doug yowell Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 [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? Kinda begs the point doesn't it? We know that Sunday is the Lord's Day therefore when we read Rev.1:10 we know that John's vision came on Sunday, validating the change of the Sabbath.But if this particular call of God can be proven shouldn't it be witnessed by the testimony of both the OT and the NT.Why do we have to wait until the 20th century for the church to discover this basic truth? Can you cite a specific teaching of Paul's.Moses,Jesus,ect...that specifically deals with the social order that God affirmed from (at least)the fall? Wouldn't it have been clearer if the NT story, in harmony with the OT, would have instructed it's readers/hearers to quit honoring the curse by allowing women to now be the high priests of their families (if they felt so called to be)synogogues, or home churches? Quote
doug yowell Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 The issues are not the same but the methodology is.I think that's what John has been trying to get at. So what. If I use the same method to cut a rock as I would to cut a stick, using a pocket knife, doesn't mean I will be successful in both instances. So what may work with a rock but not with God's truths. You're simply arguing that the end justfies the means.Reaffirming the interpretation of I Cor.8:13 NAD Version in order to change a non-moral social structure. Quote
doug yowell Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 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. You've left out one critical part of the equation that the church USED to validate the above experience, that the roles which the church is ready to affirm is also in harmony with the testimony of the Bible. When the role seems to contradict directly what Scripture has already stated then a hasty hands on approach is dangerous at best.With the possible exception of Deborah, and Athaliah in the OT during two of Israel's darkest periods, there is not a single example of a woman in the type of leadership position that parallels our Pastoral responsibility.No priests, no apostles,no queens,no matriarchal families, nothing. Paul charges that the church should not allow a woman to "teach over a man."This instruction he directly ties to an authority principle. Citing evidence that seemingly blows away any authority roles poses lots of problems for those who put want to be sure of which God is really speaking. Quote
doug yowell Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 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? Ellen white has an answer to your question but I don't think you're going to like it.Speaking specifically about the part to which you are referring("...and he shall rule over you.")she concludes:"...sin had brought discord,and NOW their union could be maintained and harmony preserved ONLY by submission of the one to the other...(not by merely becoming Christians and ignoring this aspect of the curse)Had the principles enjoined in the law of God been cherished by the FALLEN race (that's everybody who follows)THIS SENTENCE, though growing out of the results of sin,WOULD HAVE PROVED A BLESSING TO THEM..."(PP 58,59)Strangely,some of those identifying themselves as the remnant ("who KEEP the commandments of God")are claiming that enjoining the principles of God's law are actually making this sentence worse!! Maybe some of us don't want to let go of this aspect of the curse because we want to continue to uplift the law of God. Quote
doug yowell Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 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. . 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... While what you have said has much truth to it I don't think it will be helpful to charge secularism to those who are convinced that they are on the cutting edge of Christianity. "Thinking they are doing God a favor." I tend to try to let the Bible speak for itself (and sometimes EGW to a SDA audience)for even secular movements have some thread of truth to them.Both women and gays have had legitimate beefs with the unChristian treatment they have been dealt. These things all Christians need to be sensitive to.The real question then becomes how do we determine God's solution? The true secularist will cite "the experts",their feelings, and past grievences. The religious will try to appeal to a Biblical "principle" that sometimes contradicts a plain teaching.Scripture against Scripture and the weight of evidence should be our be our only defense (and offense). Quote
Twilight II Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 Originally Posted By: Twilight II 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. . 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... While what you have said has much truth to it I don't think it will be helpful to charge secularism to those who are convinced that they are on the cutting edge of Christianity. "Thinking they are doing God a favor." I tend to try to let the Bible speak for itself (and sometimes EGW to a SDA audience)for even secular movements have some thread of truth to them.Both women and gays have had legitimate beefs with the unChristian treatment they have been dealt. These things all Christians need to be sensitive to.The real question then becomes how do we determine God's solution? The true secularist will cite "the experts",their feelings, and past grievences. The religious will try to appeal to a Biblical "principle" that sometimes contradicts a plain teaching.Scripture against Scripture and the weight of evidence should be our be our only defense (and offense). But the problem is that secular arguments are being wrapped up in the garb of biblical arguments. Pointing to the origin of those arguments is a useful and valid point. It is always good to go back to the source of an idea. As we know, it is not a biblical source that places women over men in leadership positions, except in extreme cases... It is a secular idea. Which should be named as such. Even if Christians hold it without realising it... Quote
Administrators Tom Wetmore Posted October 17, 2011 Administrators Posted October 17, 2011 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? No, authority and being responsible for something as used here are not the same. Don't confuse responsibility with being responsible. Rather than responsible, a more precise word would be "culpable" or even perhaps guilty. That one is responsible or culpable for a bad act does not make them an authority with regard to it or anything else. But one who accuses or blames another is asserting that they are in a position with appropriate authority to assign such culpability. Quote "Absurdity reigns and confusion makes it look good." "Sinless perfection is such a shallow goal." "I love God only as much as the person I love the least." *Forgiveness is always good news. And that is the gospel truth. (And finally, the ideas expressed above are solely my person views and not that of any organization with which I am associated.)
