317]

Quote:

teresaq(sda): are you the moderator on this particular subforum?

Yes.

[John317]

Quote:

John317:

...I have in mind your rejection [or neglect?] of the testimony of Jude and 2 Peter as to the reasons for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah; and also your rejection of Ellen White statements regarding events she writes about in her book, Patriarchs and Prophets. Those are not matters of interpretation...

Quote:

TOM WETMORE: "Reject" and "rejection" are your words, not mine. That is a false and misleading characterization that you apply to what I have said on both topics. It IS a matter of interpretation and understanding of all the evidence. And again, if there is any rejection, it is of your interpretation and understanding of those topics. I am rejecting your interpretation and understanding of Scripture and EGW. I am not rejecting Scripture or EGW. There is a world of difference between the two. And as I said before, it is arrogant of you and insulting to me to say that to reject your ideas is a rejection of Scripture or EGW.

I would invite you to do as I have just done. Use the search function and go back and read everything I have ever posted on those two topics. I think your recall is faulty.

The following is taken from Post# 309115 on 12/17/ 09 on the topic, "Homosexuality In Scripture and in Ellen White's Writings,"

page 3.

Quote:

JOHN3:17: Also, Jude 7 shows unquestionably that the people of Sodom were set forth as an example of the vengeance of eternal fire because of their sexual immorality and for having gone after strange flesh. This is not the kind of language that is used of people simply for neglecting the poor or lack of charity...

TOM WETMORE: ....The specific passage in Ezekiel is much closer in time than the the book of Jude. That longer passage of time would have potentially imposed more time for a tradition to set in based on the superficial reading of the account in Genesis.

QUESTION: Jude is an inspired book and gives us the truth about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. 2 Peter agrees with the testimony of Jude.

Why you do accept the passage of Ezekiel and not the explanations in the books of Jude and 2 Peter? In other words, why do you dismiss the book of Jude by saying that Ezekiel is closer "in time" than the book of Jude?

I'm asking you to take the words of Jude and 2 Peter into account in explaining why Sodom was destroyed.

The testimony of the books of 2 Peter 2: 6-9 and Jude 7 as regards the reason for Sodom's destruction is clearly that it was destroyed because of "sensuality and unnatural vice." The NIV quite rightly translates these words as "sexual immorality and perversion." 2 Peter 2: 7 uses the words, aselgeia anastrophees, which clearly denote "licentiousness, lasciviousness." See Greek lexicons and the RSV. The same word is used in Romans 13: 13; Mark 7: 22. Please let me know if you do in fact accept the testimony of 2 Peter and Jude as regards the destruction of Sodom-- that God destroyed it for the Sodomites' gross sexual immorality as well as for the sins listed in Ezekiel 16?

Notice that this in no way contradicts the testimony of Ezekiel 16: 48-50. It actually agrees with what Ellen White writes-- that Ezekiel 16: 49 "specifies the particular evils which led to dissolute morals," and these sins "brought upon [sodom] the wrath of God, even to her utter destruction." See Testimonies On Sexual Behavior, Adultery, and Divorce, p. 120.