First and foremost, at the very top here of the ensuing editorial-journalistic commenting on the SDA Woman Ordination Deliberations, I’ll conveniently, but most succinctly, summarily cite what my arrived at “position” on this issue is, -(and comparatively, see the SDA’s TOSC 3-Position final report; see also final documents from here), by stating my understandings, as more fully discussed/presented in the rest of this post, and linked to postings, of its various underlying elements. So, when applicable, the various many Bible and SOP texts and episode which substantiate this position are not here rehashed in this summary. Therefore on:
Hermeneutics
Proper Biblical Hermeneutics, for this, (and all other Biblical issues), is, -though all the Bible is, albeit at varying degrees, inspired, firstly, -as modeled by Jesus: words/actions/prophecies which have directly/first-handly come from God. Other statements in the Bible also have Inspired authority, but they can actually only have circumstantial application. What God Himself says and does is what is overrulingly Supreme
Key (Pauline) Texts
New Testament scholarship has conclusively shown, from mainly evidence/indicators right in the Biblical text, that the very first epistle which Paul wrote was the letter to the Galatians. It is also rightly claimed that this was done shortly after the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15, and thus sometime around/in the year of 49 A.D. What is foundationally key here about that epistle is that, as Paul candidly, introductorily also relates in Gal 2:1-10, he was then broiled in a controversy of whether or not what he was preaching was actually Biblical Truth which had culminated in that Jerusalem Council convening (see Acts 15:1-6ff; Gal 2:1), and it evidently had taken a prophetic revelation from God to convince Paul to go to that meeting. (Gal 2:2). Now it seems that, because the Jerusalem Church, along with Paul, had come to agree in that Council that certain things in the Law of Moses were still applicable/binding on even Gentiles (Acts 15:19-29), [And to show how serious this whole affair was, to confirm/validate Paul and Barnabas that the Jerusalem Council were in agreement with Paul and Barnabas, they sent two other representatives with them, Silas and Judas. (Acts 15:27)], that Paul wrote this epistle to the Galatians, manifestly rehashing what He had priorly preached to them in order to confirm its still binding validity.
Objectively viewed, in this epistle, Paul goes on to (re-)make some of his most debately controversial claims about what the Gospel of Christ meant vs. the Old Covenant. Most of these claims are controversial because the are sweepingly made, without much detail, and thus can, and indeed have led many to jump to conclusions which are actually detrimentally extreme. (2 Pet 3:15-16) As a key matter of Fact, Paul himself (and also other NT writers) has had to repeatedly qualify many of the things which he had “sweepingly stated” in this epistle, in his other, subsequent letters/epistle. (E.g. about the continuing application of the Moral Law (i.e. Ten Commandments) itself in Rom 7:7-12; the symbiotic role of good works (but not ceremonial works of the law) in salvation/justification (Eph 2:8-10; cf. Jam 2:14-26). And it is in this controversial, and somewhat ambiguous, context that is found the statement at issue here of Gal 3:28. From the detailed discussion later on this verse, it is seen that Paul evidently did here claim that the Mosaic/Ceremonial Law which had also been making a distinction between men and women was no longer applicable to Christians. And it manifestly seems that because, frankly, ‘all chaos broke loose’ in the Church from that statement (e.g. women were being unruly in living out that liberty, (e.g. by being disruptive in Church/Synagogue services, where now they no longer had to, like Gentiles, remain outside, silent, looking in), that Paul had to make, what turns out to indeed be, further qualifying, explaining and ordering statements in [by order of epistle authoring dates]: 1 Cor 11:2-3ff; 14:34-36 [ca. 55 AD]; Eph 5:22-24ff [ca. 61 AD]; 1 Tim 2:12-15 [ca. 65 AD]. Succinctly summarized here, most of this calibratingly and balancing by Paul had to do with him also presenting the still binding Biblical fact that there nonetheless still existed a default male headship, and thus determinative authority, which the woman/wife must respect, and not usurp (i.e. without an actual Truthwise-warranting reason), and the man/husband must not (irresponsibly) neglect or abuse.
Objectively viewed, in this epistle, Paul goes on to (re-)make some of his most debately controversial claims about what the Gospel of Christ meant vs. the Old Covenant. Most of these claims are controversial because the are sweepingly made, without much detail, and thus can, and indeed have led many to jump to conclusions which are actually detrimentally extreme. (2 Pet 3:15-16) As a key matter of Fact, Paul himself (and also other NT writers) has had to repeatedly qualify many of the things which he had “sweepingly stated” in this epistle, in his other, subsequent letters/epistle. (E.g. about the continuing application of the Moral Law (i.e. Ten Commandments) itself in Rom 7:7-12; the symbiotic role of good works (but not ceremonial works of the law) in salvation/justification (Eph 2:8-10; cf. Jam 2:14-26). And it is in this controversial, and somewhat ambiguous, context that is found the statement at issue here of Gal 3:28. From the detailed discussion later on this verse, it is seen that Paul evidently did here claim that the Mosaic/Ceremonial Law which had also been making a distinction between men and women was no longer applicable to Christians. And it manifestly seems that because, frankly, ‘all chaos broke loose’ in the Church from that statement (e.g. women were being unruly in living out that liberty, (e.g. by being disruptive in Church/Synagogue services, where now they no longer had to, like Gentiles, remain outside, silent, looking in), that Paul had to make, what turns out to indeed be, further qualifying, explaining and ordering statements in [by order of epistle authoring dates]: 1 Cor 11:2-3ff; 14:34-36 [ca. 55 AD]; Eph 5:22-24ff [ca. 61 AD]; 1 Tim 2:12-15 [ca. 65 AD]. Succinctly summarized here, most of this calibratingly and balancing by Paul had to do with him also presenting the still binding Biblical fact that there nonetheless still existed a default male headship, and thus determinative authority, which the woman/wife must respect, and not usurp (i.e. without an actual Truthwise-warranting reason), and the man/husband must not (irresponsibly) neglect or abuse.
