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

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

Please show us how EGW is different than prophets that preceded her.

That is quite an easy one...

Jeremiah did not have to submit to His wife in the leadership of the home and even in church.

Ellen White did and even practiced that principal openly, respecting James position as head of the home.

She even argued that position for other women to follow...

So whilst she was a prophet, she agreed with Gods verdict in Eden.

She was a Christian Woman that followed Gods principles on the order of the home.

She was a woman and accepted she was a woman under Gods direction, that was how she was different...

That says nothing about her role as a prophet. You speak of her role as a wife. How was she different in her prophetic role from Jeremiah?

Show me where in Scripture it says any of that about Jeremiah.

In your last sentence are you suggesting that a male prophet would not accept that he is a man under God's direction? That makes no sense whatsoever.

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

Jesus died to take away the curse of sin so that we no longer had to live under its curse.

Oh, so you do not die now then?

"Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?"

The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.

But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. - 1 Cor. 15:55-57.

Yes, we still die. We still have thorns and thistles. Hard work still has to be done to earn our bread. And women still have pain in childbirth. All of those things were a part of the curse too.

But, we do all we can to prolong life and forestall death. We do all we can to eradicate thorns and thistles. We strive to make earning our bread as easy as possible. And we do all we can to ease the pain of childbirth for women.

Why is it just this one part of the curse we stubbornly refuse to let go of?

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

Jeremiah did not have to submit to His wife in the leadership of the home and even in church.

That's cos he didn't have a wife.

(See Jeremiah 16:1, Twilight...)

[John317]

God's personally choosing a woman to be a prophet is quite different from the church choosing women to be pastors, etc. ...

But even when God did call women to be in leadership roles-- such as a judge and prophet-- they used it in a way that was different from the way male judges and prophets did. ...

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

Really? Please show us how EGW is different than prophets that preceded her. And show how the Scripture tells us the distinction between female judges and prophets.

The female judges in the Bible performed their work differently than the male judges.

Judges 4:5

She used to sit under the palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim, and the people of Israel came up to her for judgment.

Compare this with the descriptions of what the male judges did.

God's choosing a prophet is different from humans choosing a leader of a local church, etc.

God, of course, is free to choose anyone He likes. Prophets are only accountable to God for what they say, while pastors, ministers and elders are accountable to the church.

Prophets speak for God to the church, and get their messages directly from God, whereas pastors and church leaders speak for the church to the people.

For instance, no one in the church had a right to tell Ellen White what to say, and she could not be fired; but the church has a right to tell pastors what to say and they can be fired.

The Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write about the selection of bishops and elders, and in those instructions, it is very clear that women are to be under the authority of men. Read what Paul says about this in 1 Cor. 11 and 14. Paul even says that if people don't recognize what he says, they are not to be recognized.

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.

[Tom Wetmore]

We as a church believe and practice that pastors and leaders are called by God to those roles. It is not just prophets that are called by God.

We recognize the call by ordination to pastoral ministry when we see evidence of the call. That evidence is proven by souls won to and nurtured in Christ. Do you believe that no woman has demonstrated such a calling?

[Tom Wetmore]

The female judges in the Bible performed their work differently than the male judges.

Judges 4:5

She used to sit under the palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim, and the people of Israel came up to her for judgment.

Compare this with the descriptions of what the male judges did.

OK. Show us how male judges did it differently.

[John317]

Did I miss something? You're saying that the Bible excludes women as spiritual leaders. Well, Hallelujah! You fellas can just take over. Hey gals, No more leading out in Sabbath School, Church Boards, Child Evangelism in the Church,and don"t forget keeping up the Church as in cleaning the jons and cooking the fellowship meals. Now us women can spend alot more time at "Macys". Wa hoo!

No one is saying that women don't have important work in the church. There are many ministries for women to do, and they include some of the very kinds of work you mention.

See the dicussion about this very topic:

http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/350721.html

[Stan]

This is not about gays, nor is it about women's ordination,

It is about this, should those who are not ordained be able to lead out in the senior position of a conference or mission?

[John317]

The difference is that God calls prophets directly. A prophet is ordained directly by God and does not need to be ordained by any man.

On the other hand, pastors and ministers and elders are called through the church. They are elected or appointed. They are ordained by humans.

Granted the calling of ministers and elders is by God, yet they must also be called by a church or by other humans in order for them to work in a leadership role. No so the genuine prophet of God. A genuine prophet of God does not depend at all on a vote or on human authority.

[Tom Wetmore]

...Prophets speak for God to the church, and get their messages directly from God, whereas pastors and church leaders speak for the church to the people...