Administrators Tom Wetmore Posted October 17, 2011 Administrators Posted October 17, 2011 Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore The issues are not the same but the methodology is.I think that's what John has been trying to get at. So what. If I use the same method to cut a rock as I would to cut a stick, using a pocket knife, doesn't mean I will be successful in both instances. So what may work with a rock but not with God's truths. You're simply arguing that the end justfies the means.Reaffirming the interpretation of I Cor.8:13 NAD Version in order to change a non-moral social structure. No I'm not. That is just silly. Quote "Absurdity reigns and confusion makes it look good." "Sinless perfection is such a shallow goal." "I love God only as much as the person I love the least." *Forgiveness is always good news. And that is the gospel truth. (And finally, the ideas expressed above are solely my person views and not that of any organization with which I am associated.)
Twilight II Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 Originally Posted By: doug yowell 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? No, authority and being responsible for something as used here are not the same. Don't confuse responsibility with being responsible. Rather than responsible, a more precise word would be "culpable" or even perhaps guilty. That one is responsible or culpable for a bad act does not make them an authority with regard to it or anything else. But one who accuses or blames another is asserting that they are in a position with appropriate authority to assign such culpability. Sometimes people accuse or blame so that they do not have to bare responsibility for their own actions... This is what happened in Eden... Wasn't a question of authority, it was a false denial of responsibility. Quote
Administrators Tom Wetmore Posted October 17, 2011 Administrators Posted October 17, 2011 But the problem is that secular arguments are being wrapped up in the garb of biblical arguments. Pointing to the origin of those arguments is a useful and valid point. It is always good to go back to the source of an idea. As we know, it is not a biblical source that places women over men in leadership positions, except in extreme cases... It is a secular idea. Which should be named as such. Even if Christians hold it without realising it... Just as useful to the discussion as if I simply say your ideas are straight from the heart and mind of Satan... It doesn't make it true either. Quote "Absurdity reigns and confusion makes it look good." "Sinless perfection is such a shallow goal." "I love God only as much as the person I love the least." *Forgiveness is always good news. And that is the gospel truth. (And finally, the ideas expressed above are solely my person views and not that of any organization with which I am associated.)
Twilight II Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 Originally Posted By: Twilight II But the problem is that secular arguments are being wrapped up in the garb of biblical arguments. Pointing to the origin of those arguments is a useful and valid point. It is always good to go back to the source of an idea. As we know, it is not a biblical source that places women over men in leadership positions, except in extreme cases... It is a secular idea. Which should be named as such. Even if Christians hold it without realising it... Just as useful to the discussion as if I simply say your ideas are straight from the heart and mind of Satan... It doesn't make it true either. It is very useful to the discussion. The equality of the sexes is a totally secular ideology. And it is direct opposition to what God has stated should be the status quo. This was not changed at any point in the scripture. Which means the argument is anti-biblical. Trace that argument outside the bible and it takes no time at all to track it down to its feminism/secular roots. Which is of course in direct opposition to Gods stated position, which means it has one source ultimately. So espousing that argument against the scriptural support is espousing a secular argument and trying to wrap it up in biblical clothing. Problem is, the clothes don't fit... Quote
doug yowell Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 No, authority and being responsible for something as used here are not the same. Don't confuse responsibility with being responsible. Rather than responsible, a more precise word would be "culpable" or even perhaps guilty. That one is responsible or culpable for a bad act does not make them an authority with regard to it or anything else. But one who accuses or blames another is asserting that they are in a position with appropriate authority to assign such culpability. I don't agree with your definitions. Each unfallen person had the authority/response ability to resist their temptation and say no to the Devil.Cain was told that "you shall rule over it" right after being told that he could do right.Each person is responsible for their own actions. The devil made me do it or that woman made me do it is an attempt to escape the failures of one's own authority to say no.But perhaps we are both right or just bound to disagree. Quote
