TED on Women in Leadership

[ClubV12]

Her Ministers License issued before 1885 did not have the word ordained crossed out. But the 1885 document DOES have the word crossed out. They didn't have a "Prophets License" so a Ministers license was used.

Was she "demoted" in 1885?

1. How do you explain the fact that the word ordained was crossed out? It's factual evidence that cannot be ignored or swept under the rug, as so many have been quick to do. You simply cannot ignore factual evidence!

Many women in Ellen Whites time ALSO RECEIVED a Ministers license. NOT ONE WOMAN was ordained by the church who received this license!

Ellen Whites position, as a prophet, was unique. Her status had no bearing on the issue as it concerned other women. It had no bearing THEN, it has no bearing NOW.

[miz3]

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

Tom the reason the GC is "studying the issue" is NOT because the issue is not clear from the perspective of whether women should or should not be ordained/leadership as a Biblical Principle.

The reason for the "study of the issue" is to buy time politically so as to find a suitable political solution to this thorny problem. The problem is not "thorny" because of any "spiritual doubt" but rather it is "thorny" from a political/organizational point of view.

The GC needs a way to satisfy all parties while maintaining peace within the whole group.

It is nothing more than a smoke screen to think the GC is studying the issue because it is "spiritually unclear". That kind of thinking is pure gibberish. This has become a political issue and those that think different are just plain deluded.

[John317]

The real question needs to include. LEADERSHIP. How are the men doing

This action is not about female ordination.

What we need is vision, too many places have a ZERO growth, and yes those places hAe men for a leader....

Deal with the real issue of leadership.

Is it necessary to ordain women to be the church pastor or the church elder in order for women to work for God in spreading the gospel?

The problem with growth is not due to the issue of ordination of women. Women can contribute their vision without being the church pastor or the elder. There are dozens of church ministries available to women.

[John317]

...The reason for the "study of the issue" is to buy time politically so as to find a suitable political solution to this thorny problem. The problem is not "thorny" because of any "spiritual doubt" but rather it is "thorny" from a political/organizational point of view.

Politics should have nothing to do with it. It can only be solved theologically, not politically. If the Bible doesn't clearly support it, and if there is serious question within the church about God's will in the matter, then the church has no business changing its position. The church shouldn't change its doctrines or positions in order to satisfy society or to be "politically correct."

So if the church makes the change without being able to show clear Bible reason for it, it has no valid foundationn for making the change.

[John317]

miz3.... looking after children and various other things, is not garbage, but a higher calling than what most men are capable..

Originally Posted By: miz3

Stan I was not calling what women do in the SDA Church "garbage". To say such is to twist my intent and my words.

I was speaking to the tone of John317's post in regard to women. I was not saying that women who do the things you cited are doing garbage work.

The tone of John317 is indeed insulting. Such a tone is comparable to telling a woman that she can be in charge of "garbage" but not anything else. In other words you are only "good enough" to do this but you are not "good enough" to actually hold power/leadership at the highest levels. I would call that "tone" despicable.

What I wrote is what the Bible teaches.

Do you like the Holy Spirit's tone better when He speaks through Paul in the following verses of Scripture:

1 Tim. 2:8-15

I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; [9] likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, [10] but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. [11] Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. [12] 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. 14:33b-38

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.

1 Cor. 11:3-10

But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. [4] Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, [5] but every wife [woman] who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as if her head were shaven. [6] For if a wife [woman] will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife [woman] to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. [7] For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. [8] For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. [9] Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. [10] That is why a wife [woman] ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

[John317]

Someone did tell me, maybe it was on here, that they recognized the ordination from God, but never layer their hands on her, the process that is normally done.

Ellen White's being ordained by God to be His prophet or special messenger is totally different from God's ordaining a woman to be a minister or elder of a local church. In the case of a prophet, no man is called to lay hands on them because their authority comes directly from God alone. No church and no man can add anything to a prophet's authority. Not so in regard to the minister or elder. In their case, the church, or man, must also ordain them. If they are not ordained also by man, the pastor or elder don't have a job in the church.

That is why Ellen White was never ordained by man. She wouldn't have accepted such. Her ordination and authority did not come from the church or from any human being. Why not? Because she didn't represent the church-- she represented God and wrote God's messages, not her own.

Pastors and elders, on the other hand, represent the church. The church tells them what to preach. They have to preach in accordance with the church's directions.If they don't, they can be fired. Desmond Ford is a good example. But no church could tell Ellen White what to write or preach because she was a prophet chosen directly by God Himself. Man had nothing to do with it, any more than man had anything to do with God's choice of Moses.