But in all of this defaulting of the issue here to male headship; God (vs. Paul, or other men) also directly, and not only circumstantially through provided Biblical Truth, had, through the anointing/ordaining workings of His Holy Spirit, the final say as to who, whether male or female, could have, whether in the home or in the Church, the leader/head-ship.
Headship (Home)
Headship (Home)
There is a deliberately default headship in/for the home, and this is supposed to be the male, and that headship is only applicable in matters of genuine decisional deadlock. Then it is supposed to be that the person who is actually more Spiritual, i.e. then in tune with God’s actual will, has the determinative authority. In other circumstances, the male and the female, pointedly in the resetting New Covenant are “equal” as Adam and Eve originally were.
Priesthood
There no longer is a priestly position in the NT Church/Era. Pastors and Elders are not priests. All people, male and female, are their own priest, -being able to deal with their sin/uncleanness issues themselves, with Jesus being their (Heavenly) High Priest. Claiming/Thinking that Pastors are priest is a “Babylonian”, blindly cherished vestige of Roman Catholic usurpingly heretical, “man (both male-wise and humanwise)-empowering”, “theology”.
Ordination
Ordination is only the “anointing” presence of God’s Holy Spirit in the life of someone which empowers and assists them in a task in/for God’s Israel. This “ordination” comes directly from God, and is readily manifest through Biblical examination/comparison, and can also be bestowed upon another truly recipient one at the prayerful request of one who has already been anointed/ordained.
There also is no such thing as “stepped ordination’ or a ‘not-yet, or un-, ordained’ leader in God’s Israel for any of its positions, including overseers(=presidents), of: pastors, elders, deacons. That is just the desperate out of a self-serving Church without Spiritual discernment nor Biblical fortitude. A person is supposed to already be ordained for any of these position, by manifesting God’s Spirit in their function. (e.g. 1 Tim 3:10; cf. 5:22). A person who does not act according to God’s Spirit is not only not ordained, but should therefore be removed from that position.
Ordained Leadership Structure
The Bible/NT clearly models and stipulates that there is an explicit and/or inherently bindingly determinative leadership order in God’s Israel, all related to who actually has the most direct communication with God. Therefore Prophets hold the topmost ordained leadership position, closely followed by Apostles (=ambassadors). If an apostle had directly been commissioned by God for a task, then they are on the same level as the prophet, until/unless the prophet has a new revelation from God on a matter which supercedes what the apostle’s commission. (E.g. Agabus vs. Paul).
Headship (New Israel|Church)
Therefore, from all of the above reasons, also God’s NT Israel, the Church, if a woman is ordained by God to have a position of leadership over that of other men, then she does have this headship right/role. That was also precedented in the OT with God Himself placing women in the topmost leadership positions of Judge and Prophet. Proper Biblical testing is now the only determinant in such matters of Church Headship right, and not (also) gender...and this determination is actually revealed in who is actually pursuing God’s will.
Most prominent and simple manifestation of this fact: leaders, whether male or female, who are not intending/endeavoring/acting to remove, particularly capital/abominable sins in God Israel, are just not, no longer “ordained” by God, and are just “mis-leading” God’s people. They therefore should be replaced by those who will fully do God’s will.
The Revived Issue that Divides
In the revived controversial issue on women ordination in the SDA Church is, in its adversaring self, another carefully crafted diversion of the Devil to distract the Church. Yet it also is another issue that has its roots in the revered dysfunction and deficient scholarship of pertinent Church Scholars and Leaders. I have deliberately refrained from making any comment, especially any dedicated comment on this issue in this blog because I personally did not want to take my time to address that issue, which requires an indepth Biblical study, but having perused the issue, as it has again come to the forefront, see this dedicated, (apparently Amazing Facts) website, (see also this (other?!) “-truth” one), but here, I’ll make the following succinct comments which may be helpful to (re-)calibrate the issue to where it should be. The January 21, 2012 sermon, and then this April 2012 sermon, by Dwight Nelson on this issue/topic (the second sermon being during the NAD’s 2012 Women Clergy Conference) are quite clarifying on this matter, not surprisingly because it is well/deeply exegetically rooted. See also this March 2012 sermon of Randy Roberts on this issue, -foundationally based on the Gal 3:28 statement, as well as his similar PUC Constituency meeting sermon [video - 02:15:37-02:41:50] [transcript] Similarly the 2012 “broad-cast” 2-Part study of Andrew’s University NT Historical Theology professor Darius Jankiewicz (See here; and also, a prior presentation here & here) is a good, (though in certain exegetical parts in regards to the “governing authority” that Paul was pointedly speaking about in 1 Tim 2:12, not perfect), step/start towards properly understanding that issue:
