doug yowell Posted December 10, 2011 Posted December 10, 2011 [The part in red is correct. Thus, while women do submit to men, so should men submit to women. Just like we pointed in the cases of Huldah and Deborah. Or don't you understand those cases at all. I certainly don't understand the logic you've employed. God had ample opportunity to clearly state what you've reasoned above but somehow failed to include the "Husbands submit to your wives as Israel submitted to Deborah" instruction. In fact, He neglected to even include the "Husbands, submit to your wives" part at all. Or the insight that "just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the husbands be to their own wives in everything." If your understanding is logically correct then everyone has to submit to everyone else and no one has to submit to anyone.Very strange.
doug yowell Posted December 10, 2011 Posted December 10, 2011 There are scholars who argue the points that Paul never did make those assumptions and that there were extra-ordinary circumstances for Paul to pen that counsel. There is historical evidence that shows we've come in the middle of a conversation that the partys understood, but that we do not. It is understanding the historical evidence that shows that Paul was not talking about the subjugation of women. And while you point out that men are to be "bishops", there is biblical evidence that points out men were not exclusive in thier holding of this office...or offices.. The result is that the extra ordinary instructions of Paul point to local problems, indeed....and are not necessarily universal. That is an assumption that you make, based upon your reading/scholarship[?]of men who also make the same assumptions.
Moderators John317 Posted December 10, 2011 Moderators Posted December 10, 2011 Are you talking about Bibical evidence? Or extra-biblical evidence? There are scholars who argue almost anything you can think of. But what we have to do is look at their reasoning and their evidence. You call it "subjugation" of women, but I don't think of it that way and neither did Paul. Where in the Bible are there women who are pastors, bishops, elders? I believe the Bible has to be our standard for truth and practice. 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.
Neil D Posted December 10, 2011 Posted December 10, 2011 So would that mean that Christ is not the "head"(authority) of the Church?(Eph.5:23)Kinda like the church on earth is now the "equal" of Christ and is fully capable of leading without His OK? Hmmmm, where have I heard that before? Um, try replacing the word "authority" and "head" with the word "source"....Picture becomes clearer, Doug... Ephesians 5:23 New International Version (NIV) 23 For the husband is the head [source] of the wife as Christ is the head [source] of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. If Christ is the authority of the church, where is that current authority displayed? I can show the "source" of the Church with it's growth and strength but I have this problem with Christ being the "authority" displayed without showing rebellion. And I think that we have seen women give of themselves to their men/husbands to the point where men truely are the source of the woman.... Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve. George Bernard Shaw
Neil D Posted December 10, 2011 Posted December 10, 2011 Originally Posted By: hamilton-beach There are scholars who argue the points that Paul never did make those assumptions and that there were extra-ordinary circumstances for Paul to pen that counsel. There is historical evidence that shows we've come in the middle of a conversation that the partys understood, but that we do not. It is understanding the historical evidence that shows that Paul was not talking about the subjugation of women. And while you point out that men are to be "bishops", there is biblical evidence that points out men were not exclusive in thier holding of this office...or offices.. The result is that the extra ordinary instructions of Paul point to local problems, indeed....and are not necessarily universal. That is an assumption that you make, based upon your reading/scholarship[?]of men who also make the same assumptions. Sorry, Doug...This is my observation from watching other scholars....for example- Grudem begins by criticizing two examples of classical Greek that Cervin presents. These are two of the examples used by Kreoger. a. All the articles and commentaries depend on only two examples of kephale in ancient literature: Herodotus 4.91 and Orphic Fragments 21a, both of which come from more than four hundred years before the time of the New Testament, and both of which fail to be convincing examples: Herodotus 4.91 simply shows that kephale can refer to the "end points" of a river---in this case, the sources of a river, but elsewhere, the mouth of a river---and since "end point" is a commonly recognized and well-attested sense of kephale , we do not have convincing evidence that "source" is the required sense here. The other text, Orphic Fragments 21a, calls Zeus the "head" of all things but in a context where it is impossible to tell whether it means "first one, beginning" (an acknowledged meaning for kephale ) or "source" (a meaning not otherwise attested). Don't expect you to understand all...but this should give you a taste of what is going on....And your accusations are groundless.... Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve. George Bernard Shaw
Moderators John317 Posted December 10, 2011 Moderators Posted December 10, 2011 If you rely on EGW and her thinking, you will be disregarding her counsel to seek that "greater light"...Especially since she called herself the "lessor light". The Bible is indeed the greater light and she was "the lessor light," but that doesn't mean we shouldn't pay attention to what she wrote. God raised her up as a genuine prophet to give His messages to the church. You sound like you think that Ellen White would counsel people to disregard her writings. Nothing could be further from the truth. Originally Posted By: hamilton-beach ...She obviously was aware that her counsel and her words were to be forever subordinate to the biblical counsel and principles....And while you believe that she does not cross the bible, she is definately not on par with the bible.... Of course her words are subordinate to the Bible. I personally knew Ellen White's grand-daughter and have been studying Ellen White for over 50 years. 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.
