‘Variance’ for North American, Trans-European Division Fails

[lazarus]

Moses and Ellen White were totally different.

In what way? They were both prophets. They were both sent of God. They had a message from God. They counseled God's people. They gave written instructions to God's people as regards to dress, health and worship. They experienced miraculous signs.

Quote:

Moses had direct authority over Israel.

How did he get that authority? He was not elected?

He had authority as a result of his message from God and the phenomena that attended his ministry. The same is true of EGW.

Quote:

Ellen White held no authority over the SDA church.

Her authority is unsurpassed and endures despite her death. The current leader of the SDA church quotes her frequently as a means of teaching and counseling. If she has no authority why would he do that.

Quote:

In fact, the church often ignored her counsel.

They killed the prophets! It's part of the job to get ignored sometimes.

Quote:

Many prophets in the past did not have direct authority over Israel.

Jeremiah for instance was cast into a pit, indicating the authority he had.

Elijah ran from the king.

That just indicates the fact that people rejected their authority not that they didn't have any. Jesus was killed. Are you saying that Jesus didn't have any authority over the men of Israel?

Quote:

So using Ellen Whites role as a prophet to justify women as spiritual rulers over the church of God, is not wise.

Spiritual rulers? Now you are changing the terms of the discussion. I thought we were talking about authority. Is a prophet a spiritual ruler?

The ministry of Ellen White clearly operates against the counsel of Paul. How do you reconcile that.

[Twilight II]

It's sad that we want to play games with God's word. If want to take Paul's counsel as being applicable, as it reads, in 2011 then we need to look again at the role of EGW in the church.

I've posted it already but I'll say it again. Ellen White clearly goes against the Paul's counsel to the church. If you are serious about strictly applying Paul's counsel you have to reject EGW's as being called of God.

Ellen White does not go against Pauls counsel.

But this is the conclusion you have to come to when you argue for feminism in the church.

When you have two people inspired by God apparently not fitting your worldview, then it is your worldview that is in opposition to the truth, not one of the two people.

Ellen White was not a feminist by any stretch of the imagination.

And trying to argue that God supported feminism by insisting that Ellen White was a feminist is a very poor argument.

Which is essentially what is being argued here...

[Twilight II]

The ministry of Ellen White clearly operates against the counsel of Paul. How do you reconcile that.

Moses was given direct authority to lead and head up Gods people.

Ellen White never ever claimed that authority.

You are arguing that implication is the same as appointment.

But you need to recognise the difference.

Ellen Whites messages had authority because they came from God.

But Ellen White never once took a position that placed her in a direct leadership role over the SDA church.

Ellen White was never the "president" of the church.

So arguing that we should have female presidents because Ellen White was a prophet is like saying:

"I have a motorcycle license, so I can legally drive a truck..."

[lazarus]

Ellen White does not go against Pauls counsel.

Did she speak in church? Yes

Did she teach? Yes

Did she remain quiet and submissive? No

Was her head covered? No

Did she have authority? Yes

[lazarus]

You are arguing that implication is the same as appointment.

I'm not even sure about what that actually means.

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

Ellen White does not go against Pauls counsel.

Did she speak in church? Yes

Did she teach? Yes

Did she remain quiet and submissive? No

Was her head covered? No

Did she have authority? Yes

I think you have misunderstood Pauls counsel...

Did she speak in church usurping the mans position? No

Did she teach usurping a mans position? No

Was she noisy and dominating in a church? No

Was her head covered? Yes, unless she was bald...

Did she have authority over her husband in the family? No...

So the issue here is that you want to apply something to Pauls counsel that was never intended.

The context is of a women seeking to usurp the authority given to men by God.

Ellen White never did that.

Your charge and accusation is ill founded...

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

You are arguing that implication is the same as appointment.

I'm not even sure about what that actually means.

Moses was appointed as leader.

Ellen White was never appointed as leader, but you are saying it can be implied that she was the same as Moses.

Because she had the authority to deliver messages from God.

But delivering messages from God and being the President of the conference are not the same thing...

Which is clear when we consider Ellen White was never the president of the conference.

You are trying to argue precedent, when there is no precedent.

[CoAspen]

Quote:

Can you not see the absurdity of your argument?

Which is:

Only farmers were judged...

Wrong....wrong....wrong!