-The issue of the default non-education of women in the time of Christ, particularly in Biblical Scholarship, is probably the reason why Paul “personally” did not accept that a woman should be a teacher over a man. (1 Tim 2:12) And Paul did clearly say that this was his personal view: i.e., he did not say “God does not allow...”, but “I do not allow...” yet nonetheless stated his Biblical reason why (1 Tim 2:13-14). Also the word: “have authority” actually more forcefully involves ‘having self-derived/established’ authority’. In other words, a woman deciding out of the blue that she should be the “governing authority” in her household. Combined with the fact that women were uneducated then and also the Biblical natural order of things where the Man was created first, it indeed, especially in the time of Paul, was not natural for a women to ever be in a position where she could exercise any authority over the educated, especially if religiously-educated, man. Conversely, it is not out of this actual “effective/tangible” order of things that, e.g., a spiritual woman who, moreover, has both a general and seminary education to be the spiritual head of a household, if the husband is himself deficient in those areas. As many husband jokingly, nonetheless, admit/confess/recognize, their wives usually already is the temporal head of the house [and given the also involved natural “relational” reality here, as it was with Adam (see PP 56.2), this may be an added/technical reason why God gave a definite authority to man over the woman after sin], so if she also is more spiritual, and(/or) spiritually educated than the Man, than she, in the post Cross era, should (also) be that spiritual head of household. And in the case of a “tie” on all of those elements, then there would tangibly exist the original status that existed before sin, where then Adam and Eve were coequals in this area. That’s all a hard pill to swallow for some, but it is the Biblical truth. So God’s aim here is: If you want to be a leader in his order of things, indeed a spiritual leader, then aim to be as adequately knowledgeable and spiritual as possible. Can’t spiritually go wrong with this implemented. In fact the husband and wife should be aiding each other to equally attain such levels, thus effecting God’s original intent for the married couple.
However, God has shown from the Old Testament right through our day, that He at times can fill a woman with his spirit where she clearly/demonstrably then has the required, especially spiritual qualifications to have authority. (E.g., the (Israel-wide) Judge Deborah in the OT and Ellen White in recent times). It is the Church’s responsibility to recognize such demonstrations of God’s Special Spiritual empowering, in whom ever He has chosen to gift it to, whether a man or a woman, and duly ordain that person, so that they can have the official/recognized permission to freely and fully exercise this gifting in Christ. Indeed not even every/any man/male is ordained but only those who are manifesting a clear special gifting of God. (Eph 4:7-12).
And that ordination is, or at least Biblically should then be, because that person can be trusted to make difficult decisions which may require a special guidance of God. The SDA has effectively set up a special “wooden” category of what those situation should be and that is: recognizing the special gifting of God in another person and ordaining them; recognizing when a couple is serious/ready about entering into a marriage covenant and marrying them; and determining when a person is ready to be baptized and baptizing them. Indeed others will then have to trust that validating decision/action of the ordained person in those key matters, including for marriage, the State, so a person who is trusted to be able to make proper spiritual decisions indeed needs to fulfill that position.
That said, the claim that ordination is equivalent to a priest’s function is actually not Biblical, for, on one hand, all believers are now, or should be, priests. (1 Pet 2:5, 9; Rev 5:10 cf. Exod 19:6). So making this equivalency between ordination and priesthood is setting up an unbiblical order, much like the various authority which is solely given to a Catholic priest, especially in Medieval days, and which still have residual effects today, such as asking for forgiveness, reading the Bible, etc. So unless the SDA Church recognizes that ordination is only dealing with Spiritual Gifting which the Bible is exemplarily and didactively clear throughout can be given to any man or woman that God sustainedly chooses, then they actually are trying to defend a non-biblical, manufactured “SDA priesthood” order. Since the Cross, all in God’s Israel are to be priests, in that they can for themselves obtain cleansing for their sins from Christ and can also lead non-believers into obtaining this forgiveness, whereas only an OT priest could do so before the Cross. Indeed this is what this strikingly and radically meant and involved with particularly with Jewish Christians in the Apostolic, and pre-70 A.D. Temple destruction, Church. And, most theologically significant, mind you that, technically, the OT priesthood was never artificially and non-spiritually limited. It really was actually because, though both Adam and Eve had sinned, that Eve was considered to have been the one who “rebelled” (=1 Tim 2:14), and was thus more severely, personally, punished for this (Gen 3:16) with Man, from then on, (until the Cross), being given the spiritual authority over her. However, later on, it was because the Levites had not taken part in that Golden Calf sin/apostasy (PP 324.1), though, as with Aaron, their ‘non-opposing’ neutrality was guiltless, but then took a definite stand for God at Moses’ call (Exod 32:26ff), that they were exclusively given the authority to function as priests, indeed over the other males throughout Israel. But since, the Cross has resolved that issue for all those who, typologically enough, ‘take a stand for Christ’s sacrifice’.
Indeed ordination itself is a completely different Spiritual issue, with indeed the “rite” of the laying on of hands/pouring of oil symbolizing either a transference of one’s spirit or the fresh unction of God’s spirit unto another who God wants to use in a more spiritually specialized, leadership, way, and it (ordination), does not actually involve the right to administer ‘set rites’ per se, but the widely recognized authority of a person, whether male or female, to take/make/state a pointed Spirit-led decision on some special issue. Indeed if EGW was considered as being an ordained minister for particularly the reason that the Church recognized that God was specially guiding her through a special impartation of His Spirit in various key matters of the Church and individuals, then how can it be claimed today that women cannot (“continue to”) be ordained.