[Twilight II]

Tom, you keep saying you have presented lots of evidence.

But you have started with Galatians 3, which does not deal with the issue at hand at all.

There is no direct statement about the role of women in the churches there whatsoever.

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

You have also completely failed to explain why you have totally ignored Pauls clear and direct counsel about the role of women in the church.

Why is that?

Why is it that you use a text out of context for your foundational proof text.

Then completely fail to deal with those texts that specifically deal with the order in the home and church?

Why are you so silent on those texts Tom?

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: Stan Jensen

The real question needs to include. LEADERSHIP. How are the men doing

This action is not about female ordination.

What we need is vision, too many places have a ZERO growth, and yes those places hAe men for a leader....

Deal with the real issue of leadership.

Is it necessary to ordain women to be the church pastor or the church elder in order for women to work for God in spreading the gospel?

The problem with growth is not due to the issue of ordination of women. Women can contribute their vision without being the church pastor or the elder. There are dozens of church ministries available to women.

How condescending!

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

...The reason for the "study of the issue" is to buy time politically so as to find a suitable political solution to this thorny problem. The problem is not "thorny" because of any "spiritual doubt" but rather it is "thorny" from a political/organizational point of view.

Politics should have nothing to do with it. It can only be solved theologically, not politically. If the Bible doesn't clearly support it, and if there is serious question within the church about God's will in the matter, then the church has no business changing its position. The church shouldn't change its doctrines or positions in order to satisfy society or to be "politically correct."

So if the church makes the change without being able to show clear Bible reason for it, it has no valid foundationn for making the change.

I agree with you John317 but the reality is just what I said. It is a political situation which the SDA Church will disguise as "spiritual" with a disguised spiritual solution.

The theology is already in place that the Bible and the Bible only allows for women to be ordained/leaders. The politics are all that needs to be worked out at this point.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: Stan Jensen

miz3.... looking after children and various other things, is not garbage, but a higher calling than what most men are capable..

Originally Posted By: miz3

Stan I was not calling what women do in the SDA Church "garbage". To say such is to twist my intent and my words.

I was speaking to the tone of John317's post in regard to women. I was not saying that women who do the things you cited are doing garbage work.

The tone of John317 is indeed insulting. Such a tone is comparable to telling a woman that she can be in charge of "garbage" but not anything else. In other words you are only "good enough" to do this but you are not "good enough" to actually hold power/leadership at the highest levels. I would call that "tone" despicable.

What I wrote is what the Bible teaches.

Do you like the Holy Spirit's tone better when He speaks through Paul in the following verses of Scripture:

1 Tim. 2:8-15

I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; [9] likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, [10] but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. [11] Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. [12] 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. 14:33b-38

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.

1 Cor. 11:3-10

But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. [4] Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, [5] but every wife [woman] who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as if her head were shaven. [6] For if a wife [woman] will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife [woman] to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. [7] For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. [8] For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. [9] Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. [10] That is why a wife [woman] ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

Timothy chapter two has nothing to do whether women should be ordained/leadership or not ordained/leadership. This text has to do with how women should behave in the culture in which they existed and demonstrate Christian values.

Many misuse this text in regard to jewelery as well. This is not a text about jewelery either. It is again a text about how in that particular culture women who were Christians should behave.

It has nothing to do with jewelery and/or ordination/leadership of women in the Church.

Third, if we are to interpret the text they way you are trying to do it says that "women should not teach". Well my friend the SDA Church already violates that edict and has since its inception. Why are you not upset about that? Hmmmm!

Either you go the whole nine yards or your argument is not valid. What are you going to advocate? Has the SDA Church been wrong all these decades?

Fourth did God violate His own edict in Timothy chapter two by making Ellen White superior to all the men at the GC and everywhere. According to Timothy chapter two a woman should not have Authority as the Voice of God over a man, yet Ellen White your prophet did so.

You need to be consistent John317.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: Stan Jensen

miz3.... looking after children and various other things, is not garbage, but a higher calling than what most men are capable..

Originally Posted By: miz3

Stan I was not calling what women do in the SDA Church "garbage". To say such is to twist my intent and my words.

I was speaking to the tone of John317's post in regard to women. I was not saying that women who do the things you cited are doing garbage work.

