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

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

Yes, you are making the "farmer" argument Tom.

But you are broadening it to manual labour.

You are in effect saying that if one engages in a sedentary lifestyle, that the edict in Eden does not count.

So all Adam had to do to escape Gods edict was to become a computer programmer...

This is essentially the argument you are making.

No, your twisted misrepresentation of what I said is absurd! It is time you stop twisting what I say and stop putting your words in my mouth.

I am saying that those who engage in a sedentary lifestyle are acting contrary to the curse.

You are saying what I am saying you are saying Tom...

You are claiming that all one has to do to escape the curse, is to engage in a sedentary lifestyle...

Which is what I am saying you are claiming...

Which is a nonsensical claim to make...

[Twilight II]

SO..... has anyone moved an inch? or a fraction of an inch on their stance?

Yes.

This debate has been very useful.

It has shown me the error of the secular feminist ideology and the root of the error in that argument.

I never quite understood it before, but due to some good discussion, I can now see that this ideology has to approach the bible in a certain way.

1. Come to the Bible with a pre-conceived idea about womens roles, derived from secularism.

2. Find a text that seems to support that view.

3. Ignore the original edict in Eden, or dismiss it as irrelevant.

4. Accuse others of being Patriarchal Bigots if they do not toe the line and accept this feminist agenda.

I have learned a lot and have moved very decidly in opposition to womens minsitry.

Because the arguments in support of it, totally ignore the biblical mandate on the issue.

[Twilight II]

Twightlight: You obviously believe in sex discrimination within the Church and it's been my experience that men who practice this can relate best to women that don't threaten there opinions.

Do you think God was out of line when He decided that women should not be the priests of the home or the Church?

Do you charge Him with sexual discrimination?

"Sexual discrimination", is a very secular term that is used as a bludgeon by the feminist secularised movement to try to create some emotional support for their cause.

What do you do with the issue raised in Eden by God Himself?

--------------------

Let me be absolutely clear about something:

If it stated in the Bible that Gods edict in Eden had been overturned in the New Testament, I would not have a problem with it.

The same as if the Sabbath had been overturned in the New Testemant.

There is however, no evidence of that whatsoever, in fact the evidence is to the contrary.

Then we have Ellen White, a Prophet.

Who in very recent times, upheld the edict in Eden.

So this change or attempt at change comes from where?

Secularism.

Unfortunately, without that Biblical evidence, or prophetic revelation, I am not about to start assuming I can undermine Gods original edict.

And I will not bow down to emotionally charged, manipulative arguments and accusations as you have presented here in bold...

I am interested in Gods opinion only on the matter...

Statements like the above, are contemptuous.

[Twilight II]

Doug....

Lets take this example, a person, starts working for the demonination when he is 22 or so, fresh out of one of our colleges. He has a business degree, becomes president of some SDA organization, not conference, picks up a law degree, makes a signification contribution to leadership etc etc etc.

He can not become President of a Conference, even with his proven leadership skills, and people skills, apparently God can not call him to lead out in as a Conference. Yet over the years, I have seen ordained Pastors that I felt should not be a President. I am not talking about the Conference that I am working in.

Then the church should ordain them and not insist they have to go through Ministerial Training.

A Pastor is not a pastor because they have passed an exam...

They are a Pastor if they have displayed that role and the church recognises that role.

And I believe that that is already in place.

So there is no need for a leader who has not been ordained.

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: arnie

Twightlight: You obviously believe in sex discrimination within the Church and it's been my experience that men who practice this can relate best to women that don't threaten there opinions.

Do you think God was out of line when He decided that women should not be the priests of the home or the Church?

Do you charge Him with sexual discrimination?

"Sexual discrimination", is a very secular term that is used as a bludgeon by the feminist secularised movement to try to create some emotional support for their cause.

What do you do with the issue raised in Eden by God Himself?

--------------------

Let me be absolutely clear about something:

If it stated in the Bible that Gods edict in Eden had been overturned in the New Testament, I would not have a problem with it.

The same as if the Sabbath had been overturned in the New Testemant.

There is however, no evidence of that whatsoever, in fact the evidence is to the contrary.

Then we have Ellen White, a Prophet.

Who in very recent times, upheld the edict in Eden.

So this change or attempt at change comes from where?

Secularism.

Unfortunately, without that Biblical evidence, or prophetic revelation, I am not about to start assuming I can undermine Gods original edict.

And I will not bow down to emotionally charged, manipulative arguments and accusations as you have presented here in bold...

I am interested in Gods opinion only on the matter...

