TED on Women in Leadership

[Twilight II]

There seems to be one problem (maybe more than one) with your view and that is that God placed Ellen White over all the men in the SDA Church right from its conception. Again, I ask you did God mess up? Did God go against His "edict" as you put it in Eden?

For over seventy years Ellen White was placed over these SDA men. These same men submitted willingly to God's use of Ellen White as their superior. Did God and the SDA men miss this "Edenic edict"?

Or,

Maybe Ellen White is not a true prophet? Maybe Ellen White placed herself above these men and claimed to be a prophet just satisfy her lust for power? Maybe all of Ellen White's writings are false and put there by satan to trap us because it would satanic for a woman to have such Authority over men?

Which is it Twilight?

You have bundled two things up here miz3.

The role of a prophetess/messenger.

And the role of a woman in the church and the home.

Ellen White respected the role of the woman in the church and in the home and always deferred to James White unless she had a direction from God.

Ellen White did not have "authority" over the church in the role of an ordained Pastor.

That was not what she was called to do.

She was also never the GC President, are you aware of that?

Why do you think that was?

[Twilight II]

It doesn't matter whether you want to start with Galatians 3:28 or not. We can finish with it too. Christ is the beginning and the end.

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

May I suggest that you have adopted Secular Ideologies and principles and are now trying to read them "back" into the bible, to justify them?

I quote Scripture and you label it "Secular Ideologies"?!?!

I reject your notion that those who support women's ordination are of a secular mindset. Such labeling is unhelpful. And it holds no more true for those in support than it does for those opposed.

This is a modern construct anyway. Hebrew thinking as well reflected in Scripture knows no secular/sacred dichotomy.

It does matter where we start Tom.

If you start with a text that has nothing to do with the subject, then your argument is built on false foundations from the start.

I notice you did not address anywhere in this post, the issue that Paul re-stated the edict in Eden in numerous places.

How do you respond to that point?

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

You are quoting scripture out of context to support secular ideologies, whether you are aware of that or not, is a matter only the Lord knows.

If it is not in the Bible and opposed to the Bibles teachings, then it is secular.

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

Those that support womens ministry either do not understand Gods edict in Eden, that was restated in the NT, or they choose to ignore it.

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

The New Testament talks about Secularism quite a bit actually...

[Tom Wetmore]

I am pleased that you agree that God does not change His mind.

That's not what I said. But in this instance, it is not about God changing His mind. It is about Him following through with His plan to overcome sin. Do you believe Jesus accomplished that?

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

The original "edict" was still in force after the cross.

That simple fact tears the above argument to pieces.

If that is not your argument and I have misunderstood it, then please clearly and concisely present your argument.

But if it is your argument, it has exactly the same flavour as the argument that the Cross got rid of the Sabbath...

In your mind maybe...

Again, "edict" is your word for it, not mine. But I can work with it. In fact it fits your call for the context of Galatians 3:28. An edict is "a proclamation with the force of law."

Now go back and read the whole context of Galatians 3:28. Notice what Paul says about the "curse of the law" - Verse 10 - "For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse"; Verse 13 - "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law"; the promised "seed" which is Christ of verse 16 refers directly back to the "seed" promised in the curse in Genesis 3 and repeated to Abraham; and finally, the law against the promise of God? God forbid! in verse 21.

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

God made a judgement in Eden.

Eve decided she wanted "control".

So God issued a judgement on that, a consequence.

She was to be subservient to her husband, which represented on a practical level her subservience to God.

Many here argue that that has changed, that that "edict" has been removed.

But I am only interested in Gods "opinion" on this.

I have seen no Biblical evidence that God has rescinded that principle.

The only evidence presented here has been secular in origin.

Are you certain that you got the "Edenic edict" correct?

You state that Eve was to be subservient to "her husband". Does this mean that Eve was to be subservient to ALL MEN?

I am not going to argue that anything was changed, I do however question whether you have the curse to Eve correct or not and just how that curse was to be applied.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

There seems to be one problem (maybe more than one) with your view and that is that God placed Ellen White over all the men in the SDA Church right from its conception. Again, I ask you did God mess up? Did God go against His "edict" as you put it in Eden?

For over seventy years Ellen White was placed over these SDA men. These same men submitted willingly to God's use of Ellen White as their superior. Did God and the SDA men miss this "Edenic edict"?

Or,

Maybe Ellen White is not a true prophet? Maybe Ellen White placed herself above these men and claimed to be a prophet just satisfy her lust for power? Maybe all of Ellen White's writings are false and put there by satan to trap us because it would satanic for a woman to have such Authority over men?

Which is it Twilight?

