Ordination is NOT scriptural

[Woody]

Thanks for your comments Gustave.

[doug yowell]

My last try at unconfusing your mind!! I spoke of no small group, your words, but individuals acting upon the calling of the Holy Spirit. You desire to have a group of men decide, based on past traditions, whether or not the spirit really called them. You have set yourself up as 'voice of God' instead of letting the words of and works of the individual speak as to the author of their choosiness.

Oh please!! Your version of the calling of the HOly Spirit seems to be the abandonment of John's admonition to "try the spirits to see whether they are of God or not." Yet,you seem to have no reservations about criticizing the voice of God coming from the opponents of WO,right? Our arguments come only from the revealed Scriptures and we don't need to reinterpret the translations in order to find a reason to change the meaning of what the Inspired apostles wrote. Everyone deciding in this debate will end up deciding through whom the Holy Spirit is speaking.

[Overaged]

By-The-Way,

Overaged, if that's your dog in that pic that's perhaps the most awesome shot....

...I've ever seen of a pug - it captured what they are.

LOL, thanks Gustave - no it's not mine but I know the person who owns it. Glad i could make you smile

[CoAspen]

Originally Posted By: CoAspen

My last try at unconfusing your mind!! I spoke of no small group, your words, but individuals acting upon the calling of the Holy Spirit. You desire to have a group of men decide, based on past traditions, whether or not the spirit really called them. You have set yourself up as 'voice of God' instead of letting the words of and works of the individual speak as to the author of their choosiness.

Oh please!! Your version of the calling of the HOly Spirit seems to be the abandonment of John's admonition to "try the spirits to see whether they are of God or not." Yet,you seem to have no reservations about criticizing the voice of God coming from the opponents of WO,right? Our arguments come only from the revealed Scriptures and we don't need to reinterpret the translations in order to find a reason to change the meaning of what the Inspired apostles wrote. Everyone deciding in this debate will end up deciding through whom the Holy Spirit is speaking.

I give up! You do have a penchant for ignoring what is posted in simple terms and riding a different pony. Enjoy your ride!

[Woody]

What a shame.

[Overaged]

As Tom said in an other post, but I will put it more earthy, be careful to not spit in the eye of the H*S!!!

This is simply another rhetorical insult to those who question WO. It is not wrong to question this, but it is wrong to thus malign those who do.

I think the very fact that such aggression re The Holy Spirit is evident must mean something is wrong for when the Holy Spirit is at work you don't usually have to tell people like this.

[olger]

One cannot reasonably claim that ordination is unbiblical and at the same time hold it up as the Holy Grail of "equality."

[Woody]

oh yes we can. Apparently you have not been listening.

[olger]

Is it not disingenuous to do so? Sort of like saying that the Sabbath is abolished and then trying to appropriate the biblical symbolic significance of the sabbath to Sunday.

[Woody]

missingpointitis

[Gibs]

God ordained EGW, what can you do about it. The best thing is to sit up and listen. Who's to say He won't ordain another or hasn't?

Two men refused Him so God picked and sent the "weakest of the weak", a woman, third grade education and frail and sickly. But she was willing and faithful.

He may do it again, but very doubtful.

How hard was it at that early time to have a woman preach and lead out and guide the church? It was hard "sledding" and James and Ellen were poor. James worked very hard in the fields for their living which was very frugal for many years.

"She Was The Right Stuff!" We need another to lead out a church today whether it be a man or woman what differece does it make?

I don't think there will be another to lead out a church but the 144,000 are on hand and I believe we are hearing from some now. With a popular message?, NO!

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[Gordon1]

Gibs,

Following on from what you say (which is true), God could raise up another messenger, or more.

But he/she would not necessarily spring from within Adventism.

However, they would be proclaiming all the light of historical Adventism (Bible & SOP), and more.

[Overaged]

God ordained EGW, what can you do about it. The best thing is to sit up and listen. Who's to say He won't ordain another or hasn't?

Two men refused Him so God picked and sent the "weakest of the weak", a woman, third grade education and frail and sickly. But she was willing and faithful.

He may do it again, but very doubtful.

How hard was it at that early time to have a woman preach and lead out and guide the church? It was hard "sledding" and James and Ellen were poor. James worked very hard in the fields for their living which was very frugal for many years.