I believe you are intentionaly missing the point!!! All means All, not just a specific group. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

I give up...confusion everywhere does exist.

[Twilight II]

Quote:

Can you not see the absurdity of your argument?

Which is:

Only farmers were judged...

Wrong....wrong....wrong!

I believe you are intentionaly missing the point!!! All means All, not just a specific group. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

I give up...confusion everywhere does exist.

You should give up, if you think that God made this verdict for farmers only...

And that was your argument:

"Because we do not ALL toil in the fields, the original edict is removed."

When it is obvious that mankind still suffers the "toil" of striving to stay alive, fed and clothed.

Ask the starving millions around the world if you doubt that...

Until we get home, every single one of us has to "toil" for a living...

[lazarus]

Let me respond by dealing with just one of Paul's counsels.

Did she speak in church usurping the mans position? No

Your qualification is not in scripture and redundant.

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 35And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Paul is quite explicit and clear. Keep Silence! She is not permitted to speak! It's a shame for a woman to speak! For Paul, one of the ways that a woman shows submission to her husband and to men is not to speak in the church.

The counsels that Paul gives are ways in which a woman should show submission. Don't speak in the church, don't teach men, and cover your head are all indications that a woman is submissive. It was not the manner in which these were done but the mere fact that they were done.

Do you think a woman should teach a SS class with men in it?

[Twilight II]

Let me respond by dealing with just one of Paul's counsels.

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

Did she speak in church usurping the mans position? No

Your qualification is not in scripture and redundant.

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 35And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Paul is quite explicit and clear. Keep Silence! She is not permitted to speak! It's a shame for a woman to speak! For Paul, one of the ways that a woman shows submission to her husband and to men is not to speak in the church.

The counsels that Paul gives are ways in which a woman should show submission. Don't speak in the church, don't teach men, and cover your head are all indications that a woman is submissive. It was not the manner in which these were done but the mere fact that they were done.

Do you think a woman should teach a SS class with men in it?

So when a woman walks into the church until the moment they leave, they are not allowed to talk at all?

Is this what you think Paul is dealing with here?

[phkrause]

Yes, most commonly..but it also used as wives...and if history serves us well, in this instance, "wives" can be the perfered usage.

Not that I don't agree with John, but here's another perspective, from a Jewish view point or how they translate there own writings: 34 let the wives remain silent when the congregation meets; they are certainly not permitted to speak out. Rather, let them remain subordinate, as also the Torah says;

[lazarus]

Quote:

So when a woman walks into the church until the moment they leave, they are not allowed to talk at all?

Is this what you think Paul is dealing with here?

I'm sure they are allowed to speak to children and husband but certainly not teach a class, preach, call for the offering, lead the congregation in worship.

What say you?

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: lazarus

It's sad that we want to play games with God's word. If want to take Paul's counsel as being applicable, as it reads, in 2011 then we need to look again at the role of EGW in the church.

I've posted it already but I'll say it again. Ellen White clearly goes against the Paul's counsel to the church. If you are serious about strictly applying Paul's counsel you have to reject EGW's as being called of God.

Ellen White does not go against Pauls counsel...

You seem blind to the obvious.

According to your interpretation, Paul said women are to be silent and not speak in church, and are not to teach men.

Since EGW preached more than 10,000 sermons in her lifetime, she violated the be silent and do not speak in church counsel of Paul that many times.

And if you take anything to heart that she has said, she has taught you something. To say she did not teach men is silly. And Paul said women should not.

You are making distinctions without a difference.

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: lazarus

The ministry of Ellen White clearly operates against the counsel of Paul. How do you reconcile that.

So arguing that we should have female presidents because Ellen White was a prophet is like saying:

"I have a motorcycle license, so I can legally drive a truck..."

Ignoring your missing the point and using a straw man argument, I'll play along. Actually she could and did drive the truck. She had both a motorcycle license and a license to drive a truck. She was a prophet. And she also was recognized and credentialed as an ordained minister.

Under the current Constitution and Bylaws of the General Conference, if Ellen White were alive today, she could be elected to the office of President of the General Conference because of that credential she was issued. It is that simple.

But what I hear you and some others saying is that no she couldn't because she was a woman. Her being a prophet has little to do with that point since it is irrelevant to who may be President.

[CoAspen]

Does 'missing the point' seem to be epidemic?