miz3 Posted December 10, 2011 Posted December 10, 2011 Originally Posted By: miz3 That text does not say that Ellen White is a prophet. No where in the entire Bible does it say that Ellen White is a prophet. That's true, miz3, but then I never claimed that the text says "Ellen White is a prophet." You inferred it.
doug yowell Posted December 10, 2011 Posted December 10, 2011 Um, try replacing the word "authority" and "head" with the word "source"....Picture becomes clearer, Doug... Ephesians 5:23 New International Version (NIV) 23 For the husband is the head [source] of the wife as Christ is the head [source] of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. If Christ is the authority of the church, where is that current authority displayed? I can show the "source" of the Church with it's growth and strength but I have this problem with Christ being the "authority" displayed without showing rebellion. And I think that we have seen women give of themselves to their men/husbands to the point where men truely are the source of the woman.... Yes, the distinctions become clearer. A source demands no submission, an authority does. "Why do you call me Lord (authoritarian or source?)Lord and don't do the things I say?"
Neil D Posted December 10, 2011 Posted December 10, 2011 Are you talking about Bibical evidence? Or extra-biblical evidence? Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve. George Bernard Shaw
miz3 Posted December 10, 2011 Posted December 10, 2011 Originally Posted By: miz3 [The part in red is correct. Thus, while women do submit to men, so should men submit to women. Just like we pointed in the cases of Huldah and Deborah. Or don't you understand those cases at all. I certainly don't understand the logic you've employed. God had ample opportunity to clearly state what you've reasoned above but somehow failed to include the "Husbands submit to your wives as Israel submitted to Deborah" instruction. In fact, He neglected to even include the "Husbands, submit to your wives" part at all. Or the insight that "just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the husbands be to their own wives in everything." If your understanding is logically correct then everyone has to submit to everyone else and no one has to submit to anyone.Very strange. [That] makes no sense at all.
doug yowell Posted December 10, 2011 Posted December 10, 2011 [Don't expect you to understand all...but this should give you a taste of what is going on....And your accusations are groundless....Why do you always get to be right? It's not fair!! All we poor non-scholars have to go on is our trust that God has preserved His truth through the accuracy of the Scriptures while you guys have access to those who have the real scoop on the true meaning of the translations. Alas, we are doomed!! I wonder what else I can't understand? Maybe I should just toss my Bible and wait for the truth to become clearer? Do you really think that changing the meaning of one word can alter the entire definition of the husband/wife relationship that God desires (and models)? I'm not buying it.
Moderators John317 Posted December 10, 2011 Moderators Posted December 10, 2011 You call it "subjugation" of women, but I don't think of it that way and neither did Paul. Originally Posted By: hamilton-beach I let the women themselves put a name to what they call it....and the word that they use is "subjugation". And they don't like it....in fact, it gives a bad picture of God being a fair minded individual....So they ignore Paul...and any man who uses Paul's words to subjugate them.... All the women I know want men to be the pastors and church leaders. You could say the same thing about God having only men as priests and only as the 12 apostles, etc. Why didn't Paul tell Titus and Timothy to choose women as leaders of the church? The SDA church is not subjugating women. I am going by what the Bible teaches. Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write what He wrote in the NT. Don't you agree with him? Are you a Seventh-day Adventist? Do you believe that Ellen White was a genuine prophet of God? 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.