The tone of John317 is indeed insulting. Such a tone is comparable to telling a woman that she can be in charge of "garbage" but not anything else. In other words you are only "good enough" to do this but you are not "good enough" to actually hold power/leadership at the highest levels. I would call that "tone" despicable.

What I wrote is what the Bible teaches.

Do you like the Holy Spirit's tone better when He speaks through Paul in the following verses of Scripture:

1 Tim. 2:8-15

I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; [9] likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, [10] but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. [11] Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. [12] 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. 14:33b-38

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.

1 Cor. 11:3-10

But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. [4] Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, [5] but every wife [woman] who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as if her head were shaven. [6] For if a wife [woman] will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife [woman] to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. [7] For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. [8] For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. [9] Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. [10] That is why a wife [woman] ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

Let us look at 1Corinthians chapter fourteen.

Again, if we take your position concerning this text then women should never ever speak at all in Church. Well my friend the SDA Church has violated that edict since its inception. Women have been speaking in the SDA Churches.

Ellen White spoke hundreds of times in Church. I guess she and the Brethren at the GC violated this edict so often in what you term the direct command of God.

Is Ellen White then a false prophet because of such direct disobedience to God's Command? What do you say John317?

Is the SDA Church not really the "chosen remnant that you claim" because it also has disobeyed this direct edict from God? Hmmm!

How could sooooo many SDA people be in direct disobedience each Sabbath in our own day by violating this direct edict from God?

Do you not see how ridiculous your position is? Surely you see it.

Are we to muzzle our SDA Women today, John317 so as to be in perfect compliance with this edict direct from God? After all Paul stated that it was a command from God. What say you John317?

[Twilight II]

The culture argument doesn't hold water Miz3.

Why?

Because the original edict in Eden did not have any "cultural" ramifications.

That edict was given by God, to mankind.

That is the basis of womens positions in the church and home.

And the New Testament does not change that order of things.

If it did, I would accept it immediately.

But God has not changed His mind about His edict in Eden.

That is the issue.

Some questions for you:

1. Do you accept the Edict in Eden?

2. If yes, can you show where it has been changed in the Bible?

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: Stan Jensen

miz3.... looking after children and various other things, is not garbage, but a higher calling than what most men are capable..

Originally Posted By: miz3

Stan I was not calling what women do in the SDA Church "garbage". To say such is to twist my intent and my words.

I was speaking to the tone of John317's post in regard to women. I was not saying that women who do the things you cited are doing garbage work.

The tone of John317 is indeed insulting. Such a tone is comparable to telling a woman that she can be in charge of "garbage" but not anything else. In other words you are only "good enough" to do this but you are not "good enough" to actually hold power/leadership at the highest levels. I would call that "tone" despicable.

What I wrote is what the Bible teaches.

Do you like the Holy Spirit's tone better when He speaks through Paul in the following verses of Scripture:

1 Tim. 2:8-15

I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; [9] likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, [10] but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. [11] Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. [12] 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. 14:33b-38

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.

1 Cor. 11:3-10

But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. [4] Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, [5] but every wife [woman] who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as if her head were shaven. [6] For if a wife [woman] will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife [woman] to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. [7] For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. [8] For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. [9] Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. [10] That is why a wife [woman] ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

Finally, let us look at 1Corinthians chapter eleven.

First Paul states that in the home relationship between husband and wife God has placed the man as His leader. I want to emphasize that where the Home is concerned only is this true.

Second, then Paul talks about how men and women should be dressed when participating in the Sabbath Church. Men-no covering on their head. Women-must cover their head.

Third the last verse says that when a woman exercises Authority in the Church she should have her head covered because such covering is a symbol of her Authority.

Instead of this text being a support against the ordination/leadership of women it is actually a support for women exercising ALL AUTHORITY IN THE CHURCH. The only proviso is that the woman must have her head covered.

Fourth, as with the other two texts you cited SDA women have been in violation of this edict since its inception. The GC has also been in violation since it is OK with women exercising authority without their heads being covered.

Ellen White also exercised Authority often without her head being covered. Is she a false prophet my friend John317?

Tell me why John317 the SDA Church and its Prophet Ellen White not only behave against the direct edicts you cite in these texts but they openly flaunt their disobedient behavior each and every Sabbath Day.

Is this just lip service to these texts you give so as to support your unBiblical position concerning women and ordination/leadership? Or do you and the SDA Church actually practice what you are preaching? Hmmmm!