Indeed ordination itself is a completely different Spiritual issue, with indeed the “rite” of the laying on of hands/pouring of oil symbolizing either a transference of one’s spirit or the fresh unction of God’s spirit unto another who God wants to use in a more spiritually specialized, leadership, way, and it (ordination), does not actually involve the right to administer ‘set rites’ per se, but the widely recognized authority of a person, whether male or female, to take/make/state a pointed Spirit-led decision on some special issue. Indeed if EGW was considered as being an ordained minister for particularly the reason that the Church recognized that God was specially guiding her through a special impartation of His Spirit in various key matters of the Church and individuals, then how can it be claimed today that women cannot (“continue to”) be ordained.
So by inherent definition, anyone who is given a position of authority/leadership in the Church, whether Conference official, pastor, teacher, scholar, “prophet”, should also be ordained. Or more accurately, should already be demonstrating a special gifting of God for that key responsibility.
So in conclusion here/for now, to this brief statement on this issue, the Church should be looking to the manifestation of God’s Spirit in the life and ministry of a person, whether male or female, and not “chauvinistically” limiting this special gifting of God’s on one’s gender.... And, in continuance of what was already stated above, in the absence of any manifested, or effective, gifting, as Paul evidently is stating in 1 Tim 2:12-14, the natural order of things is that it is the man who should defaultly have the authority due to the fact that he was created first. (Much more can be said from that latter point/principle, but I personally don’t have the free resource of time to do so, at least for now.)
Post Script #1
[This first posts script has come to contain inaccurate information and statements as these were based upon various “effectively official” SDA statements and information on the internet and during the following Constituency Meeting, which were then not challenged or corrected by none present. These misinformations have notwithstanding been left here as is but, and as these are then entirely inapplicable, highlighted for the overall documenting of the foundational ‘dysfunctional and deficiency’ problem of SDAs on this contested/debated issue. The corrections of this statements is however later made in the context of, and statements in, Post Script #2]
August 16, 2012 - I have just viewed the complete, 4-hour, July 29, 2012 deliberation of the Columbia Union Conference Special Constituency meeting (see video here) on the issue of ordination of women... and let’s just straightly say here: “I want those four hours back!!” Not actually for the many and majority valid arguments that were made in support of Women Ordination, but pointedly because, as I found out in the points being presented, that way back in 1881, the General Conference had already voted to give the Union Conference this “authority” to ordain Women if they chose to. (And it was around that general time that Ellen White herself received formal credentials as an ordained minister, (though is actually a debated issue as to what that “ordination” really was.)) So that whole 4-hour deliberation itself, which I understand involved significant enough costs, was, (and as a point of amendment [03:19:12-03:21:53ff] in regards to that detail tried to redress, but was most evidently mindlessly/“moronically”, and that because it was basely done so, i.e., the delegates wanted to go home, eat, and/or ‘go watch the “Olympics”...or do whatever else on that Sunday’, resoundedly voted down), an entire “redundancy” as the Union Conferences already unchangedly had that (discretionary) authority to ordain Women. (Cf. this statement by a Retired GC Field Secretary)
So, (and again this is not taking away anything for the most valid Biblical, Spiritual, Historical, Ecclesiastical points that were made), all of this was much more, even wholly, a perfect demonstration of the general and specific dysfunction and deficiencies that exists in the Church, from all involved Conference officials not knowing of that already “authorized” authority; to also the spatters of confusing confusions over how to properly conduct the deliberation, to the various demonstrations of many of those present not knowing of the precise Biblical teaching on this issue, -which is the perfect powder keg for this decision causing disunity; to the artificial limitations that were imposed on the deliberations, such as not wanting to take a lunch break so as to not ‘lose delegates in the typical SDA Business meetings lunchbreak “rapture”’.
That is all how a Church continues to waste the resources which God has given it by having an individualistic basis where systemic dysfunction then “naturally” reigns supreme and rules by affecting a final decision, pointedly in regards to a solid decision, which needs to have a properly prepared and communicated deliberative process. You do ‘reap, and that much worst, than what you had sown.’ (Hos 8:7). There is no excuse for anyone present there (e.g., (and there were several), at 03:17:05-03:19:11) and those at home who will hear of that decision, to still be in confusion as to what the Bible actually teaches on this issue. So, as per the, in this part, also read, General Conference policy states, as that responsibility of “‘defining/confirming/officializing Church Doctrine fall within the jurisdiction of the General Conference, then that is actually their fault. And it is actually here that the General Conference’s position of “unity”, as expressed by GC President Ted Wilson (see here and here) would only be valid, as he has pointed out that the GC has already set in motion a Scholarly committee to, most importantly, define the Theology of Ordination, but then again, the Global Church has been quite lethargic and/or variously deficient in such endeavors in the past, and apparently now this all seems to necessitate (at least) another 4 years to accomplish, (Really??!), which is evidently why the CUC decided to go ahead take this vote, which nonetheless...it already had. But worst to this is the fact that several other Union Conferences are going to have similar deliberations, with the PUC being next on August 19, 2012 (See here).