doug yowell Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 [No I'm not. That is just silly. Why is that silly? Gay rights activists are willing to divide the society in which they live in order to get that society to do what the activists think is right. When any step is successful they move on to the next step which is to further solidify their control on the process even if it means forcing entities that disagree with their intent to toe the line. This causes even greater division within that society.Anti-headship activists use exactly the same methods and you say so what, it gets the job done.How is alienationg the majority of the church of God over a non-moral issue justified by using any method? Quote
Moderators John317 Posted October 17, 2011 Moderators Posted October 17, 2011 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. You'll find a link to it in this discussion on post#485374. However, that particular discussion was closed to any additional posting. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
doug yowell Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 It is very useful to the discussion. The equality of the sexes is a totally secular ideology. And it is direct opposition to what God has stated should be the status quo. This was not changed at any point in the scripture. Which means the argument is anti-biblical. You need to be very careful in your choice of words, TWII, you have fallen into the trap of those who equate role with equality.That is the secular definition.Equality of the sexes is a basic Biblical principle,as evidenced by the first declaration which stated "in the image of god He made them, male and female He made them" and was later verified by Jesus Himself, "...and the two shall become one".Peter also reaffirms this equality "as being coheirs together of the grace of life..." While the sexes are equal the roles assigned to each are different.The real problem lies in the nonconverted secular mindset that sees one's role as a position and power that determines value, and equality.I think you already know that, just trying to keep us out of the ditch. Quote
Twilight II Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 Originally Posted By: Twilight II It is very useful to the discussion. The equality of the sexes is a totally secular ideology. And it is direct opposition to what God has stated should be the status quo. This was not changed at any point in the scripture. Which means the argument is anti-biblical. You need to be very careful in your choice of words, TWII, you have fallen into the trap of those who equate role with equality.That is the secular definition.Equality of the sexes is a basic Biblical principle,as evidenced by the first declaration which stated "in the image of god He made them, male and female He made them" and was later verified by Jesus Himself, "...and the two shall become one".Peter also reaffirms this equality "as being coheirs together of the grace of life..." While the sexes are equal the roles assigned to each are different.The real problem lies in the nonconverted secular mindset that sees one's role as a position and power that determines value, and equality.I think you already know that, just trying to keep us out of the ditch. Good call. Yes, I am talking about equality of leadership roles etc within the family and church. :-) Quote
doug yowell Posted October 17, 2011 Posted October 17, 2011 Yeah, I sorta figured that. I do the same thing sometimes and end up getting in trouble. Quote
Moderators John317 Posted October 17, 2011 Moderators Posted October 17, 2011 Why is that silly? Gay rights activists are willing to divide the society in which they live in order to get that society to do what the activists think is right. When any step is successful they move on to the next step which is to further solidify their control on the process even if it means forcing entities that disagree with their intent to toe the line. This causes even greater division within that society. Anti-headship activists use exactly the same methods and you say so what, it gets the job done.How is alienationg the majority of the church of God over a non-moral issue justified by using any method? Some have already demonstrated that they are quite willing to ruin people, who they feel stand in their way, in order to achieve their goals. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Woodenavaklu Posted October 18, 2011 Posted October 18, 2011 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! Good riddance [words here deleted by the moderator].[see below for reason for deletion.] Quote
BobRyan Posted October 18, 2011 Posted October 18, 2011 [Given that in-house LSU meeting that Dan Jackson held where he trashed David Asscherick - I continue to be impressed by cases where Ted Wilson is required to step in as the voice of reason after Dan has done something not well thought through. Especially in the LSU case where Dan's antic came back to bite him. Quote John 8:32 - The Truth will make you free“The righteousness of Christ will not cover one cherished sin." COL 316.