"She Was The Right Stuff!"

yes, she was. But read the history more closely. She did receive "credentials;" but was never ordained by human hands. And that is what we are discussing here.

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: Gibs

God ordained EGW, what can you do about it. The best thing is to sit up and listen. Who's to say He won't ordain another or hasn't?

Two men refused Him so God picked and sent the "weakest of the weak", a woman, third grade education and frail and sickly. But she was willing and faithful.

He may do it again, but very doubtful.

How hard was it at that early time to have a woman preach and lead out and guide the church? It was hard "sledding" and James and Ellen were poor. James worked very hard in the fields for their living which was very frugal for many years.

"She Was The Right Stuff!"

yes, she was. But read the history more closely. She did receive "credentials;" but was never ordained by human hands. And that is what we are discussing here.

Do human hands trump the hand of God?

[Tom Wetmore]

Just curious what one should make of Paul's intent: "a man having one wife" it raises a number of questions: such as context, how that might apply to a woman (deaconess) etc.

Happy Sabbath

Excellent question. Does this apply to only male diakonos? Did Paul mean to exclude Phoebe, a female he also referred to as a diakonos?

Here is how I understand the original Greek to read literally for that phrase translated as "a man having one wife" - "one man woman". I think a single English word captures the original meaning of that Greek phrase - "monogamous".

Bible translation is done on average to a 8th-10th grade reading level. None are above a high school reading level. The choice here was for readability vs. precise literal meaning. The word "monogamous" is presumably above the typical reading level to which Scripture is translated.

[Gibs]

No Tom, human hands in no case trump the hand of God. Men finally did come around and recognize she was ordained of God.

The leading men "ordain" people to minister as they have gone through the schooling and meet their criteria. But it is you and I and all who hear the orator behind the pulpit must decide who ordained the orator.

Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

Ac 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

For men a service of ordination recognition is all we should ever pretend to do, then it may not be true.

In EGW's case, they were nailed dead to rights to give her credentials of recognition.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[Tom Wetmore]

I think leadership is the main issue here.

1 Timothy 2 is probably the most offensive passage to the feminist woman because it imposes limits on their public ministry and perpetuates male-leadership in the church. Several Pauline passages have become fashionable to be referred to as "problem passages" because they run counter to modern sensibilities. It should be noted, that they are only a problem to those who have different understandings, whatever the reason.

There are three prevailing attitudes that Bible students adopt towards these passages & others regarding the roles on men & women.

• Paul was wrong then, and he is wrong now. That is, he was sincerely mistaken in his views. Progressives/liberals normally pursue this line.

• Paul was right then, but he is wrong now. This is the culturally-conditioned argument.

• Paul was right then, and he is right now. That is, he was divinely inspired to set standards for all the churches down through "the last days." I believe this is the Bible’s position.

It is not matter of whether Paul was right or wrong either then or now.

Your categories are too simplistic. They fail to account for interpretation and understanding what he meant when he wrote it. Do we understand what he meant? Do we understand the context of what he was talking about? Are the circumstances and problems he was addressing the same as we face today? If not is there a principle we can derive from what he wrote that does apply today?

[Overaged]

Do human hands trump the hand of God?

It is quite evident, even from a cursory look at my post, that this was nowhere near the implication being made, nor is it the topic under discussion. I thought we were talking about WO?

[Overaged]

Originally Posted By: olger

I think leadership is the main issue here.

1 Timothy 2 is probably the most offensive passage to the feminist woman because it imposes limits on their public ministry and perpetuates male-leadership in the church. Several Pauline passages have become fashionable to be referred to as "problem passages" because they run counter to modern sensibilities. It should be noted, that they are only a problem to those who have different understandings, whatever the reason.

There are three prevailing attitudes that Bible students adopt towards these passages & others regarding the roles on men & women.

• Paul was wrong then, and he is wrong now. That is, he was sincerely mistaken in his views. Progressives/liberals normally pursue this line.

• Paul was right then, but he is wrong now. This is the culturally-conditioned argument.

• Paul was right then, and he is right now. That is, he was divinely inspired to set standards for all the churches down through "the last days." I believe this is the Bible’s position.

It is not matter of whether Paul was right or wrong either then or now.