You have bundled two things up here miz3.

The role of a prophetess/messenger.

And the role of a woman in the church and the home.

Ellen White respected the role of the woman in the church and in the home and always deferred to James White unless she had a direction from God.

Ellen White did not have "authority" over the church in the role of an ordained Pastor.

That was not what she was called to do.

She was also never the GC President, are you aware of that?

Why do you think that was?

1. Ellen White was God's direct channel to the SDA Church, as such when she spoke she was the voice of God (like Moses). That places her above the GC Prexy and all other "male leaders". For her to be GC Prexy would have been to come down in Authority. She was higher than any "ordained pastor". Thus, God placed Ellen White, a woman, over all those men.

Twilight, Ellen White may have done as the GC asked her to do but only because she thought it was the right thing to do not because they had any Authority over God's direct messenger.

Your inconsistency is showing.

2. You keep referencing that phrase "the role of women in the home and in the church".

I see the home part but find no where in Scripture the Church part. Genesis chapter three which you reference as the "Edict from Eden" may deal with the home but it does not say or imply anything about the Church. By including the Church you are "adding to the Word of God" things that are not therein.

That's a no no Twilight.

3. You still have not answered my questions from previous posts. Are they too difficult for you?

4. No bundling, that is just your dodge. Ellen White was a woman and God indeed placed her in Authority over every male person in the SDA Church. That is just FACT.

That is unless you want concede that Ellen White is a false prophet.

It is a nagging FACT that is sticking your arguments to the ground.

[Woody]

I have yet to see even one Biblical text from the anti - women ord. group that says we should not ordain women.

It simply is a lot of bluster.

I prefer to follow God's clear instructions for His church.

[ClubV12]

"I prefer to follow God's clear instructions for His church."

Good call Woody, I agree.

Because the counsel is not clear on this issue I will follow God's clear instructions to wait for a decision from the G.C. and support it no matter what it says.

[Woody]

I thought we were discussing what is RIGHT.

The church may decide whatever it wants - but that does not make it right. God will not force His church to do right. People have free will. Obviously we are stuck with the decision of the GC in session. But I would rather discuss what the Bible says than what the GC says.

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

You have bundled two things up here miz3.

The role of a prophetess/messenger.

And the role of a woman in the church and the home.

Ellen White respected the role of the woman in the church and in the home and always deferred to James White unless she had a direction from God.

Ellen White did not have "authority" over the church in the role of an ordained Pastor.

That was not what she was called to do.

She was also never the GC President, are you aware of that?

Why do you think that was?

1. Ellen White was God's direct channel to the SDA Church, as such when she spoke she was the voice of God (like Moses). That places her above the GC Prexy and all other "male leaders". For her to be GC Prexy would have been to come down in Authority. She was higher than any "ordained pastor". Thus, God placed Ellen White, a woman, over all those men.

Twilight, Ellen White may have done as the GC asked her to do but only because she thought it was the right thing to do not because they had any Authority over God's direct messenger.

Your inconsistency is showing.

2. You keep referencing that phrase "the role of women in the home and in the church".

I see the home part but find no where in Scripture the Church part. Genesis chapter three which you reference as the "Edict from Eden" may deal with the home but it does not say or imply anything about the Church. By including the Church you are "adding to the Word of God" things that are not therein.

That's a no no Twilight.

3. You still have not answered my questions from previous posts. Are they too difficult for you?

4. No bundling, that is just your dodge. Ellen White was a woman and God indeed placed her in Authority over every male person in the SDA Church. That is just FACT.

That is unless you want concede that Ellen White is a false prophet.

It is a nagging FACT that is sticking your arguments to the ground.

Miz3.

I do not make any arguments about this subject from the position of Ellen Whites Role.

I stick to the bible.

It is you and others here that are trying to imply that because Ellen White was a prophet, that the original edict in Eden does not stand for Adventists...

I do not need to engage with that argument as I can rely on Sola Scriptura for my viewpoint.

[ClubV12]

Woody,,, I thought my response to your post would get your attention.

I'm still chuckling.

[Jeannieb43]

I have yet to see even one Biblical text from the anti - women ord. group that says we should not ordain women.

I agree, Woody.

Those who vote against WO are sinply controlled by their cultural customs. That part of the world just cannot allow women to be equal with men.

Too bad.

[Woody]

Yes Jeannie. That's right. And I respect that there will be different cultures with different ways. I say let them be. Let them decide for their conference or country. But why withhold the Biblical principles from those who fully understand them.

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: Woody

I have yet to see even one Biblical text from the anti - women ord. group that says we should not ordain women.

I agree, Woody.

