Are we using the right exegesis in the church for determining womens ordination?

[Tonyb]

There is a storm heading for the Seventh-day Adventist Church worldwide.

Read the rest of this article and study on the link www.ayin.dk or on Google Daniel 11 exegesis ayin.dk

If you do not have the time to read the whole of the study, then click on Daniel 11 Intro, Daniel 11:41 and Daniel 11 Conclusion, to read about the heart of the problem. e.g. we are not using the correct exegesis in the church to determine womens ordination.

 

[Kevin H]

I seem to be getting only the introduction to the article and not the full article unless it is very short and does not give any details.

 

Anyway, I find it interesting that Miller's exegesis was to study the text and the history to see how the text fit. Ford's exegesis was to study the text and see how the text was understood by people living in the dark ages and the dawn of the Reformation.

 

Now with Women's ordination, while there are some who are just liberals and pushing the liberal agenda and I do not have much sympathy for them we are also finding a similar debate as with 1844. You have those of us who are turning to the text and to the historical context of the text and they see the text as supporting women's ordination and sees that it was ideas such as Jesus Ben Sirach from the Second Century BC which changed the Old Testament level of women to what those opposed to Women's ordination believe, and you have those who opposes women's ordination who are looking at how the texts were interpreted by those who followed Jesus Ben Sirach and the Papacy when it down graded women to the same level.

 

They complain about Desmond Ford's methods, but when it comes to opposing Women's Ordination they are using Ford's methods and rejecting Miller's methods.

[Tonyb]

If you go to the top of the home page you will see Daniel 11:14 and Daniel 11:15 and so on. Click on these sub-headings and you

will get the full study for each verse..

[Kevin H]

Ok, I read them... See some interesting points on history but don't see what the author is trying to say much less it's application to this topic.

[Tonyb]

Dear Kevin,

If you read 5% you only get 5% of the message.

If you read all the study then you get 100% of what I am saying.

If you read the Intro and Conclusion and Daniel 11:41 you will get a quick resume of what I am saying.

We the SDA church are using the wrong exegesis for determining womens ordination.

One can not have two ways at looking at womens ordination from the Bible, only one way.

Like the sabbath and plan of salvation. There is only one way of solving these doctrines from the Bible.

However there are many ways in human eyes in trying to be saved or keeping a holy day.

Would you not agree?

[Kevin H]

I'm sorry but I work as a psychiatric nurse. Sometimes we get patients with elaborate words and quotes but which is hard to put together to find out what they are trying to say. I cannot tell the difference between this post and those patients.

 

It would help if there was an introduction that basically tells what the message is, then present the evidence and then give a concluding summery instead of a lot of information where others are not knowing what the author is trying to say.

 

Apparently this post is very important to you. I am sorry that I cannot make heads or tails out of it. Maybe you can try to summarize what you think the author is trying to say.

[LifeHiscost]

I'm sorry but I work as a psychiatric nurse. Sometimes we get patients with elaborate words and quotes but which is hard to put together to find out what they are trying to say. I cannot tell the difference between this post and those patients.

 

It would help if there was an introduction that basically tells what the message is, then present the evidence and then give a concluding summery instead of a lot of information where others are not knowing what the author is trying to say.

 

Apparently this post is very important to you. I am sorry that I cannot make heads or tails out of it. Maybe you can try to summarize what you think the author is trying to say.

I'm of the opinion that all of the suggestions followed will not remove the human's heart and mind to the point of infallibility. Perhaps we should ask the Pope for his advice on infallibility. Would we have any better chance of coming up error free in our understanding?

It seems to me this counsel below, when heeded, allows us enough wiggle room so when we're later proved to be wrong, we won't be quite so embarrassed.