Neil D Posted December 10, 2011 Posted December 10, 2011 ] Yes, the distinctions become clearer. A source demands no submission, an authority does. "Why do you call me Lord (authoritarian or source?)Lord and don't do the things I say?" And where in your text is the word "head" again? Since you didn't site the source, perhaps you can show me where it is... So we have cleared up the word "head" to mean "source"...now, where does it say that women are to be in subjection to men? Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve. George Bernard Shaw
miz3 Posted December 10, 2011 Posted December 10, 2011 Are you talking about Bibical evidence? Or extra-biblical evidence? There are scholars who argue almost anything you can think of. But what we have to do is look at their reasoning and their evidence. You call it "subjugation" of women, but I don't think of it that way and neither did Paul. Where in the Bible are there women who are pastors, bishops, elders? I believe the Bible has to be our standard for truth and practice. OK John317 if you truly believe in the Bible as our standard of Truth then why don't you accept the experiences of Huldah, Deborah, Miram, and Ellen White as Leaders over men. They plainly have and we have cited the very Bible texts and made our posts actually copy the text itself for your benefit to see the Words. Yet you deny, deny, and deny. I'd say anyone who does accept these women leaders as evidence is indeed for the subjugation of women. John317 we have cited these till we are blue in the face yet you keep denying the Truth. Then you ask, "Where have I denied the Truth?" Well John317 we have shown you from the straight Word. Why do you continue to deny the Scripture? John317 round and round you go where you are going no one knows.
Moderators John317 Posted December 10, 2011 Moderators Posted December 10, 2011 Where in the Bible are there women who are pastors, bishops, elders? Originally Posted By: hamilton-beach Oh, john...don't toy with me.... Who's toying? I don't toy with anyone. Answer the question. 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 December 10, 2011 Moderators Posted December 10, 2011 ...if you truly believe in the Bible as our standard of Truth then why don't you accept the experiences of Huldah, Deborah, Miram, and Ellen White as Leaders over men. Seventh-day Adventists do, of course, accept the experiences of Huldah, Deborah, Miriam, and Ellen White. We also accept the experiences of hundreds of men in the Bible. Deborah didn't lead men in battle. She sat under a tree and the men of Israel came to her. In other words, unlike the male judges, she did not have a public ministry as judge. Huldah was a prophetess, one of the few which points up the rule of men in leadership position among the people of God in the Old Testament. Miriam had no authority over the men in Israel. She danced and sang with the women. Ellen White did not function as an elder or pastor in the SDA church, but she was selected directly by Jesus Christ to give His messages to the church. 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 December 10, 2011 Posted December 10, 2011 [ Quote: You call it "subjugation" of women, but I don't think of it that way and neither did Paul. I let the women themselves put a name to what they call it....and the word that they use is "subjugation". And they don't like it....in fact, it gives a bad picture of God being a fair minded individual....So they ignore Paul...and any man who uses Paul's words to subjugate them.... I agree with this last statement except that they ignore Peter as well.On the other hand what about the majority of Christian women who agree with Paul's definition of submission and willingly and happily submit to it? There are perhaps thousands of Christian women's groups that are teaching the ladies how to submit in a Godly fashion and don't view it as subjugation? Or as one prominent woman leader of men once wrote: "...Had they (Adam and Eve) remained obedient to God- in harmony with His great law of love- they would have been in harmony with each other; but sin had brought discord, and their union could BE MAINTAINED AND HARM0NY PRESERVED "ONLY" BY SUBMISSION ON THE PART OF THE ONE OR THE OTHER." It is not the "edict" that is the problem it's the failure of the fallen race to cherish the principles of love in God's law that has resulted in the submission not being a blessing to the fallen race.You're trying to change the sentence in hopes that changing the order of things will result in heavenly peace and harmony. Not gonna work.
Dr. Rich Posted December 10, 2011 Posted December 10, 2011 On the other hand, can someone please show us where Jesus said anything about having leaders, teachers, pastors, or to have ANYONE with a position higher than anyone else? Matt. 23:8-10 "But do not be called teacher for One is your Teacher and you are ALL brothers [and sisters], and do not call anyone on earth your Father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And do NOT be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is Jesus Christ." Didn't Jesus send out His disciples to the whole world to make students (disciples) of Jesus, and to teach others to OBSERVE (keep) ALL that He (Jesus) commanded them? Would not that be the same as the true Gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven? (See Matt. 28 and 24:14)
Moderators John317 Posted December 10, 2011 Moderators Posted December 10, 2011 ...the experiences of Huldah, Deborah, Miram, and Ellen White as Leaders over men......John317 we have cited these till we are blue in the face yet you keep denying the Truth. They've been discussed thoroughly on the discussion about women's ordination: http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/350721.html 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.