Statements like the above, are contemptuous.

I agree with what you have said here, whole heartedly.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

1. Gods revealed will in the Bible?

This is what all theology should be about. Problem is, theologians have no idea how to determine Biblical truth - that's just not in their training. The final word on determining truth is taught in mathematics. As far as Biblical truth is concerned, this is how it works:

• recognize that there are many vague passages and passages that can be legitimately translated in more than one way - these passages are not useful for unambiguously settling any point
• a relevant, clear, unambiguous passage on any topic trumps any number of less clear, ambiguous passages on the same topic
• any argument with a sine qua non (without which not) can be scuttled by just one passage (a show stopper) clearly depriving this argument of any sine qua non. E.g. the trinity is unthinkable if the members are not all equal. Jesus said the Father is greater than him (Jesus) and Paul said ultimately, when all is said and done, Jesus will be under the Father (1 Corinthians 15:28 (Bible in Worldwide English)

  "One day the Son will be over all things. And God will be over the Son. So in the end God will be over all things." ) There is not much difference in the translation of this passage, but its meaning has been twisted away from what it states to what it not states. Saying something doesn't say what it seems to say but really says what it doesn't seem to say is a sign of great theological learning.

These points are really simple to understand and self evident. The number of core Bible truths we will have when we apply these will be far fewer than we have today, but they will have a foundation built on rock.

[Tom Wetmore]

SO..... has anyone moved an inch? or a fraction of an inch on their stance?

Contrary to the responses thus far, I understood your question to be asking if this discussion has done anything to help anyone move toward changing the orientation of their stance, even a little.

Further calcification of ones opinion is a negative answer to your question. So thus far we see that this discussion has proven once again that it only hardens the opposition to or support for women in ministry for those predisposed in one direction or the other. (I say women in ministry only because the issue of the requested variance is eclipsed by it since those opposed to women in ministry refuse to see it any other way.)

There are few if any that are truly neutral on this topic. Some claim to be sitting on the fence. But such fence sitters are effectively voting for the status quo, which is opposition to women in ministry. And seldom do we see these discussions encourage anyone to get off their fence.

Few, if any, honestly approach this topic with a truly teachable spirit. Nor does it seem many are truly motivated to seek truth on this topic. The resulting hardening of hearts already testified to tends to confirm this.

[Twilight II]

Few, if any, honestly approach this topic with a truly teachable spirit. Nor does it seem many are truly motivated to seek truth on this topic. The resulting hardening of hearts already testified to tends to confirm this.

Do you consider that you have displayed a "truly teachable spirit" Tom?

[John317]

...Few, if any, honestly approach this topic with a truly teachable spirit. Nor does it seem many are truly motivated to seek truth on this topic. The resulting hardening of hearts already testified to tends to confirm this.

I'm sure you realize that both sides could, and no doubt will, say the same thing about the other. But saying these kinds of things is not really too helpful. It's like claiming to want an honest discussion about race with people and then telling them that they are racist if they don't agree with you.

I hope this isn't what happens in the meetings that the church holds on the topic. It isn't a good way to make any progress.

[doug yowell]

Doug....

Lets take this example, a person, starts working for the demonination when he is 22 or so, fresh out of one of our colleges. He has a business degree, becomes president of some SDA organization, not conference, picks up a law degree, makes a signification contribution to leadership etc etc etc.

He can not become President of a Conference, even with his proven leadership skills, and people skills, apparently God can not call him to lead out in as a Conference. Yet over the years, I have seen ordained Pastors that I felt should not be a President. I am not talking about the Conference that I am working in.

Sorry, I didn't see your question earlier. I understand completely where you're coming from, Stan. I think that the foundation that you've used for qualification illustrates the gulf between the two sides.I think everyone posting here would agree with the observation of your last 2 sentences. Our disagreement begins with the basic qualification for church office that is put forth by the scriptures. The church is not a secular organization and cannot be successfully operated for it's intended purpose if it models itself after that which cannot win souls, determine God's direction,ect... Degrees,natural skills, accomplishments in the outside world are not the determinates of spiritual leadership.gotta go for now...be back soon.

[Neil D]

If Jesus is truely the "Word of God", then His example of how He treated women made plain any edict from the Garden of Eden...

You claim that any surmising that I start, from the Garden of Eden, are based upon preconceived ideas....yeah, from what how Jesus treated women in the 3 1/2 years He was here on earth...So, show me what you are talking about and let's compare ideas..

Now, you have refused my request for explaination of what that "edict" was....So, I am of the opinion that you just want this discussion to continue...You like the interaction....regardless of the tone/pain/angwish that it causes among others....