I find those who are against the ordination/leadership position to be very duplicitous in the way they use the texts you have cited. Either you believe them and practice them down to the letter or your interpretation of these texts has been wrong all along. Which is it, my friend John317?

Some have said that the issue is not settled. I find the issue more than settled. The Bible and the Bible only is not against women being ordained/leadership in fact it actually supports women being in ordination/leadership positions both by Word and Example.

[miz3]

The culture argument doesn't hold water Miz3.

Why?

Because the original edict in Eden did not have any "cultural" ramifications.

That edict was given by God, to mankind.

That is the basis of womens positions in the church and home.

And the New Testament does not change that order of things.

If it did, I would accept it immediately.

But God has not changed His mind about His edict in Eden.

That is the issue.

Some questions for you:

1. Do you accept the Edict in Eden?

2. If yes, can you show where it has been changed in the Bible?

Once again that is a false argument.

The so-called "Edict in Eden" covers only the Home and does not cover the Church or anywhere else. On that basis alone that argument is false. The rest of what you say then has no value.

The edict in regards to the Home then has not changed and nobody is asserting that such has been changed.

The "Edict in Eden" says absolutely nothing about the Church. Nothing! Absolutely nothing! No where in Genesis chapter three is the Church mentioned or inferred.

That argument inserted/added to the Word of God things that are not present. This should cause great pause because it is a huge blasphemy to add things to the Word of God that are not there.

NO CHURCH! NO CHURCH! Home yes, Church no.

Thus, that whole argument falls.

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

The culture argument doesn't hold water Miz3.

Why?

Because the original edict in Eden did not have any "cultural" ramifications.

That edict was given by God, to mankind.

That is the basis of womens positions in the church and home.

And the New Testament does not change that order of things.

If it did, I would accept it immediately.

But God has not changed His mind about His edict in Eden.

That is the issue.

Some questions for you:

1. Do you accept the Edict in Eden?

2. If yes, can you show where it has been changed in the Bible?

Once again that is a false argument.

The "Edict in Eden" says absolutely nothing about the Church. Nothing! Absolutely nothing! No where in Genesis chapter three is the Church mentioned or inferred.

I see no biblical basis for that view?

Why?

Because the priests in the sanctuary where male.

All the leaders in the New Testament were male.

How did you come to that conclusion?

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: miz3

...The reason for the "study of the issue" is to buy time politically so as to find a suitable political solution to this thorny problem. The problem is not "thorny" because of any "spiritual doubt" but rather it is "thorny" from a political/organizational point of view.

Politics should have nothing to do with it. It can only be solved theologically, not politically. If the Bible doesn't clearly support it, and if there is serious question within the church about God's will in the matter, then the church has no business changing its position. The church shouldn't change its doctrines or positions in order to satisfy society or to be "politically correct."

So if the church makes the change without being able to show clear Bible reason for it, it has no valid foundationn for making the change.

I think you misunderstood miz3. He wasn't suggesting it was as it should be. I think we all agree that church politics shouldn't have anything to do with it. But church politics do come into the picture in a real and practical sense. It is in large part cultural politics. By that I mean it is bringing multiple and quite divergent cultural perspectives and blending them toward a consensus in operating and carrying out the mission of the church. You can't avoid it or dismiss it. You have to deal with it as a part of the governance of a world-wide denomination. All the votes thus far on WO have been along those lines with not a whole lot said or debated on the theology to any serious extent. The theological treatment preceding the votes has been superficial at best.

I think what is hoped is that theology will be the trump card to that political/cultural tension. And that is true of both sides of the debate. It is presumably theological consensus that holds us together primarily anyway. So if there is significant difference of opinion for whatever reason, that trump card would be expected to override the strong cultural differences.

But I am afraid that those cultural differences will strongly influence the theological "interpretation". We have already seen that happening. I think you will have strongly defined theological conclusions coming out of the division Biblical Research committees that run consistent with the cultural and current position held by those in control of each division. I predict that we will have 3 division study committees finding and concluding that there is clear support for WO. And there will be 3, maybe 4, divisions that will conclude strongly the exact opposite. The remaining 7, maybe 6, divisions will be a mixed bag, weakly finding insufficient support one way or the other.

That will mean that BRI here at the GC will hold the trump card. They will be criticized as being unfaithful and biased regardless of which way they go on the topic. The real test will be to see if theology truly can trump the politics of culture in this debate. I am just afraid that it won't... yet.

I think it will take a miracle, an unmistakable outpouring of the Holy Spirit, that will amaze us with the simplicity and clarity of the final consensus.