Are we having a problem with not reading the words and considering them?

Are 'filtering' the words for 'correct thought'?

Even though this is not a salvation issue, could we be making it into one?

If we can not listen to others about issues such as this, are missing out on

understanding issues that are of a salvation issue?

Is this reacurring theme all about 'being correct' or learning?

[doug yowell]

Doug, "One of the very low points of Jewish History". Kind of like now in the North American Adventist Church. I guess God called Deborah out of desparation. Using your reasoning, now He's doing it again.

Given that Deborah was the only woman in Israel's entire 1500 year history thar functioned in any "leadership" role for any length of time, I'd say that my answer to your first question would have to be a reasonable yes. Whether God is reverting to that same urgency today remains to be seen.

[Guest arnie]

Quote:

So when a woman walks into the church until the moment they leave, they are not allowed to talk at all?

Is this what you think Paul is dealing with here?

I'm sure they are allowed to speak to children and husband but certainly not teach a class, preach, call for the offering, lead the congregation in worship.

What say you?

(On the trite side)This is what I say. Since many women put in 80 hrs a week between house and job,women should go to church, drop the kids off at SS Class, let the ol man teach the lesson,take up the offering,preach the sermon, grab a good book and prop up one's feet for a couple of hours and then husband takes wife out for lunch. Hence the saying, "silence is golden".

[Guest arnie]

Does 'missing the point' seem to be epidemic?

Are we having a problem with not reading the words and considering them?

Are 'filtering' the words for 'correct thought'?

Even though this is not a salvation issue, could we be making it into one?

If we can not listen to others about issues such as this, are missing out on

understanding issues that are of a salvation issue?

Is this reacurring theme all about 'being correct' or learning?

It's neither. It's about some guys who have real personal issues with women and use the Church as a cloak to support their ideas, and often times deceiving themselves. I would guess that most of the time it has nothing to do with positions in the church.

[Neil D]

Yes, there is a biblical basis for the "headship", and there are also clear teachings in the writings of Ellen White on the topic.

As for spiritual superiority of the male, I don't believe that is what God is indicating when he made man the head of the home. But God had good reasons for designing the family the way He did. Also good reasons for designing the leadership in the church the way He did. They both go together.

[Parade Orange]

"The word of God should be, and cannot be, influenced by contemporary world standards. " You of course mean the "word of God should not be". I agree with you 100%. Unfortunately in most churches, including the SDA church, conptemporary world standards set the tone. Political correctness reigns. I cannot see how anyone can even ask for texts against women's ordination. These are so clear and simple, no-one can misunderstand them, unlike those held up by the feminist movement and their toadies wich are all a very long way from "you should ordain women as ministers". Today it's women, tomorrow gays. You'll see, it's coming.

there are already gays in position

they are in the closet

and the girls?

have you seen YENTL?

[Parade Orange]

Quote:

Today it's women, tomorrow gays. You'll see, it's coming.

And after that, the rocks!

amen!

let all proclaim!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Neil D]

Given that Deborah was the only woman in Israel's entire 1500 year history thar functioned in any "leadership" role for any length of time, I'd say that my answer to your first question would have to be a reasonable yes. Whether God is reverting to that same urgency today remains to be seen.

There are many different roles known as "Leadership"...Just because a person doesn't hold office doesn't mean that he/she is not a leader....Anna heald a leadership role at the time of Xrist....

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: hamilton-beach

Yes, most commonly..but it also used as wives...and if history serves us well, in this instance, "wives" can be the perfered usage.

Not that I don't agree with John, but here's another perspective, from a Jewish view point or how they translate there own writings: 34 let the wives remain silent when the congregation meets; they are certainly not permitted to speak out. Rather, let them remain subordinate, as also the Torah says;

Interesting thanks PK.

The issue here was "speaking out" it seems.

Which runs in line with the NT references.

[Twilight II]

Quote:

So when a woman walks into the church until the moment they leave, they are not allowed to talk at all?

Is this what you think Paul is dealing with here?

I'm sure they are allowed to speak to children and husband but certainly not teach a class, preach, call for the offering, lead the congregation in worship.

What say you?

You cannot have it both ways Lazarus.

You cannot insist on the one hand that this text denies women the right to speak in church at all, then state that they were allowed to talk to their children...