Those who vote against WO are sinply controlled by their cultural customs. That part of the world just cannot allow women to be equal with men.

Too bad.

Many of those who vote against WO are simply controlled by Gods decree in Eden and need a "thus saith the Lord" before they will accept He changed that decree.

They stand on the Bible and Bible alone.

They "protest" against the inroads of the World into the Church.

Until you understand that, then all you will have to present to them are accusations of:

"bigotry"

"sexism"

"chauvanism"

Which they will reject outright, because you have not argued from the Bible.

If you want others to change their minds, who hold to the Bible and Bible alone, then you need to find your evidence from scripture.

Again, as seen in this thread, very little of that has been done.

Tom has quoted Galatians 3 out of context.

Others have argued that Ellen White was the Pope of Adventism, therefore the men should take off their trousers and hand them to the women...

And we are supposed to change our position based on this?

[Woody]

I choose the Biblical directives over the cultural customs ANY day.

The Anti- WO crowd has nothing but cultural ignorance and pressures for their stance. I will stick with scripture.

[ClubV12]

I have yet to see even one Biblical text from the womens rights group that supports ordination!

The WO crowd has nothing but cultural ignorance and pressures for their stance. I will stick with scripture.

[phkrause]

It seems to me that with the signing of the 1913 paper claiming that EGW was an "Ordained Minister" should, chronologically, clear up any misconception of her being an ordained female minister.

It also occurs to me that EGWs ordination was recognized by the GC. IOWs, the GC recognized her divine ordination and issued credentials to the same office. And it occurs to me that a divine ordination supersedes any man made ordination....

And if EGW was ordained, and other females also were issued credentials, what is the problem with allowing female pastors?

There are female Pastors, so allowing female Pastors is not the problem! Or have you not seen any female Pastors?

[Tom Wetmore]

If you want others to change their minds, who hold to the Bible and Bible alone, then you need to find your evidence from scripture.

Again, as seen in this thread, very little of that has been done.

Tom has quoted Galatians 3 out of context.

Others have argued that Ellen White was the Pope of Adventism, therefore the men should take off their trousers and hand them to the women...

And we are supposed to change our position based on this?

Here is the frustration. Every time this topic is discussed it is as if we are forced to start all over again as if no prior discussion ever took place. Every time numerous Scriptural passages are presented to provide evidence in support of women. Numerous quotes from EGW have been posted that show her support for women in ministry and leadership. Many historical examples of women in ministry, early articles, statements and resolutions from our founders. And then the fact of the recognition by the GC of EGW as being an ordained minister. None of that is accepted by those opposed. And each bit of evidence is considered as if it is shockingly the only evidence.

The evidence is disputed, distinguished, explained away, even to the point of absurdity.

Now look at what just happened. I said, let's start with Galatians 3:28. And after dismissing that text as being irrelevant, inapplicable, out of context and not the place to start, you seem to think that's all there is. And when I presented context and points that do in fact connect the text directly to the "edict" of Eden, as you call it, you divert to characterizing those in support of women in ministry as driven only by secular ideology and avoid seriously engaging the text.

You now conclude that not much has been done here. It is as if there is never any memory of anything ever discussed in the past. Or that I clearly said this is a start and not the whole thing.

Here are a few more points. Phoebe. The women elders from Ephesus mentioned by Paul to Timothy. Then there are the women who were fellow workers recognized by Paul in Romans 16. And female disciples. And the priesthood of all believers, which has to logically include women. And Acts 2. And looking back to the OT, there is Deborah, Miriam, Hulda. And yes, we have not avoided the favorite women in silent submission texts so favored by those opposed to women in ministry. We have address all of those repeatedly.

But you know we have been through all that many times over. Remember? It never matters. So why bother?

[Woody]

Quote:

So why bother?

Exactly. Let those who are blind remain blind because that is what they wish. There is nothing in the world that would change their minds.

If they truly wanted to learn - they could look up the comprehensive study that has been shown here. But if they just want to argue - they come to this thread.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

1. Ellen White was God's direct channel to the SDA Church, as such when she spoke she was the voice of God (like Moses). That places her above the GC Prexy and all other "male leaders". For her to be GC Prexy would have been to come down in Authority. She was higher than any "ordained pastor". Thus, God placed Ellen White, a woman, over all those men.

Twilight, Ellen White may have done as the GC asked her to do but only because she thought it was the right thing to do not because they had any Authority over God's direct messenger.

Your inconsistency is showing.

2. You keep referencing that phrase "the role of women in the home and in the church".

I see the home part but find no where in Scripture the Church part. Genesis chapter three which you reference as the "Edict from Eden" may deal with the home but it does not say or imply anything about the Church. By including the Church you are "adding to the Word of God" things that are not therein.

