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

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

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.

See my response to Lazarus above...

If you want to insist on using the verse in this manner, then you have to insist that women were not even allowed to speak to their children in the church, that they were in effect totally gagged.

Do you wish to argue that case?

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

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.

So you are now arguing a hypothetical situation as evidence to prove your point?

[Twilight II]

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?

This is about following the revealed will of God.

If you can show me that God has revealed in the Bible that the injunctions given in Eden and throughout the Bible no longer stand, then I will accept women in leadership roles over men in the church.

But if you cannot show that, then why should I change my view?

And the reason that that cannot be shown is that the only argument you really have is the "cultural" argument.

Which is removed in Eden as a valid argument.

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: 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?

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.

Really?

You know each individual and how they relate to women in their homes and churches?

Very judgemental here.

[lazarus]

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.

It's weird how some SDA men will claim that women should have no authority over men but will not make a "theological move" without consulting a woman!

[Parade Orange]

GOD GAVE US A WOMEN PROPHET for the end times!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WHY?

a big DUH

is needed here

[Neil D]

Originally Posted By: pkrause

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.

The question is why is there no "speaking out"? is it because they are women or is there a local problem in which there were some unruly women? Also, remember, "as also the Torah says" is added....And I would be curious where the Torah says that "WOMEN" specifically are to remain silent.

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

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.

It's weird how some SDA men will claim that women should have no authority over men but will not make a "theological move" without consulting a woman!

Thats a large claim you make there...

I consult the bible and the bible alone when considering doctrine.

So can I be excused from your generalisation?

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

Interesting thanks PK.

The issue here was "speaking out" it seems.

Which runs in line with the NT references.

The question is why is there no "speaking out"? is it because they are women or is there a local problem in which there were some unruly women? Also, remember, "as also the Torah says" is added....And I would be curious where the Torah says that "WOMEN" specifically are to remain silent.

Speaking out is speaking "out of turn".

Or speaking over the speaker etc.

Whatever the cause of that was, it was deemed unacceptable.

[Neil D]

Speaking out is speaking "out of turn".

Or speaking over the speaker etc.

Whatever the cause of that was, it was deemed unacceptable.

And what was "unacceptable"? The fact that women were talking or that they were unruly? If it was just because they were women, then the gospel doesn't make men and women equal....

If it was because some ladies were rude and unruly, then it is a local problem and this section of the bible is dealing with a local problem and the counsel is not universal....

So which was it?

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

Speaking out is speaking "out of turn".

Or speaking over the speaker etc.

Whatever the cause of that was, it was deemed unacceptable.

And what was "unacceptable"? The fact that women were talking or that they were unruly? If it was just because they were women, then the gospel doesn't make men and women equal....

If it was because some ladies were rude and unruly, then it is a local problem and this section of the bible is dealing with a local problem and the counsel is not universal....

So which was it?

I think it would be safe to assume that Paul was dealing with a local problem and this is specific counsel.

But the basis for his counsel would have been Genesis and the Edict granted in the Garden of Eden.

[Neil D]

I think it would be safe to assume that Paul was dealing with a local problem and this is specific counsel.

But the basis for his counsel would have been Genesis and the Edict granted in the Garden of Eden.

So, you use a 'specific counsel" that is in reference to a local problem, and apply it as a universal principle???

Isn't that putting the cart before the horse? Isn't that making up precepts upon faulty reasoning? Isn't that just plain wrong?

[Neil D]

I'm sorry, but regarding the counsel in reference to "Genesis and the Edict granted in the Garden of Eden"....could you explain that a bit more? I'm afraid I didn't read that and am not sure what you are refering to....

[Neil D]

GOD GAVE US A WOMEN PROPHET for the end times!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WHY?

a big DUH

is needed here

[teasing mode-on]

Sssshhhhhh PO...I want to relish the moment.....

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

I think it would be safe to assume that Paul was dealing with a local problem and this is specific counsel.

But the basis for his counsel would have been Genesis and the Edict granted in the Garden of Eden.

So, you use a 'specific counsel" that is in reference to a local problem, and apply it as a universal principle???

Isn't that putting the cart before the horse? Isn't that making up precepts upon faulty reasoning? Isn't that just plain wrong?

No I am pointing to the original edict in the garden of Eden and noting that has never changed.

Unless you know of a place in the Bible where that was changed?

[Twilight II]

I'm sorry, but regarding the counsel in reference to "Genesis and the Edict granted in the Garden of Eden"....could you explain that a bit more? I'm afraid I didn't read that and am not sure what you are refering to....

When was the position of the man and woman first established by God?