So for pointedly the sake of the Gospel, given the time and money that is going to be wasted on such factually “redundant” deliberations, my, actually not vacuously/whimsically labelled “counsel” here is that Unions who want to ordain women should summarily (as if that is technically even necessary, -thus by merely a Union communique (and from what I implying heard, the CUC may have considered that action), go ahead and exercise that already granted GC authority, which again, and perfect example enough, had been exercised in regards to Ellen White, and, through its documenting support, instruct and have its Conferences to have their pastors explain the (quite clear) Biblical and Historical basis and justification for this to members in their local Churches. And if there then still exists a resistance to this, which may, at least in the North American Division, typically be along similar to the 20% which have opposed that CUC motion, then, as this authority had been unchangedly grant by the 1881 General Conference, then they could table a motion to challenge that prior GC decision at the 2015 GC. Procedurally simple as that, and God has indeed given the Church this deliberative and also democratic form of government to avoid such wastes of various resources, as well as to prevent the present confusions and strife. So all of the fault lies with the leading up and present, improper sustainment and implementation of this Gospel Order.
All this may sound like technicalities, but as this process will be repeated in other Unions, then it most tangibly does add up...but do be my guest if ‘being wasteful stewards of God’s resources is an inevitable “necessity.”’ This only is the case when those resources were not properly “invested” and “developed” (i.e., the Scholarly and Pastoral knowledgeable responsibility and membership teaching duties) to start with, as stated above. (Hence my introductory referencing to the encountered exegetical sermonic studies of e.g., Dwight Nelson[1], et. al., on this issue.).
Post Script #2 - PUC Constituency Meeting
August 22, 2012 - So the Pacific Union Conference, August 19, 2012 Constituency meeting to decide Women Ordination has now come and gone, and really, as the final 79%-21% in favor decision was effectively rendered moot by the failing to priorly change a bylaw which would have ‘freed’ the PUC from having to follow “all” General Conference policy failed to meet the needed 2/3 vote by 1%. However, at least for me, the worthwhileness of the 4.5 hour deliberation (see video here), was in further highlighting and exposing the foundational and hindering dysfunctionality and deficiencies in SDA Church operations. For the sake of my time, these points will not be fully developed here but merely stated in (actually) succinct “bullet” points. (They are not necessarily always made in a chronological and/or sequitur order/way.).
-As it was [finally] clarified that the 1881 GC “resolution” to ordain women was not subsequently approved by the (then 3-person) GC Committee, and it was also never reintroduced at a GC session, Unions do not actually have this right to ordain women.
-Therefore, in that case, the actual “Gospel work stewardship” principle (~Jos 5:13-14) from the “counsel” given above, would conversely be applicable in: awaiting the GC’s Biblical Research, which Ted Wilson has explicitly stated aims to be most thorough, and that particularly as the Gospel will actually not be detrimentally affected by a now two-more year delay for ordaining women, particularly as it is not even sure what “ordination” should tangibly involve. The other option would be for the Union themselves to do those studies, but that would clearly be redundant and thus a waste of resources. So manifestly, the only limitation on women here would be that they will not be able to become “Presidents” of SDA organizational entities, and apparently also not conduct/do their own baptisms, wedding ceremonies and (male) ordination services. The Gospel is actually not hindered by this since, of course, during this time of ascertaining, already ordained (male) ministers can be called in to do these things.
And, seriously speaking to another often mentioned issue, if the (properly understood) fact that a woman would only not be able to do these above stated things/functions or become a President kept any woman from pursuing their Pastoral Ministry “calling”, then they were really going into this for the wrong reasons. For/And as it was done with “the weakest of the weak” EGW, indeed as God typically, neededly, does, it is when a person is in a state of unresolvable disadvantage and/or strong-arming/lawless opposition that He supernaturally comes to sustaining, validating and/or empowering aid of such an individual. And in/through such cases, it is most strikingly revealed that those in the opposition are actually “fighting God”. (Acts 5:33-39; 10:34-35ff, 44-48). [cf. this sermon by Hyveth Williams]
-Judging by the arguments of several opposing delegates, despite claims that there are, and also that prior GC examinations found: ‘no biblical statement opposing the ordination of women’ there clearly still is a quite, and honestly so, entrenched belief that the Bible actually teaches otherwise. And the whole reasons for this are really varied to also include a confusion as to what ordination itself really is, who can function as (supposed) “priests”, etc.
-In the face of this fact of genuine Biblical certainty confusion, the general calls and expectations that God would impart His Spirit to guide to the proper decision was fundamentally wrong because, as seen with pioneer SDAs, when trying to resolve a doctrinal issue, God only gave EGW special revelation to guide into the proper understanding of a text, and not to a decision as a whole, especially not despite misunderstood pertinent text or confusions over those texts. So I do not see that God would be sanctioning this actually preferred confusion when SDA Scholars should have, as they are now quite educationally capable, provided a united and most conclusive exhaustive exposition of all of the applicable passages and issues involved in this topic. Then could a proper decision be made, and as this, with the hards facts then all in, would then actually strictly involve a free choice decision, it is then unlikely that God’s Spirit would actually be, effectively, making that decision for someone. God never does for man, what they have the power to do for themselves. (As discussed here, that tangibly is actually too “costly” for God).
-Therefore the GC proposed Research Committee should really be given, as they say, a chance to do its work, which hopefully will now be, especially substantively, a ‘once and for all’, examination, (and there should also be a means, if this not already a possibility, by which Pastors and also Lay People can submit their own studied findings to this Research committee), as the present voting despite genuine uncertainties and inconclusivity will indeed only produce degrees of disunity. All wasting the various resources of the Church, including the ministering time of delegates. (And, though I am not factually sure here, yet an unnecessary and wasteful expense is nonetheless made, but the Union may also be paying for or reimbursing (from the tithe) the displacement (e.g., gas-mileage, transportation and hotel fare), expenses of their delegates for such remote, major committee meetings.) A sample, pertinent case in point, the Northern Union Conference of Germany had similarly voted to ordain women to the ministry, however they later suspended that decisions at the advice of their Division in order to allow the GC Research Committee to do its work.