That's a no no Twilight.

3. You still have not answered my questions from previous posts. Are they too difficult for you?

4. No bundling, that is just your dodge. Ellen White was a woman and God indeed placed her in Authority over every male person in the SDA Church. That is just FACT.

That is unless you want concede that Ellen White is a false prophet.

It is a nagging FACT that is sticking your arguments to the ground.

Miz3.

I do not make any arguments about this subject from the position of Ellen Whites Role.

I stick to the bible.

It is you and others here that are trying to imply that because Ellen White was a prophet, that the original edict in Eden does not stand for Adventists...

I do not need to engage with that argument as I can rely on Sola Scriptura for my viewpoint.

Twilight I am amazed. First you argue with me about Ellen White then when you are corned and found to be wanting you back into the "I am not playing that game because I am sola scriptura". The fact is you have already played that game and because you lost you say you won't play. What kind of integrity is that? It is in fact zero integrity.

Second you fail to address that Genesis chapter is actually about the Home and has nothing whatever to do with the Church. This is Scripture we are talking about. Yet you add things to this Scripture that are not there. In Genesis chapter three the "edict as you put it" has nothing to do with the Church and the functions of the Church. The Home yes, the Church NO. You fail to address this point or are you also conceding that you were wrong in you view?

Third did God violate the "Edict in Eden" when He made Ellen White supreme in the SDA Church? This too is about Scripture and whether God followed His own Scripture in what you call the "Edict in Eden". This is about Scripture too. Did God violate Scripture, did God change Scripture in regard to Ellen White, or tell me how Ellen White's supremacy is consistent with your version of Scripture in Genesis Chapter Three.

It is duplicitous to simply say "sola scriptura" when in fact we are discussing the integrity of your views of Scripture in the case of Ellen White.

It is also duplicitous to simply call me an idolatrous pagan with satanic ideas while refusing to defend your own lack of integrity in regard to the Scripture. I find this typical of those against women's ordination/leadership.

Something is threatened and it is not the Scripture or the Truth that is threatened even though you attempt to cloak yourself as being the only game in town that is Sola Scriptura. I too am Sola Scriptura and I find your ways on this particular issue lacking Scriptural integrity. The only reason could be that something in you is threatened by having women ordained/leadership.

As someone has already pointed out we already have woman pastors who stand in the pulpit of SDA Churches each and every Sabbath. These same women minister to the flock the same as their male counter parts. Why not ordain them as we do for men? They already are "leaders by virtue of being pastors".

Is the Scripture violated already by having women pastors? Please cite the Scriptures that are violated by the SDA Church already hiring women pastors in many churches across the land.

Just how far down the road is too far in your view? Where should the line be drawn as to where women can and cannot lead?

[ClubV12]

"These same women minister to the flock the same as their male counter parts. Why not ordain them as we do for men? They already are "leaders by virtue of being pastors"."

That is the question that is being considered, "Why Not"?

If it was clear from the bible, "why not", the decision would have been made a long time ago. But it is not clear, thus, the question must be carefully considered.

Where is this illusive bible verse so many say exists? The one that says women should be ordained? If it's so easy, so clear, how come no one has posted it yet? Where is this clear Ellen White quote that says women should be ordained?

....they don't exist.

[Tom Wetmore]

So Club, do you think a woman can be pastor of a church?

[ClubV12]

My church has an assistant woman Pastor, commissioned. I don't know what the rules or requirements for being the primary Pastor is.

I DO know there is at least one other church in our area that refuses to let her speak or have anything to do with them! Which I find rather shocking...

[Neil D]

First we cannot ASSUME the church issued her a Ministers license because she was ordained of God. Nope, she WAS ordained by God for her special work, the church recognized that and accepted her as a "prophet". They did not need to issue her any document to declare the obvious. What is NOT obvious is whether the church physically held an ordination ceremony in conjunction with a Minister license.

[Neil D]

Did ya miss the one where ordained was crossed out?

Did you miss the one where in 1913 the credentials were issued to her as an "Ordained Minister"? If God wanted her not to be ordained, that certainly would be the time...Chronologically, she was ordained by 1913,,,,

[Neil D]

Seems plain to me:

Quote:

Gen 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

The man is to rule over the wife.

In other words, he has the final say in the home.

"In the Lord" being the caveat...

Are you sure that this is an injunction or a example of rule.... or could it be the result of a woman's desire for her husband? We both know of men, good and bad, who take advantage of women's good nature...And in your case, are you sure your chavenism is not showing?