Neil D Posted December 10, 2011 Posted December 10, 2011 Why do you always get to be right? It's not fair!! All we poor non-scholars have to go on is our trust that God has preserved His truth through the accuracy of the Scriptures while you guys have access to those who have the real scoop on the true meaning of the translations. Alas, we are doomed!! I wonder what else I can't understand? Maybe I should just toss my Bible and wait for the truth to become clearer? Do you really think that changing the meaning of one word can alter the entire definition of the husband/wife relationship that God desires (and models)? I'm not buying it. Hmmm...Sorry, what I meant was that I don't expect what I put up to be as clear as day...Sort of coming into the middle of a conversation and not understanding where it began or where it was going to... And Doug, don't worry about being a "non-scholar"...I can make you one...If you send $9.95 to me, I promise to send you a certificate that states you too can be a scholar...[insert eye-roll icon] EGW says that truth comes thru study. Implications are that we "see thru a glass darkly"....IOWs, we have somethings down, but not everything is as clear as glass. And yes, one word can change a meaning of the husband/wife relationship... and for that matter, can you really call that "husband/wife relationship" a true relationship? What is wrong with the partnership principle? So, um, when you are lording it over your wife, and she rebels, do you just command her to obey you and she does it? Does that headship principle really work when she tells you "no, ain't gonna do it!"? ....Or are you telling her that "we are in a partnership" when in actuality you are exercising those headship principles.....? Just askin'..... Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve. George Bernard Shaw
doug yowell Posted December 10, 2011 Posted December 10, 2011 OK John317 if you truly believe in the Bible as our standard of Truth then why don't you accept the experiences of Huldah, Deborah, Miram, and Ellen White as Leaders over men. I'd say anyone who does accept these women leaders as evidence is indeed for the subjugation of women. Miriam? Not a tribal head.Not of the priesthood. Not a consultant for the nation. However,she did try to gain equal access to leadership with her brother. Didn't work out so good for her.I guess God voted for subjugation. Ellen White? The brethren exiled her to Australia for a few years (she went willingly)and voted her husband as GC president instead of her.Deborah? Lost her position as judge to a reluctant man after the guy won one skirmish.Never got her props in the faith hall of fame. Leaders,yes. Heads, no.
miz3 Posted December 10, 2011 Posted December 10, 2011 Originally Posted By: miz3 ...if you truly believe in the Bible as our standard of Truth then why don't you accept the experiences of Huldah, Deborah, Miram, and Ellen White as Leaders over men. Seventh-day Adventists do, of course, accept the experiences of Huldah, Deborah, Miriam, and Ellen White. We also accept the experiences of hundreds of men in the Bible. Deborah didn't lead men in battle. She sat under a tree and the men of Israel came to her. In other words, unlike the male judges, she did not have a public ministry as judge. Huldah was a prophetess, one of the few which points up the rule of men in leadership position among the people of God in the Old Testament. Miriam had no authority over the men in Israel. She danced and sang with the women. Ellen White did not function as an elder or pastor in the SDA church, but she was selected directly by Jesus Christ to give His messages to the church. OK John317, if SDA accept these experiences of these women as leaders of His Church then they should have no problem with Women being Ordained/Administrators in the SDA Church .org. 1. Yet all your posts John317 deny that you actually believe this. We can only assume from your posts that you are for the subjugation of women. We also can only realize that you are misunderstand Paul and the Truth of what the Scriptures actually say on the subject. 