-While many sermons and papers, even scholarly papers and books have been presented on this topic, there really lacks a definitive and clear Global Church wide decision/production, where moreover all of those individual contributions, whether for or against, are taking into proper consideration. Hopefully the present GC Research committee will do this. Otherwise fragmentation will continue to exists on this issue with people sectarianly going by what whatever they (personally/subjectively) deem to be true.
-The prayer/desire that the meeting would be conducted as per the Zech 4:6 principle of ‘not by might, but by that Spirit’ actually fell flat as, with the Biblical and Historical studies not then conclusively done by then, the decision was actually instead made under a degree of compellation [= “might”] including the several forceful pulpit and floor claims that ‘there were no texts which opposed women ordination’. Clearly not every present there validly considered that to be a conclusive fact.
-It was personally reassuring to me to see that available, more precise vote counting technology was used in this Session, (and this “precision” should be the default requirement for all such SDA sessions right up to the General Conference Session), because the delegates survey approach, as used in the CUC meeting, is not at all optimal. Case in point, I am sure they would have missed the 65% count that occurred in the PUC meeting and just assumed that it was a 2/3 vote. (Hopefully they would have judged that a written or counted ballot vote would instead be necessary). There should also be a documentation of how each delegates voted so that the local constituency that they represent can transparently, informedly know if they want to have that person be their delegate for other sessions.
-Quite evidently, the PUC Session was much more costly than the CUC meeting, as: it was held in a Hotel and not an SDA Church, though, especially for one day during the summer months, a University Campus, like Loma Linda University would have probably been just as “accommodating”, [unless of course they charge the same, or higher, “accommodating” rate as that Marriott Hotel!!]; the utilized, rented, vote counting technology (really the SDA Church, at at least the Division level should purchase such technology (which manifestly costs ca. $40 per unit), and lend them out to various Constituencies as they hold such meetings, or, of course, simply have local volunteers serve in the meeting as sectional ballot vote counters [and also for vote registering documenters]. Sure that latter option will take a little more time, perhaps 10 minutes per vote, but it will practically be free.)
-The CUC and now PUC deliberation highlighted/exposed a very significant deficiency in the SDA organizational operational structure, and that is that, although, like the country in which it is headquartered, the USA, it has, (as actually pre-monarchial OT Israel had) separate Legislative and Executive powers, it actually does not at all have an explicit, or at least standing, “Judicial Power”. And that is most strikingly seen in the fact that in such discussion, (and this is a phenomena which I have personally microcosmly encountered in various Biblical discussion with SDA on e.g., internet forums), people merely, effectively, “spout off” their personal views and opinions and....that is overwhelmingly it...unless the person makes a completely irrational claim. There is, particularly in non-policy matters, -for there is at least one Conference Legal Representative present, no one who “judges” whether what was said was true, factual, Biblical or not. So, e.g., a delegate gets up and claims that this text, precedence and/or policy supports or opposes the action, and there is no “truth/fact/judicious-checking” of that claim. Instead, and most mimickingly as the lamented days of Ancient Israel when ‘there was not a judge in Israel’, everyone is left to do/decide whatever is right/truth “in their own eyes”. If a “judicial panel” made of up e.g., Scholars from pertinent Biblical Research Institutes was also present, the many quite simple errors which are left standing as truth due to complete non-challenge would keyly be promptly corrected and/or resolved and prevent anyone present making a decision based upon wrong information.
-Also related to the above, when there are even opposing votes to a motion there should be a brief post voting procedure to find out exactly why those who had voted against did so. Of course it is assumed that this is because of some or all of the opposing opinions made during the pre-vote discussion, however/so this post-voting hearing procedure would really be most beneficial where the above discussed judicial measures had already occurred and would then reveal any lingering or outstanding, unresolved views issues, which, if found to be valid, could judiciously result in further debate and a second vote.
-It is quite wrongly claimed that the issue of women ordination is a “matter of conscience” and so a simple ‘voting of one’s conscience’ can be done to resolve it. But as it was opposingly stated, it rather is a matter of theology. It indeed involves an absolute Truth. A matter of conscience is one for which the Bible is completely silent on. So e.g., deciding whether to drive two hours to attend a local campmeeting on Sabbath Morning, or, most extremely, flipping a light switch, is against the Sabbath, is ultimately left to one’s conscience. (cf. Rom 14:5-6) In that first example, for an elderly person, such a drive would be so fatiguing, that it would be tantamount to work for them, but not so for a younger person.
-The various bursts of applause during that meeting, (especially the clapping for the prayer team going aside to pray during the whole meeting [30:50] (cf. Matt 6:5-6)), perfectly demonstrate what “applauding in Church” only means: it is pointedly done in relation to/for the person/individual and not for the Spiritual substance (usually) also involved. And that all is reflective of a wrong personal spirit being variously present in meeting, where, as the chairing PUConference president Ricardo Graham rightly relatedly pointed at the end of the meeting the ‘celebrations’ which broke out at the announcement of the results of the final vote, the whole thing was clearly being viewed as an ‘us vs. them’ conflict/‘competition’ instead of the ‘let’s ascertain what God’s will actually is on this matter’, for then a natural Amen would most likely simply have be heard. And I fault all of this on the flawed procedure of this whole matter which, as stated above, does not involve properly and/or conclusively arrived at Biblical understandings. E.g., I don’t think applause broke out the GC Session when a Fundamental Belief of the Church was approved.