You are dancing around the question. The question was not about comparing pastors and prophets, but comparing male prophets and judges with female prophets and judges.

But since you said what you did, I will respond. Are you really saying that pastors and church leaders never have a message from God for the people? That they never get anything directly from God? That every message they have must be filtered through the church? That they only speak for the church? Seriously!?!?

[John317]

We already dealt with this topic exhaustively on the other forum about Women's Ordination.

[John317]

Are you really saying that pastors and church leaders never have a message from God for the people? That they never get anything directly from God? That every message they have must be filtered through the church? That they only speak for the church? Seriously!?!?

Now who's dancing?

Of course I am not saying that pastors never get messages from God. However, the church can fire a pastor if the church doesn't believe the pastor is saying what it wants them to say. In other words, the church can edit the pastor's messages. Desmond Ford is a good example.

The church has no authority to edit the words of a genuine prophet of God. No one had any right to tell Ellen White what to say but the church does have a right to tell pastors and ministers what to say.

Do you see the difference?

[Tom Wetmore]

The difference is that God calls prophets directly. A prophet is ordained directly by God and does not need to be ordained by any man.

On the other hand, pastors and ministers and elders are called through the church. They are elected or appointed. They are ordained by humans.

Granted the calling of ministers and elders is by God, yet they must also be called by a church or by other humans in order for them to work in a leadership role. No so the genuine prophet of God. A genuine prophet of God does not depend at all on a vote or on human authority.

You have identified the weak link in this chain. Pastors called by God, recognized (ordained) by humans. It seems a lot of humans are blind to what God has done. They simply refuse to recognize that God can call, and has called, women to pastoral ministry or leadership.

What happens when people fail or refuse to recognize what God has done?

[John317]

The question was not about comparing pastors and prophets, but comparing male prophets and judges with female prophets and judges.

I took this from one of the posts on the discussion about women's ordination:

Quote:

God ordained Deborah as a Judge during a time of great spiritual darkness in Israel, when there weren't many good men available, and the book of Judges is a witness to this truth. "Every man did that which was right in his own eyes."

Also, if you check out how Deborah served as a judge, you will find that she did not serve in the same way that her male counterparts served. The male judges led Israel in battle, and they also judged Israel publically. On the other hand, Deborah lived under the Palm of Deborah and the Israeliees went up to her to have their disputes decided. She did not go out to the people to judge them in public, nor did she lead them in battle as the male judges did. Compare Judges 4: 4, 5 with Judges 3: 10, 15, 27-29; 6: 34.

Notice that in Judges 9: 54, when a woman killed a man, it was considered a particularly shameful disgrace. Compare with 2 Sam 11: 21. Saying a woman killed someone was the same as saying a man was a weakling. Also notice Isaiah 3: 12 where it's considered insulting to be ruled by a woman.

Judges 9:54

Then he called hastily unto the young man his armourbearer, and said unto him, Draw thy sword, and slay me, that men say not of me, A woman slew him. And his young man thrust him through, and he died.

2 Samuel 11:21

Who smote Abimelech the son of Jerubbesheth? did not a woman cast a piece of a millstone upon him from the wall, that he died in Thebez? why went ye nigh the wall? then say thou, Thy servant Uriah the Hittite is dead also.

Isaiah 3:12

As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.

Jeremiah 50:37

A sword is upon their horses, and upon their chariots, and upon all the mingled people that are in the midst of her; and they shall become as women: a sword is upon her treasures; and they shall be robbed.

[Twilight II]

Tom, you have ignored the simple point made.

Where did God rescind that women should be subject to men in the scripture?

You keep making vague comments about the curse and the cross.

But that is illogical, as the Apostolic Church did not teach this principle you are claiming.

Where do you get the idea from, that men and women should now be equal in their authority?

I suspect it is from secular thinking, not biblical as I cannot see it in the scripture.

I also note that you present a liberal ideology that we should grow beyond the constraints God imposed at the fall on women, where do you find that in the Bible?

I understand that the secular thinktanks like to argue for the "evolution of social morality" (which is the same argument you are in effect making here - that we should evolve beyond Eden and the Apostolic Church etc), that would seem to be inline with your argument here, but where in the scripture is this idea?

Let me be plain about something.

If God has instructed us to treat the leadership in the home and church based on equality, then we should all be willing to step forward into that light.

But that light has to come from the Bible.

If that "light" however, is secular propaganda, devised by Satan to seek to undermine Gods judgement and edict in the Garden of Eden, then it is not light, but darkness.

[John317]

This is not about gays, nor is it about women's ordination,

It is about this, should those who are not ordained be able to lead out in the senior position of a conference or mission?