Your categories are too simplistic. They fail to account for interpretation and understanding what he meant when he wrote it. Do we understand what he meant? Do we understand the context of what he was talking about? Are the circumstances and problems he was addressing the same as we face today? If not is there a principle we can derive from what he wrote that does apply today?

The 'three prevailing attitudes" therein are actually quite accurate, so that would be a good starting point. Nothing "wrong" with what was said there.

[Tom Wetmore]

Just that they are incomplete and do not account for a more relevant analysis. And really they are purely of a polarizing nature, unfairly labeling all but the third attitude as wrong/bad. In other words, according to olger's framing of it, only the last attitude can be correct. That says that anyone who disagrees with that perspective is wrong with an unBiblical attitude. It allows for no other approach to seeking understanding of what Paul says.

[Overaged]

Just that they are incomplete and do not account for a more relevant analysis. And really they are purely of a polarizing nature, unfairly labeling all but the third attitude as wrong/bad. In other words, according to olger's framing of it, only the last attitude can be correct. That says that anyone who disagrees with that perspective is wrong with an unBiblical attitude. It allows for no other approach to seeking understanding of what Paul says.

Fair enough; but is he calling you unBiblical, or your opinion/belief unBiblical? It is not wrong to judge an opinion or a belief.

It is also "polarizing" to accuse him or others opposed to WO of being biased or other, similar things.

I think both sides need to stop getting personal.

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

Do human hands trump the hand of God?

It is quite evident, even from a cursory look at my post, that this was nowhere near the implication being made, nor is it the topic under discussion. I thought we were talking about WO?

You were referring to her ordained minister credentials, weren't you? She was a woman, wasn't she? Put the two together and yes we are both talking about the ordination of a woman.

To suggest that the issuing of ordained minister credentials to EGW by the General Conference is invalidated by a technicality, trivializes what EGW herself said that God's hand upon her was sufficient. Conducting a human ritual of placing hands on her head and praying over her would not have changed anything or added to what God had already and unquestionably done.

However, as I recall, the statements of EGW about her never having been ordained by the ritual of laying on of hands was not specifically in reference to those credentials of being recognized as an ordained minister, but rather about her role as a prophet/messenger of God.

About the ritual she said this -

Quote:

God foresaw the difficulties that His servants would be called to meet, and, in order that their work should be above challenge, He instructed the church by revelation to set them apart publicly to the work of the ministry. Their ordination was a public recognition of their divine appointment to bear to the Gentiles the glad tidings of the gospel.

Both Paul and Barnabas had already received their commission from God Himself, and the ceremony of the laying on of hands added no new grace or virtual qualification. It was an acknowledged form of designation to an appointed office and a recognition of one's authority in that office. By it the seal of the church was set upon the work of God.

To the Jew this form was a significant one. When a Jewish father blessed his children, he laid his hands reverently upon their heads. When an animal was devoted to sacrifice, the hand of the one invested with priestly authority was laid upon the head of the victim. And when the ministers of the church of believers in Antioch laid their hands upon Paul and Barnabas, they, by that action, asked God to bestow His blessing upon the chosen apostles in their devotion to the specific work to which they had been appointed.

At a later date the rite of ordination by the laying on of hands was greatly abused; unwarrantable importance was attached to the act, as if a power came at once upon those who received such ordination, which immediately qualified them for any and all ministerial work. But in the setting apart of these two apostles, there is no record indicating that any virtue was imparted by the mere act of laying on of hands. There is only the simple record of their ordination and of the bearing that it had on their future work. {AA 161 -2.}

[Overaged]

To suggest that the issuing of ordained minister credentials to EGW by the General Conference is invalidated by a technicality, trivializes what EGW herself said that God's hand upon her was sufficient. Conducting a human ritual of placing hands on her head and praying over her would not have changed anything or added to what God had already and unquestionably done.

[Woody]

Quote:

It should be noted that neither the Bible, nor the spirit of prophecy calls Ellen G White a "Pastor,"

That would be incorrect and you might want to research it a little more.

[Overaged]

Quote:

It should be noted that neither the Bible, nor the spirit of prophecy calls Ellen G White a "Pastor,"

That would be incorrect and you might want to research it a little more.

Well; I am willing to learn things I don't know. You are going to supply references, are you not?