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

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....

If after all this debate you still are not understanding what is meant when I highlight the word "leadership" then you make it very difficult to continue on with any meaningful conversation. How many times have we here tried to specify which types of leadership positions that we feel women are prohibited by the Bible from exercising? Of course there are many different roles of leadership. The only ones in question here are the ones that required a basis in both the creation order and the subsequent "curse" post sin.The Bible and EGW are clear that the man is required by God to be the high priest of the family and success in that role that is the model used in the NT to occupy those positions of leadership that reflect that success.All other positions of leadership should not be prohibited to women.

[doug yowell]

]

It's weird how some SDA men will claim that women should have no authority over men but will not make a "theological move" without consulting a woman!

No weirder than those SDA's who, while attempting to establish a theological/cultural church policy on the basis of the authority of a woman,refuse to accept the teaching of that women concerning the Biblical basis for their policy.

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: lazarus

]

It's weird how some SDA men will claim that women should have no authority over men but will not make a "theological move" without consulting a woman!

No weirder than those SDA's who, while attempting to establish a theological/cultural church policy on the basis of the authority of a woman,refuse to accept the teaching of that women concerning the Biblical basis for their policy.

Good point Doug.

Unless of course Ellen White was a feminist in reality...?

Which some would like to argue it seems.

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: lazarus

]

It's weird how some SDA men will claim that women should have no authority over men but will not make a "theological move" without consulting a woman!

No weirder than those SDA's who, while attempting to establish a theological/cultural church policy on the basis of the authority of a woman,refuse to accept the teaching of that women concerning the Biblical basis for their policy.

That weirdness cuts both ways...

In the past we have presented ample evidence supporting woman in pastoral ministry and leadership from the Bible, that woman, and the actions and practices of the Church during her lifetime that are not accepted by those currently opposed to woman in ministry and leadership. There is a refusal to even consider or listen to that evidence.

[Tom Wetmore]

An excellent rebuttal to the catholic male headship theology that some so easily embrace!

[doug yowell]

And what was "unacceptable"? The fact that women were talking or that they were unruly? If it was just because they were women, then the gospel doesn't make men and women equal....

If it was because some ladies were rude and unruly, then it is a local problem and this section of the bible is dealing with a local problem and the counsel is not universal....

So which was it?

Again, this matches up with what Paul spoke of to Timothy (I Tim. 2:11-15)and has to do specifically with the concept of "authority over".In neither of these two counsels does Paul mention anything of a purely cultural or local women only disruption problem. In I Cor.14 Paul justifies his point by pointing back to "what the law says".In Timothy he justifies his counsel by referring back to the principle that "Adam was formed first,then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived,fell into transgression." Notice how he then adds..."Nevertheless,she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith,love,and holiness, with self-control." This is "what the law says". This reasoning is perfectly consistent with EGW's explanation of the "curse" put on the woman after the fall(PP 58,59). Notice that EGW, unlike those who cite her "authority" in order to help God undo the resulting inequities of that curse, makes no attempt to ever paint the curse itself as the bad guy but rather portrays it a a tool that could be used for a blessing if fallen man would only cherish the principles of God's law, a position that cannot be accepted be those who insist that the gospel must do away with the curse itself.

[doug yowell]

In the past we have presented ample evidence supporting woman in pastoral ministry and leadership from the Bible, that woman, and the actions and practices of the Church during her lifetime that are not accepted by those currently opposed to woman in ministry and leadership. There is a refusal to even consider or listen to that evidence.

If by ample evidence you are referring to the one example of a judge in the 1500 years of BC history, and the assertion that certain females named in the NT were heads of churches,and leaders of men based upon a debateable rendering of the Greek language,and the assertion that the overwhelming majority of previous translators were biased against your position,then can you really blame anyone for not accepting your conclusions? If as an example of ample evidence you offer an interpretation of EGW's (incredibly unique unlike any that would qualify today)experience while at the same time offering no specific counsel by her that would substantiate your conclusions, then why should that be so powerfully convincing? If you charge that the curse on the woman needs to be counteracted by emulating EGW's experience while rejecting her own interpretation of the curse then why should we think that you are right about the meaning of her experience? What was EGW's own counsel regarding the basis for any experience or practice???

[Twilight II]

An excellent rebuttal to the catholic male headship theology that some so easily embrace!

You feel at ease mocking Gods edict from the Garden of Eden?

[Twilight II]

a position that cannot be accepted be those who insist that the gospel must do away with the curse itself.

Indeed...

So desperate to do away with the curse that they insist it only applies to farmers, therefore everyone else is free to ignore it...