I would say not. If the conference wants them to lead out in a senior position in the conference, then it seems to me the conference should ordain them.

[Tom Wetmore]

No, it is you who are ignoring many simple points made.

From your perspective, where did God rescind any other part of the curse that you can now ignore them? If you feel you can ignore those other parts of the curse, why?

It is a cop out to try to blame what I am saying as being liberal or secular thinking. I have given you Biblical evidence for my position. Refute it with Biblical evidence.

What part of the curse of sin do you think Jesus did not overcome?

[John317]

The difference is that God calls prophets directly. A prophet is ordained directly by God and does not need to be ordained by any man.

On the other hand, pastors and ministers and elders are called through the church. They are elected or appointed. They are ordained by humans.

Granted the calling of ministers and elders is by God, yet they must also be called by a church or by other humans in order for them to work in a leadership role. No so the genuine prophet of God. A genuine prophet of God does not depend at all on a vote or on human authority.

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

You have identified the weak link in this chain. Pastors called by God, recognized (ordained) by humans.

Are you saying that Pastors should not need to be recognized by humans before they're able to be a pastor of a church? How would that work?

In some denominations, the local church actually elects the pastor. In the SDA church, the pastor is hired and appointed by conference officers. If he's not hired and appointed, he doesn't work. He can't simply claim that God has called him and then begin pastoring a church before men recognize his call by ordaining him or giving him a license to preach and pastor.

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

It seems a lot of humans are blind to what God has done.

You're right: there are a lot of people who are blind to what God has done and is doing.

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

They simply refuse to recognize that God can call, and has called, women to pastoral ministry or leadership.

There is no question that God calls women to ministry. There are many important ministries for women. I don't think anyone is arguing that women don't have important work to do in the church.

The question is, would God call anyone to do something that is opposed to what He's revealed in Scripture? Or does God's call always agree with what the Bible says God's will is for the church?

The SDA church needs to make sure that the Bible gives full support to its policies in regard to women in ministry. We shouldn't have a policy that is based on a political agenda or on what society says the church should do.

Is it right to base it on our idea that God is blessing women as pastors rather than on solid biblical teaching?

Remember that a number of churches say that God's apparent blessing is the reason they have decided to appoint practicing homosexuals as church pastors, priests and bishops, etc. They usually don't claim to have biblical grounds for their decisions.

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

What happens when people fail or refuse to recognize what God has done?

The church suffers.

[doug yowell]

The issues are not the same but the methodology is.I think that's what John has been trying to get at.

Although in retrospect the two do also share a common basic DNA, one that is the heart of their movements. They both advocate that the intrinsic differences between the sexes are nonsequitus.The ability to love/lead can be performed as effectively by either gender therefore traditional roles are viewed as a hinderous cultural construct that needs immediate revision.Both also argue that their issue is an issue of moral inequality when they are pressed as to why such a new order is imperatively needed,in attempting to disguise their attempts to redefine the existing social order.Like some here who argue on one hand that it is not a moral but rather cultural issue but on the other hand argue that it is necessary to change the effects of "the curse" and not continue moral inequities of man's "authority".

[doug yowell]

Did I miss something? You're saying that the Bible excludes women as spiritual leaders. Well, Hallelujah! You fellas can just take over. Hey gals, No more leading out in Sabbath School, Church Boards, Child Evangelism in the Church,and don"t forget keeping up the Church as in cleaning the jons and cooking the fellowship meals. Now us women can spend alot more time at "Macys". Wa hoo!

Yes, you're missing a lot.

[SivartM]

This is not about gays, nor is it about women's ordination,

It is about this, should those who are not ordained be able to lead out in the senior position of a conference or mission?

Where is the main topic on ordination? I'm looking for it but am not sure where it would be... I have a few more things I'd like to add to that discussion but I don't want to continue dragging this thread off topic.

Even if this is not about women's ordination, I think that's what a lot of people are thinking of (considering the responses here). Would it be as much of an issue if this proposal only applied to unordained men? I really don't think that there is much agreement on what a "pastor" really is, because the Bible does not elaborate a great deal on the specific title of pastor. Any woman in a high leadership position could be protested with such vague guidelines.

[doug yowell]

Jesus reiterated that idea of God's ideal as oneness between man and woman as God's original plan. And Jesus came and died to overcome sin totally and restore things back to the way God had originally designed things.

Paul affirms that Christ accomplished this by saying that all are one in Christ.