[ClubV12]

Good points Tom.

I think a lot of what is worthy of discussion today will not be issues worthy of discussion when in the later rain. I don't mean to discount at all those issues we NEED to discuss today, but they will pale when the later rain is poured out.

A lot of important doctrines we discuss now just won't be that relevant when we are looking at the coming storm of persecution. Primitive religion will be the key issue then. Many new converts, having just left their families, their jobs, being rejected by society will have little knowledge of doctrine. They will see and understand the Sabbath issue and the need to follow the Lord, no matter what. Just the basics will apply. If the male Pastor has left, as we know some will in the shaking, "leadership" may well fall to a woman. An assistant Pastor perhaps, an Elder, a Sabbath school teacher or even the janitor. Ordination or position won't be a problem, we will all be perfectly united and get to work giving the last message to earth.

[Tom Wetmore]

I see no biblical basis for that view?

Why?

Because the priests in the sanctuary where male.

All the leaders in the New Testament were male.

How did you come to that conclusion?

How do you reconcile that with the NT concept of the priesthood of all believers? I think it would be incontrovertible to say that "all" includes men and women.

[Twilight II]

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

I see no biblical basis for that view?

Why?

Because the priests in the sanctuary where male.

All the leaders in the New Testament were male.

How did you come to that conclusion?

How do you reconcile that with the NT concept of the priesthood of all believers? I think it would be incontrovertible to say that "all" includes men and women.

I would look at what the NT said specifically about the role of men and women in the church, before I assumed that the edict given in Eden had been replaced.

[CoAspen]

Sometimes I get the feeling we continue to define what 'it' is! Clinton seems to have left a legacy that too many people have taken to heart.

Constantly redefine untill you get the explanation that one wants!!!!

It really is quite amusing.

[Woody]

Quote:

It really is quite amusing.

Please define 'it'

Please define 'is'

(I have no problems with the other words - just it and is.

[John317]

All the votes thus far on WO have been along those lines with not a whole lot said or debated on the theology to any serious extent. The theological treatment preceding the votes has been superficial at best.

Then the Church is not ready to make the change. It first needs to study the subject in depth from a biblical perspective and come to its conclusions on the basis of Scripture alone. We have no business changing our position and practice without the World Church proceding on the basis of a consensus regarding the instructions found in Scripture.

We wouldn't make a change in any of our other doctrines without first studying the topic thoroughly and arriving at a conclusion of what it teaches, so why are we doing it in this case?

[John317]

miz3, your posts in response to the Bible texts I presented show that you don't understand them. We've discussed those texts dozens of time on this Forum, yet you apparently haven't read those previous discussions. Your objections have been answered many, many times before.

For instance, you claim that the texts prohibit women from doing any talking at all in the church. This is false. 1 Cor. 11 shows that women were able to talk in the church.

You also claim that the texts prohibit all woman from doing any teaching. No, they don't.

The primary issue is that women are not to have authority over a man. Notice that Paul's reason is what happened in Eden. He says nothing that suggests the reason has to do with what's happening in the local churches. In fact, 1 Cor. 14: 33b, 34 shows that Paul's instructions were for "all the churches of the saints." 1 Tim. 2 tells us why.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: Twilight II

The culture argument doesn't hold water Miz3.

Why?

Because the original edict in Eden did not have any "cultural" ramifications.

That edict was given by God, to mankind.

That is the basis of womens positions in the church and home.

And the New Testament does not change that order of things.

If it did, I would accept it immediately.

But God has not changed His mind about His edict in Eden.

That is the issue.

Some questions for you:

1. Do you accept the Edict in Eden?

2. If yes, can you show where it has been changed in the Bible?

Once again that is a false argument.

The "Edict in Eden" says absolutely nothing about the Church. Nothing! Absolutely nothing! No where in Genesis chapter three is the Church mentioned or inferred.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

...The reason for the "study of the issue" is to buy time politically so as to find a suitable political solution to this thorny problem. The problem is not "thorny" because of any "spiritual doubt" but rather it is "thorny" from a political/organizational point of view.

Politics should have nothing to do with it. It can only be solved theologically, not politically. If the Bible doesn't clearly support it, and if there is serious question within the church about God's will in the matter, then the church has no business changing its position. The church shouldn't change its doctrines or positions in order to satisfy society or to be "politically correct."

So if the church makes the change without being able to show clear Bible reason for it, it has no valid foundationn for making the change.