-I am not sure if those who do these now typical SDA session-long praying are actually also hearing/watching the development of the sessions they are praying for but, really they substantively should because, their praying then could actually merely constitute a varied, yet nonetheless repetition of merely only one thought in that prayer, =both “vain repetitions” and “many words” (Matt 6:7). And God is not deaf or dumb. I.e., He heard you the first time. Instead those people should be praying as the actual perceived needs are throughout meeting, and so they should be also watching the development of the meeting. In that way, if e.g., someone should get up and be demonstrating a wrong spirit, or they see that an improper decision/procedure is being made, they could then tangibly pray for God to intervene and send a specific impartation of His guidance and wisdom on that pointed issue.
Even prayer to God is something out of a tangible reality/necessity, indeed, most basically, a concrete expression of one’s will, and not something “religious”. Tellingly enough, some of the most powerfully answered prayers in the Bible are quite short/concise, simple and (straightly/linearly, vs. circuitously/convolutedly) to the point, prayers. (E.g., 1 Kgs 18:36-37; 1 Chr 4:10; especially, pertinently enough, Jesus’ model/template prayer Matt 6:9-13; cf. 6-7). Even Solomon’s comparatively long Temple dedication prayer, which actually was a quasi-dedication homily which rehashed the past unworthy history of Israel, was non-repetitive (1 Kgs 8:22-53; 54-61). An interestingly enough, when it is said of Jesus that he ‘prayed all night’, it was when He, seeing the by now resolute opposition to Him by the Jewish leaders, evidently saw that He would have to establish a new leadership (=DA 291.2ff), and so, being about to fully/officially choose 12 people as His “apostles” from the large group of disciples who had come to support/follow Him thus far (Luke 6:11-13ff, 17a), He then probably spent the night actually reviewing with God the Father a mental listing of various complimentary people He was considering as well as praying for those who He had already informally chosen. So that prayer may have been also, or paramountly, a concrete back and forth judicious interaction on each of these name. Furthermore, in Elijah’s prayer for rain, it is actually only said, actually implied, that he only prayed once for that, if he actually then was praying and not only worshipping God (1 Kgs 18:42b) and only had 7 times been telling his servant go and see if the prayer was answered. (1 Kgs 18:43ff). Indeed by Elijah having already told Ahab to look for showers very soon after the fire response on Carmel (1 Kgs 18:41), Elijah may actually not have explicitly prayed/been praying at all here (PK 155.2-3). Even the season of fervent prayers for Peter when he was imprisoned (Acts 12:5ff|AA 144.2ff) was in the light of the tangible fact that he had not yet been delivered by God. So all of these examples show that praying without an actual tangible point, such as in not being actually aware of what is developing at a session being prayed for, is really not Biblical. And related, wider, case in point, even the many “rites” and ceremonies of the OT Sanctuary system were not for vacuous and pointless “religious” reasons but that tangible object-lesson and faith confirming purposes. So, as applicable, do “get real” with God. He craves for such, fully “mindful” interaction.
-As similarly/relatedly stated above in this post here: is it me, or should a voting delegate (and I moreover understand that only registered delegates were admitted in that meeting’s Hall), actually be an SDA member in “good standing”, unless, of course, the SDA Church now accepts, (contrary to its Fundamental Belief of Christian Behavior), that members wear (inherently “display”) jewelry, in this case, earrings [03:35:53ff]??!
-There, at least tacitly exists this clearly widespread, actually “humanistic”, belief that one can hold a view despite any opposing substantive (Bible/SOP) statements or objections against it. Similarly to what I said earlier, I have also encountered this attitude in discussions with SDA’s. It is actually all out of the typical “false facade/appearances” belief of such people that it is believed that not opposing something that is (supposedly) “wrong” is quite perfectly acceptable. And so if the Bible or SOP states something which opposes view of someone it is rather seen a more righteous to outrightly ignore that statement and hold on to one’s belief than to, and that validly, instead state and show how there was some degree of (honest) “error” (which usually is merely incomplete understandings) in the Bible or SOP. And so in this case of women ordination, many choose to ignore the many statements by Paul which seem to oppose women ordination, and that is also found in attempts to exegetically resolve those issues, where the arguments made still do not prove to be conclusive. So, e.g., it is deemed a sacrilegious to say that in 1 Tim 2:11-14ff Paul was actually presenting his personal view rather than something that God had directly revealed to him. I.e., dealing with manifestly a particular problem in the Church where it was probably already long understood, especially if/as Galatians 3:28 (written in ca. 48-49 A.D.) preceded the Letter to Timothy (ca. 62-64 A.D.), that there no longer was a distinction between men and women in Christ, that Paul then had to deal with a social-born problem where pointedly most women were actually uneducated, particularly religiously, and so it was detrimentally for them to “speak up” in Church or defaultly have ‘governing authority’ in the home. But then it is deemed as perfectly acceptable by those same people to just ignore that opposing passage in their decision making on women ordination. Proper exegesis will appropriately contextualize the meaning, scope and bindingness of such passages.