Really? How then do you explain Paul's words in Eph.5:22-24? "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is HEAD of the wife, as also Christ is HEAD of the church; and He is Savior of the body.Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be subject to their own husbands in everything." Or Peter's words in IPet.2:1-6 ..."as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him LORD..." Why does Paul's oneness in Galations negate the oneness that is commended in every other instruction in Scripture? And why does your version of oneness prohibit a structure of authority? "I and My Father are One", "My Father is Greater than I"."Christ Jesus,Who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,but made Himself of no reputation,taking the form of a bondservant..." "For I have not spoken on my own authority;but my Father who sent ME gave Me a command..."

[Twilight II]

No, it is you who are ignoring many simple points made.

From your perspective, where did God rescind any other part of the curse that you can now ignore them? If you feel you can ignore those other parts of the curse, why?

It is a cop out to try to blame what I am saying as being liberal or secular thinking. I have given you Biblical evidence for my position. Refute it with Biblical evidence.

What part of the curse of sin do you think Jesus did not overcome?

So your argument is that women are no longer subject to the Edict that God gave in the garden of Eden because Christ was crucified and that curse has been removed?

So man does not need to labour since Christ was crucified?

The land does not bring forth thorns and thistles since Christ was crucified?

Women no longer feel pain in childbirth since Christ was crucified?

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

Of course not...

No sane mind would argue that that is the case.

But then you select one attribute from Gods edict and you say it was cancelled at the cross:

You argue that:

Women are no longer subject to their husband since Christ was crucified...

Let us be plain about your argument Tom.

You are ignoring those things that serve as clear examples that the edicts that God made in Eden stand, whilst claiming another has been rescinded.

This is exactly the same "logic" used to negate Sabbath observance.

I.E. The Law of God has been removed by the Cross, well the Sabbath has anyway.

You are picking and choosing what is still an edict based on secular ideologies, not biblical arguments.

Why do I say that?

Because the only place I can find your argument being made is outside of the Bible.

From the corridors of securalism...

Because it is plain that the Apostolic Church still recognised this edict, their observance of this edict is clearly recorded.

The very fact that that is the only position revealed in the Apostolic church, cements this simple fact.

The Edenic Edicts were never removed throughout the whole history of the Bible.

The only timeline you can point to is the last 150 years, which does not have biblical authority and does not hold any meaning for a Christian who is not influenced by secularism.

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

Jesus reiterated that idea of God's ideal as oneness between man and woman as God's original plan. And Jesus came and died to overcome sin totally and restore things back to the way God had originally designed things.

Paul affirms that Christ accomplished this by saying that all are one in Christ.

Really? How then do you explain Paul's words in Eph.5:22-24? "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is HEAD of the wife, as also Christ is HEAD of the church; and He is Savior of the body.Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be subject to their own husbands in everything." Or Peter's words in IPet.2:1-6 ..."as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him LORD..." Why does Paul's oneness in Galations negate the oneness that is commended in every other instruction in Scripture?

Because Doug, finding one text to support a liberal view derived from secularism, whilst ignoring all the other plain evidence is considered "biblical scholarship"...

One aspect of secular philosophy is the idea that man "evolves" morally.

We become more "enlightened" over time.

Examples of this are:

Equality of men and women.

Homosexuality being acceptable.

Both of course totally ignore Gods opinion, whilst claiming the most obscure texts ripped out of context will support their position as Gods position.

It is a common thread that runs through liberal arguments.

"New Light" discards "Old Light", especially when it has a secular source for its illumination...

The idea that God changes His mind to stay in line with modern secularism is obviously quite absurd...

...or is it?

It seems some think not.

[doug yowell]

Go back and read the story again. You are completely wrong.

God speaks to Adam first and asks him if he ate of the forbidden tree. (v.11) Adam replied, "The woman you put here with me--she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it." (v.12) And then God spoke to the woman and she blamed the snake. (v.13).

And you are rather confused about the meaning of blaming (accusing) another. Wagging a finger of accusation is asserting authority over another. Satan is the Accuser, usurping God's authority to caste judgment. That is exactly what Adam did rather than admitting he sinned. He cast judgement on Eve by trying to blaming her.

Things are moving fast here and it's hard for someone as slow as me to keep up but I didn't want this correction to go unnoted,Tom. Yes, I was wrong on my chronology and I thank you for correcting me on that!!--------As for your second point, I agree that if it's merely an accusation against another it would be an attempt to establish one's authority as judge.I believe that authority is synonomous with responsibility (isn't that the whole point of authority?) and therefore when both Adam and Eve blamed someone else they were in fact trying to shift the responsibility for their actions to someone else.Noting that the woman was the first human to fall into sin if their "headship" was equal then why does the NT put all the responsibility on the man's choice?