2. Go back and look at the Bible in regard to Deborah and Barak. Barak would not go without Deborah so she did indeed lead men into battle. In fact read the Scripture carefully and you will find that she actually gave the order for Barak and the men to advance on the enemy. She Lead! A woman actually Lead men! I guess they did not hear the memo about the Edict in Eden, oh, that's right it was God who made Deborah the Leader of men in the Administration of Israel and also in Battle. Maybe God forgot His own memo. Is that possible John317. This is what happens when you really on other sources to interpret the Scripture for you. 3. The king and all his men asked Huldah what God wanted them to do. God, not humans, read it John317. Once again you demean and minimize what these women actually do even after we have shown from Scripture itself what the actual FACTS are. Why do you deny the FACTS, John317? Why do you minimize and demean these women when Scripture paints a completely different picture than you do. You exalt Ellen White's writings above the Bible and then in the next moment you say she was limited almost nothing in the SDA Church. It's about your credibility John317. We can look at your actions and what you say. We see above what you say and how you demean and minimize these women of God and God's choosing and who God placed over men. Yet just a few posts ago you stated that the Bible was the Standard. Now in the face of clear Biblical FACTS you deny the Truth. You deny the very FACTS the Bible says happened. You deny that Deborah led men in battle when the Bible actually says that Deborah did lead men in battle and actually gave the order to advance just like any male general would do. "Then Deborah said to Barak, “Go! This is the day the LORD has given Sisera into your hands. Has not the LORD gone ahead of you?” So Barak went down Mount Tabor, followed by ten thousand men. 15 At Barak’s advance, the LORD routed Sisera and all his chariots and army by the sword, and Sisera abandoned his chariot and fled on foot. 16 But Barak pursued the chariots and army as far as Harosheth Haggoyim. All the troops of Sisera fell by the sword; not a man was left." Judges 4:14-16. There it is John317, Deborah gave the order for Barak and all the men of Israel in that army to advance. I would say she led men into battle. Why do you deny this Truth?
Moderators John317 Posted December 10, 2011 Moderators Posted December 10, 2011 The Fall brought up about a situation where it was necessary that someone in the marriage be the head, and the Bible is clear that God chose the husband to be the head of the wife. 1 Cor. 11:3-- [3] 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. Originally Posted By: hamilton-beach Really? You mean that the word "head" is used in an authoritarian sense....If the word was intended to be used in that manor, you would have a point.... There are some scholars who even now argue that it is NOT being used in that sense. The word "head" also carries a different definition.... as a SOURCE..IE the head[source] of the river..... But that is not the way it is used in 1 Cor. 11. It says the head of Christ is God (v. 3). If it means what you claim it does, it would be saying that God is the "source" of Christ. But we know that is not its meaning here. The pre-existent Christ is self-existent. John 1: 1 says clearly that the Word was God-- i.e., that the Word was everything that God was-- and it is impossible for God to have come from God. Also, consider that verse 10 shows that it is using the word "head" to refer to authority: 1 Cor. 11:10 That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 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.
miz3 Posted December 10, 2011 Posted December 10, 2011 On the other hand, can someone please show us where Jesus said anything about having leaders, teachers, pastors, or to have ANYONE with a position higher than anyone else? Matt. 23:8-10 "But do not be called teacher for One is your Teacher and you are ALL brothers [and sisters], and do not call anyone on earth your Father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And do NOT be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is Jesus Christ." Didn't Jesus send out His disciples to the whole world to make students (disciples) of Jesus, and to teach others to OBSERVE (keep) ALL that He (Jesus) commanded them? Would not that be the same as the true Gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven? (See Matt. 28 and 24:14) Finally a good point from you Dr. Rich. With perfect Scripture no less.
Neil D Posted December 10, 2011 Posted December 10, 2011 Originally Posted By: John3:17 Where in the Bible are there women who are pastors, bishops, elders? Originally Posted By: hamilton-beach Oh, john...don't toy with me.... Who's toying? I don't toy with anyone. Answer the question. Here's a list....look it up yourself.... Rom 16:1 minister/President chruch Cenchrea Rom 16:3 Teacher/chruch leader Rom 16:6 church worker Rom 16:6 church worker Rom 16:7 Apostle Rom 16:12 church worker Rom 16:12 church worker Rom 16:13 Motherly figure Rom 16:15 saint Rom 16:15 Christian greeted by Paul Philipians 4 co-worker of Paul Philipians 4 co-worker of Paul Philemon 2 house chruch leader Acts 16:15 house chruch leader Colossians 4:15 house chruch leader Acts 21:8-9 prophetesses teachers, historians II John chruch leader Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve. George Bernard Shaw
Recommended Posts