Changing my icon

[JonMiller]

By judging everything based upon the Bible.

JM

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

I like the discussion on EGW, because its relevant to me

My problem is, how can we say she was sometimes inspired and sometimes not? If thats true then, how do we know exactly what was inspired and what isn't?

I bumped the following thread as it might be a good place to discuss your question:
http://www.christianforums.com/t5678615-the-church-and-diversity-of-opinions.html

This is a very serious issue that needs to be talked about.

 

[NightEternal]

Here I am, reading Amazing Facts who state that women should surely not teach men and certainly NOT preach in church but yet hold EGW up to the same level of inspiration as the bible half the time! Mate, you can't have your cake and eat it too! Those verses they use against women would apply to EGW and if they don't mean that, then it shows the church is broken in its views on ordaining women.

Windmill, Amazing Facts does not speak for all of Adventism. Many, many Adventists support women's ordination, myself included. In fact, there are many things Doug Batchelor teaches that I take issue with. I would suggest you find a more balanced ministry to get literature from. I would highly recommend Lonnie Melashenko and Voice Of Prophecy:

http://www.vop.com/index.php

I have met Lonnie, and he preaches the straight up Gospel of Christ alone, just like Elder H.M.S. Richards senior used to (rest in peace Elder Richards.) His presentations at our camp meeting were awesome!

The only thing holding the church back from doing the right thing in regards to ordaining women is the ultra-conservative African/South American demographic, where many treat thier women like garbage. They have the numbers at every GC conference where this issue has come up, and thus, it is always voted down.

Southern California has done the right thing. Thier conference got fed up with waiting for the world church to get thier heads out of the dark ages and went ahead and began ordaining thier female pastors years ago.

Right on SCC!

 

[JonMiller]

There is still an issue with women's ordination?

I hvae been to many churchs with women (Sometimes multiple women) pastors. And even in the church I currently attend, which has EGW quotes and everything, women pastors are invited to come preach.

I really dont' think that this is much of an issue in NA anymor.

JM

 

[Windmill]

Windmill, Amazing Facts does not speak for all of Adventism. Many, many Adventists support women's ordination, myself included. In fact, there are many things Doug Batchelor teaches that I take issue with. I would suggest you find a more balanced ministry to get literature from. I would highly recommend Lonnie Melashenko and Voice Of Prophecy:

http://www.vop.com/index.php

I have met Lonnie, and he preaches the straight up Gospel of Christ alone, just like Elder H.M.S. Richards senior used to (rest in peace Elder Richards.) His presentations at our camp meeting were awesome!

The only thing holding the church back from doing the right thing in regards to ordaining women is the ultra-conservative African/South American demographic, where many treat thier women like garbage. They have the numbers at every GC conference where this issue has come up, and thus, it is always voted down.

Southern California has done the right thing. Thier conference got fed up with waiting for the world church to get thier heads out of the dark ages and went ahead and began ordaining thier female pastors years ago.

Right on SCC!

I know, I was just speaking of the hypocritical nature of his views.

The thing is, I don't agree in women ordination either, how do you explain the timothy verse?

 

[JonMiller]

Culture.

JM

 

[Windmill]

But if it was culture, why does he mention the reason why is because adam was made before eve and eve was the one decieved? He mentions a reasoning thats OUTSIDE culture.

 

[NightEternal]

The passages in Paul's writings do indeed reflect the culture he lived in. Women were considered inferior and not even fit to read the Torah in Jewish circles.

The headship principal that had its origins in Eden came about as a result of sin. This headship principal is not meant to apply across the board in every man/woman relationship, as some TSDA's such as Sam Koranteng Pippim and Sam Bacchiocchi contend. It is meant for the marriage relationship alone.

If you can get this book, you should and give it a read. It's called Women In Ministry and it was put out by Andrews University Press:

http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/wim/index.htm

Even James A. Cress, GC ministerial secretary and columnist for Ministry magazine, leading journal for our pastors, is pro-women's ordination.