BobRyan Posted October 18, 2011 Posted October 18, 2011 Duplicate Quote John 8:32 - The Truth will make you free“The righteousness of Christ will not cover one cherished sin." COL 316.
pindoc Posted October 18, 2011 Posted October 18, 2011 good grief. commissioned vs ordained, the church has found just one more way to keep women out of formal leadership - and I scroll to the last page to find that someone morphed it into a gay rights discussion? well, good for you. while you are all off on a tangent, maybe we could go have a special ordination ceremony. no boys allowed, hehe. women have been in central leadership positions since - duh, ever hear of ellen g white? she would not have had time to be a conference president. she was busy doing leading way over the the boys' heads. Quote Pindoc
Administrators Tom Wetmore Posted October 18, 2011 Administrators Posted October 18, 2011 Yes, way over! But the odd argument being made here makes being a prophet out to be somehow a lower calling than a pastor or a conference president. One would assume, if you buy into the whole Catholic headship theology that man as head can be a leader and that woman not being the head cannot, meaning she must be subordinate or lower in standing. So she cannot be a pastor, but she can be a prophet which logically would suggest that a prophet is a lower calling than that of a pastor or conference president. But speaking out of the other side of the mouth the notion is that being a prophet is superior to the humanly ordained role of pastor, since the prophet speaks for God and the pastor speaks only for the church. And in practice no pastor dares to dispute or question the word of a prophet since the prophet has higher authority. It does not make much sense, does it! Quote "Absurdity reigns and confusion makes it look good." "Sinless perfection is such a shallow goal." "I love God only as much as the person I love the least." *Forgiveness is always good news. And that is the gospel truth. (And finally, the ideas expressed above are solely my person views and not that of any organization with which I am associated.)
Moderators John317 Posted October 18, 2011 Moderators Posted October 18, 2011 good grief. commissioned vs ordained, the church has found just one more way to keep women out of formal leadership - and I scroll to the last page to find that someone morphed it into a gay rights discussion? It isn't about gay rights per se. But it does involve methods some people use to gain that which they cannot gain through demonstrating the support of Scripture. Instead of being straightforward about their goals, it seems to that they try to slip them into the church by hiding them under a pretense of voting for something unrelated to the question of women's role in the church. I believe it would be better if the church faced the issue head on in a General Conference session. Originally Posted By: pindoc well, good for you. while you are all off on a tangent, maybe we could go have a special ordination ceremony. no boys allowed, hehe. And you complain of a tangent? Originally Posted By: pindoc women have been in central leadership positions since - duh, ever hear of ellen g white? she would not have had time to be a conference president. she was busy doing leading way over the the boys' heads. Ellen White did not consider herself in a leadership position except as God called her to be His special messenger. She made a clear distinction between that and the work which men are elected to do in the church. She said she had no wish to be other than a messenger of God. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Moderators John317 Posted October 18, 2011 Moderators Posted October 18, 2011 But the odd argument being made here makes being a prophet out to be somehow a lower calling than a pastor or a conference president. You should know this is not true. No one here is making such an argument. Both Ephesians 4: 11 and 1 Cor. 12: 28, 29 list the gift of prophecy right after the gift of apostleship. Prophets give the message of God to the church. They are God's mouthpiece. The definition of a prophet is one who speaks forth for God. Teachers, pastors, ministers, and elders are not God's mouthpiece. They represent the church. That's why they are appointed by the church and are ordained by the church. Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore One would assume, if you buy into the whole Catholic headship theology that man as head can be a leader and that woman not being the head cannot, meaning she must be subordinate or lower in standing. So she cannot be a pastor, but she can be a prophet which logically would suggest that a prophet is a lower calling than that of a pastor or conference president. It has nothing to do with Catholic theology but with biblical theology. God chooses the prophets directly by giving them visions and dreams and by giving them His messages for the church. Women have different roles in God's plan, which doesn't mean they are "lower in standing." Similarly, Christ has a different role to play in the plan of salvation, but that doesn't mean Christ is lower in standing than the Father. They are completely equal. Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore But speaking out of the other side of the mouth the notion is that being a prophet is superior to the humanly ordained role of pastor, since the prophet speaks for God and the pastor speaks only for the church. And in practice no pastor dares to dispute or question the word of a prophet since the prophet has higher authority. IIt does not make much sense, does it! You're making an invalid argument here. The very name "prophet" mean's to speak forth for God. Genuine prophets give God's messages, not their own. A false prophet gives his own message. The church manual never governs the prophet of God but it always governs the pastors, elders, and church administrators. The church hires and fires the pastors, elders, and administrators. The church cannot hire or fire a true prophet of God. The idea of Scripture is that all of the gifts are necessary to the body of Christ. They are all for the edification of the church. 1 Cor. 12:27-31 Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. [28] And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. [29] Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? [30] Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? [31] But earnestly desire the higher gifts. Quote John 3:16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.