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

[it is always important to track an issue back to its foundations.

{snip}

Jesus when talking about divorce highlighted this principle.

Pointing those that wanted to challenge Him on the subject of divorce back to the original order of things as outlined by Him in Eden.

It is a most basic principle of establishing truth.

[snip]

You start at the beginning and follow the subject through the Bible.

and if the beginning doesn't talk about the evolved original premise then what?

[Neil D]

Originally Posted By: hamilton-beach

Bible scholar Frank Stagg and Classicist Evelyn Stagg write that husband-wife equality produces the most intimate, wholesome and mutually fulfilling marriages. They conclude that the Apostle Paul's statement sometimes called the "Magna Carta of Humanity" and recorded in Galatians 3:28 applies to all Christian relationships, including Christian marriage [among other social status]: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

Where are you pasting these things from? Whose book are you basing your arguments on?

I give source and you ask "Where?"

Your post says alot....Do you really want me to respond to this?

[Neil D]

SO..... has anyone moved an inch? or a fraction of an inch on their stance?

It is as I feared...."Anyone" meaning me....

I have seen some good arguements for the other side...no, really...there are some good arguements....but they just don't square with my arguements...

If all are truly one in Christ, then marriage, leadership and all social interactions must come from a different perspective than hierarchical form of man over woman.And yet, there seems to be some sort of responsiblity/leadership role that the male needs to assume. On this, all agree..some more reluctantly than others...

..And which perspective shows a loving method in greater detail?

Sorry, Stan...I'm afraid I haven't moved much...perhaps a 1/2 inch instead of your inch....lol

[Neil D]

there is nothing in the motion about Pastor Ministry.

For decades we have all been taught that women should not teach adult Sabbath School, give Bible Studies, sermonettes or sermons. We have a church without women. How did we get this doctrine? Did Jesus teach this doctrine? Jesus commands: "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Matthew 28:19-20.

Jesus commanded us all to make disciples and to teach and He never placed limits on women. All of our present doctrine is based on only two passages spoken not by Jesus, but by Paul. Paul can not negate the commands of Jesus. Since these two places contradict Jesus, they must be either misunderstood or mistranslated.

Our discussion here shows just how much we err ...on both sides...at the grass roots level and at various leadership levels...

[Stan]

I can see the new blog Occupy Adventism... dot com

[Neil D]

Do you think God was out of line when He decided that women should not be the priests of the home or the Church?

Do you charge Him with sexual discrimination?

[John317]

If God is sexist, then He doesn't really believe what Paul wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirt...that "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for we are all one in Christ Jesus." Gal 3:28.

There's no contradiction between Gal. 3: 28 and 1 Cor. 11 and 14 and 1 Tim. 2, is there?

If you see one, it is because you are not understanding Gal. 3: 28. Paul is not contradicting himself.

Being all one in Christ means that everyone has equal access to Christ and His salvation. It's referring to the fact that all believers in Christ are one under the New Covenant.

It clearly does not mean that all members of the church do the same work or have the same ministries.If that were the case, Paul would not have been inspired by God to write the following lines:

Quote:

1 Tim. 2:12-15

I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. [13] For Adam was formed first, then Eve; [14] and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. [15] Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

1 Cor. 14:33-40

For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.

As in all the churches of the saints, [34] the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. [35] If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

[36] Or was it from you that the word of God came? Or are you the only ones it has reached? [37] If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. [38] If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized. [39] So, my brothers, earnestly desire to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. [40] But all things should be done decently and in order.

Why does Paul say, "she is to remain quiet. [13] For Adam was formed first, then Eve; [14] and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor."

What does Adam's being formed first and Eve's being deceived have to do with the Holy Spirit's instruction that the women are to be "quiet" and "submissive" in church?

[doug yowell]

I give source and you ask "Where?"

Your post says alot....Do you really want me to respond to this?

Sorry, HB, my bad. I apparantly overlooked your reference. Thanks for reposting it.No need for a further response.

[doug yowell]

Um, when we bring you biblical examples of how Jesus treated women, you excuse them or ignore them...You bias shows a bit...kinda like a hospital gown that 'covers everything"...It doesn't and you backside is showing embarrassingly.

Uh, did you have to bring up that particular word picture,HB? It gets kinda hard to concentrate after that.

[doug yowell]

Sexual discrimination or sexism is is the application of the belief or attitude that there are characteristics implicit to one's gender that indirectly affect one's abilities in unrelated areas.It is a form of discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex, with such attitudes being based on beliefs in traditional stereotypes of gender roles. The term sexism is most often used in relation with discrimination against women, in the context of patriarchy.