 

  

God is Willing to Teach Others—The idea that one man’s mind and judgment can mold and direct important interests, and that he can be regarded as a voice for the people, is a great evil, and has, and still continues to endanger the one who is placed in a position of responsibility, and those also who cooperate with him. God has not given to any one man all the wisdom, and wisdom will not die with him. Those placed in positions of trust should modestly regard the opinions of others as worthy of respect and likely to be as correct as their own. They should remember that God has made other men just as valuable as they are, and that God is willing to teach and guide these men.—Manuscript 55, 1897 (June 3, 1897, Development of Workers). {ChL 36.4}

Credit Others With Some Sense—I have been shown that there is one practice which those in responsible places should avoid; for it is detrimental to the work of God. Men in position should not lord it over God’s heritage and command everything around them. Too many have marked out a prescribed one which they wish others to follow in the work. Workers have tried to do this with blind faith, without exercising their own judgment upon the matter which they had in hand. If those who were placed as directors were not present, they have followed their implicit directions just the same. But in the name of Christ, I would entreat you to stop this work. Give men a chance to exercise their individual judgment.{ChL 37.1}

  

 

God is Love! Jesus saves! 

[CyberGuy]

I read this interesting fact

 

Right now over 50 percent of our pastors are 60 years old in the North American Division. So in 10 years we will have to replace those pastors as they retire.

55 percent of the graduates from our seminaries are women. 

 

If we do not ordain women we are going to have a shortage of ordained pastors.

 

Only an Ordained pastor can

1. Baptize

2. Ordain elders and deacons

3. Organize a church.

[Tom Wetmore]

Actually, women pastors that are commisioned have been able to baptize for quite a few years now. The rest is correct...

[fccool]

...

 

Now with Women's ordination, while there are some who are just liberals and pushing the liberal agenda and I do not have much sympathy for them we are also finding a similar debate as with 1844. You have those of us who are turning to the text and to the historical context of the text and they see the text as supporting women's ordination and sees that it was ideas such as Jesus Ben Sirach from the Second Century BC which changed the Old Testament level of women to what those opposed to Women's ordination believe, and you have those who opposes women's ordination who are looking at how the texts were interpreted by those who followed Jesus Ben Sirach and the Papacy when it down graded women to the same level.

 

   Again, we run in with the same issue of "liberalism" to be a vague trash can label that means everything that's trash .  I find it a bit vague and disingenuous.   By which standards will we judge "liberalism", and how do we even begin to apply such definition to the Biblical narrative?   Jesus was fairly "liberal" when we compare it to "conservative Jews" of his time.   Luther was a "liberal".   So was Adventism at its inception, when they broke away from other contemporary denominations.

 

  I think it's time to ditch the term, and exchange it to something more fitting and appropriate. 

[fccool]

But, I have to agree with your take on this issue, if I interpreting it correctly.

 

There's so much "theological editorializing" going on in Adventist church, that it seems to be centered around the idea of sitting around in a circle and discussing the "proper exegesis" and "proper systematic theology".   That's always bothered me, from the day one that I've joined the church.   It almost seems like God would care more about the issue of women's ordination, jewelry, sabbath and etc... than he would care about people in the church being in debt, struggling through divorce, living in broken communities, and in an environment where "edutainment cycle" throws their kids into a mindset of perpetual narcissism and shallow and reactionary mentality that's very easy to control.

 

Where are the theological conferences on those issues with decisive plans of action?

 

Thank you for letting me vent

[aka]

UWho.... this topic theme has been misplaced, apparently.

 

Here is the sector for 

User to User Technical Support

[Kevin H]

I'm sorry that I do not understand what that post was trying to say. I've been getting comments that it does not need to be clarified so I am just going to say thank you for trying to share and I'm sorry that you don't want me to understand. I hope others are understanding better what the author is trying to say than I am. I am sad that I am missing the point.  

[debbym]

I'm sorry that I do not understand what that post was trying to say. I've been getting comments that it does not need to be clarified so I am just going to say thank you for trying to share and I'm sorry that you don't want me to understand. I hope others are understanding better what the author is trying to say than I am. I am sad that I am missing the point.  

 

I am not able to get the point either...

 

???