 

[djconklin]

The only thing holding the church back from doing the right thing in regards to ordaining women is the ultra-conservative African/South American demographic, where many treat thier women like garbage.

In critical thinking classes one learns how to detect when people are trying to use loaded vocabulary to substitute for careful thought and analysis.

The headship principal that had its origins in Eden came about as a result of sin. This headship principal is not meant to apply across the board in every man/woman relationship, as some TSDA's such as Sam Koranteng Pippim and Sam Bacchiocchi contend. It is meant for the marriage relationship alone.

Where's the proof that it was meant for the marriage relationship "alone"?

BTW, the link doesn't work. Corrected: http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/wo/index.htm

When I finished the seminary my sister handed me a book on the issue and said that she and the head elder had read it and wanted to know what I thought of it. After three years of study I can now rip both sides.

 

[NightEternal]

It's in the book: Chapter 13, by Richard M. Davidson, beginning on p.259. entitled Headship, Submission And Equality In Scripture.

I have it right here in front of me.

Too scholarly for my taste, but that was the basic gist of it.

 

[djconklin]

But if it was culture, why does he mention the reason why is because adam was made before eve and eve was the one decieved? He mentions a reasoning thats OUTSIDE culture.

BINGO! You skipped over the part of the verse that says Adam was not deceived when he sinned--so that makes him a better candidate to lead? Ding, ding right up alongside the head! What Paul seems to be saying here is that while Adam knew he was in the wrong when he sinned, Eve did not and thus because she would not know she might easily lead people astray. We see it today when discussing this issue and people claim that there were women priests in the early Christian church and women rulers in the OT.

If you want to have fun with both sides tell them that if they can't explain verse 15 (since it is part of the context) then you won't accept what they say about verses 12-4.

 

[NightEternal]

In critical thinking classes one learns how to detect when people are trying to use loaded vocabulary to substitute for careful thought and analysis.

Conklin, what is this big hangup you have? You can't seem to allow people here to express any opinion without them having to provide about 200 footnotes, a 3 page bibliography, 160 online sources and no less than 20 eye-witnesses.

This an informal discussion forum, not a court of law.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

BINGO! You skipped over the part of the verse that says Adam was not deceived when he sinned--so that makes him a better candidate to lead? Ding, ding right up alongside the head! What Paul seems to be saying here is that while Adam knew he was in the wrong when he sinned, Eve did not and thus because she would not know she might easily lead people astray. We see it today when discussing this issue and people claim that there were women priests in the early Christian church and women rulers in the OT.

Actually the answer is that Paul uses the story differently depending upon his topic. In one place where he compares Christ with Adam, then it is through Adam that sin and death started. When he wants to talk about women keeping their place in the culture of society then Eve is the one who sins. If you look at the story neither of them is doing something innocent and only finding out later it was wrong. The story has the women talking about what God had said and then she decided that the fruit did look good and would make her wise. Then she gave some to her husband who was with her.

Paul is not trying to reveal new information about the story, he is trying to make a case in each example for something he is talking about in his day. Otherwise we are going to find that he does not even agree with himself. this is why we need to read the Bible as a series of cases studies rather then as a code book where one little statement is transferred to a completely different topic and used in a way that it was never meant to in its original context. That is what people have been doing with Paul saying that death came through one man. They then assume there was no death of any kind until Adam sinned. But that was not Paul's subject and not Paul's context. It is a manipulation to make it a statement about death in all forms when he is very specific that he is talking about death to man. Just as he is specific that Christ brings life to all men. Yet for some reason we don't carry that last part over to a universalism concept. The reason is that it does not fit our codebook agenda and that shows the whole problem with the codebook approach. It manipulates to a presupposed theory or it is not used.

 

[Mankin]

Note, the verse in Timothy, Paul said he forbids women to preach. He does not say that God forbids it. There is a difference.