Interesting explanation, but it didn't answer the question.Is the traditional male/female role distinction as determined in Gen.3 and portrayed throughout the OT, the NT letters,ect... a form of discrimination or devaluation of women based on a patriarchial bias? How do you explain the great support that those traditional roles still garner among Christian women in our present western culture? (without going into other cultures and religions)Are you willing to suggest that women are equally to blame for this historical self-devaluation?

[doug yowell]

If God is sexist, then He doesn't really believe what Paul wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirt...that "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for we are all one in Christ Jesus." Gal 3:28.

Your original definition included the words ..."application of the belief...".How did God apply His nondiscriminatory Gal.3:28 belief before Gal.3:28 was written? (i.e. Gen.3, no inclusion in the Levitical priesthood,no Queens, no elders of tribes,no apostles,no female heads of households,ect...)

[John317]

...

Um, when we bring you biblical examples of how Jesus treated women, you excuse them or ignore them...

Jesus' good treatment of women doesn't mean that they are the same as men in terms of the work they're to do in the church. His treatment of women shows that God loves women the same as He loves the men and that both sexes have equal access to the Father through Christ their Lord. His treatment of women is our model of how we are to treat women.

But Jesus himself showed that women don't have the same work to do in the church. He showed this by calling only men as His original 12 and 70 disciples.

We need also to remember that it was the same Jesus who designed the sactuary service and called only males to be the priests. Jesus inspired only men to write the Bible. So there is a clear pattern of male leadership throughout the Bible, including the period when Christ was on earth and during the early years of the church.

While it's very important to see how Jesus Christ treated women, His treatment of them doesn't show that He intended for women to be the leaders in the church. When he returned to heaven, Christ selected all men as the leaders.

But what does this mean for women in the church? Does it mean they are excluded from ministry? No. Paul's instructions to the church don't exclude women from doing the Lord's work. There are many ministries that women are called to do. There are quite a few-- such as women's ministries, childrens ministries, and personal ministries-- which women are able to do better than their male counterparts.

[Neil D]

Originally Posted By: hamilton-beach

If God is sexist, then He doesn't really believe what Paul wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirt...that "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for we are all one in Christ Jesus." Gal 3:28.

There's no contradiction between Gal. 3: 28 and 1 Cor. 11 and 14 and 1 Tim. 2, is there?

If you see one, it is because you are not understanding Gal. 3: 28. Paul is not contradicting himself.

[epaminondas]

Quote:

But Jesus himself showed that women don't have the same work to do in the church. He showed this by calling only men as His original 12 and 70 disciples.

Good, solid point. It deserves more attention. Why did Jesus do that?

When working with groups of people - faiths, nations, computer users, etc. - one doesn't treat them as individuals, but as statistical groups. To make rules about how an organization should be structured or behave, one looks at the norm, not the exceptions. Taking every exception into account will make the rules an unintelligible mess.

There are statistical differences between men and women, even in areas where one would not expect it. This is a well established fact. Maybe, in setting up rules about who should do what in the congregation for centuries to come in all countries of the world, God took these differences, which He had built into men and women, into account. Yes, there were a Marie Curie and a few more like her, but not many. Only a fool would build a model on the outliers and ignore the Gaussian curve. And God is no fool.

[John317]

Bible scholar Frank Stagg and Classicist Evelyn Stagg write that husband-wife equality produces the most intimate, wholesome and mutually fulfilling marriages. They conclude that the Apostle Paul's statement sometimes called the "Magna Carta of Humanity" and recorded in Galatians 3:28 applies to all Christian relationships, including Christian marriage [among other social status]: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

Where are you pasting these things from? Whose book are you basing your arguments on?

Originally Posted By: hamilton-beach

I give source and you ask "Where?"

Your post says alot....Do you really want me to respond to this?

Are you saying that your source is "Bible scholar Frank Stagg and Classicist Evelyn Stagg"?

Did they also write the following paragraphs:

Quote:

[All incidences of Jesus's interations with women are favorable to thier having authority, and ablilty to teach men, and to preach...contrary to the Pauline Complimentarian view...

Christian Egalitarians [contrary to the Complimentarian view] believe that full partnership is the most biblical view. As persons, husband and wife, [men and women] are of equal value. There is no priority of one spouse [gender] over the other. In truth, they are one.

I think what doug yowell is referring to is that these sentences have no quotation marks and you don't give a reference for them despite the fact that they appear not to be your original writing.