And the actual principle then involved in 1 Tim 2:11-14 rings even more loudly that despite the fact that everyone has a right to teach or govern, those who are not diligent to properly understand the facts of matters involved, whether male or female, should just keep silent on the issue rather than cause confusion. Such a principle would most pertinently be helpful in the present Women Ordination issue, as it has been seen that trusted people variously saying things which they have not properly studied out, and equally, conversely, similarly trusted people not being studied enough to immediately correct and redress those errors, has misled others/ the “Church”, and cause confusion, all resulting in various significant wastes.
And incidentally, Paul (as also with EGW) typically bolsters his personal/specifically applicable views/opinions with at least thematically corroborating Biblical (OT) passages, but that does not however mean that this was a direct word from God, nor a all-inclusively or “eternally” applicable principle/counsel. Neither Paul nor EGW spoke/wrote “ex-cathedra”, for, in EGW’s case, she then would have never recommended people to make the Bible the highest authority in doctrinal/spiritual matters, and similarly Paul would have never explicitly made his qualifying “permission vs. commission” statements, nor tried to corroborate even his “permissive” statements with Scripture, but both would have rather said something in the line of “just (only) go by what I have said/written”.
-In this interactive technologies day and age, there should be a more substantive way of deciding who to fully hear during the deliberations at such meetings. I was personally frustrated at summary voting decisions to cut off discussion as it was not known what argument someone then still in line to speak would make. A perfect and most appalling demonstration of this was a delegate during the CUC meeting [03:22:41-03:23:31] who got up at the last minute to say something who, who indeed really/actually knows, may have been something that God inspired him to say in the light of a recent statement, perhaps even something that would have corrected a critical error, which in the case of a doctrinal understanding error, manifestly does not qualify as a “point of order”. But without even getting an indication as to what that person was going to say, which, self-rationally enough, if he thought it was inconsequential would not have tried to be “urgently heard”, a perfunctory vote was taken and it was ‘opined’ (vs. actual “decided”) that hearing what that person had to, again, urgently say, was not important. I mean....based on what...his outward appearance????
-Indeed it seems that there is a fundamentally flawed belief in such SDA deliberations that merely democratically voting on something establish it as truth. And so judicious ascertaining usually takes a back seat to proper, or even actual, truth/fact-finding. But valid, decisions, even “opinions” are only based on properly resolved facts and not mere, subjective, and quasi-whimsical “opinion”.
-To slightly, (perhaps explicitly), “hone” something which Randy Roberts had stated in his pre-session sermon while listing a sample of significant women in Biblical/Church history: it logically was an inevitable reality/necessity that ‘the mother of our Lord be a woman’ (Mary, of course), but it was a distinctly special and commendable achievement on Mary’s part that she was quite evidently, and even as a woman in those times, entirely entrusted with the religious/spiritual education of Jesus. (See DA 70.1ff), -the education upon which the Savior of the world would, and that most counter-culturally, be shaped into foundationally properly understanding the God of Heaven and His Word!!...And pertinently enough, this task/commission was not done without God’s special ‘Holy Spirit anointing’ (= Biblical “ordination”) of Mary as the SOP reveals in SJ 30.5 that:
-In the face of this fact of genuine Biblical certainty confusion, the general calls and expectations that God would impart His Spirit to guide to the proper decision was fundamentally wrong because, as seen with pioneer SDAs, when trying to resolve a doctrinal issue, God only gave EGW special revelation to guide into the proper understanding of a text, and not to a decision as a whole, especially not despite misunderstood pertinent text or confusions over those texts. So I do not see that God would be sanctioning this actually preferred confusion when SDA Scholars should have, as they are now quite educationally capable, provided a united and most conclusive exhaustive exposition of all of the applicable passages and issues involved in this topic. Then could a proper decision be made, and as this, with the hards facts then all in, would then actually strictly involve a free choice decision, it is then unlikely that God’s Spirit would actually be, effectively, making that decision for someone. God never does for man, what they have the power to do for themselves. (As discussed here, that tangibly is actually too “costly” for God).
-Therefore the GC proposed Research Committee should really be given, as they say, a chance to do its work, which hopefully will now be, especially substantively, a ‘once and for all’, examination, (and there should also be a means, if this not already a possibility, by which Pastors and also Lay People can submit their own studied findings to this Research committee), as the present voting despite genuine uncertainties and inconclusivity will indeed only produce degrees of disunity. All wasting the various resources of the Church, including the ministering time of delegates. (And, though I am not factually sure here, yet an unnecessary and wasteful expense is nonetheless made, but the Union may also be paying for or reimbursing (from the tithe) the displacement (e.g., gas-mileage, transportation and hotel fare), expenses of their delegates for such remote, major committee meetings.) A sample, pertinent case in point, the Northern Union Conference of Germany had similarly voted to ordain women to the ministry, however they later suspended that decisions at the advice of their Division in order to allow the GC Research Committee to do its work.
-While many sermons and papers, even scholarly papers and books have been presented on this topic, there really lacks a definitive and clear Global Church wide decision/production, where moreover all of those individual contributions, whether for or against, are taking into proper consideration. Hopefully the present GC Research committee will do this. Otherwise fragmentation will continue to exists on this issue with people sectarianly going by what whatever they (personally/subjectively) deem to be true.
-The prayer/desire that the meeting would be conducted as per the Zech 4:6 principle of ‘not by might, but by that Spirit’ actually fell flat as, with the Biblical and Historical studies not then conclusively done by then, the decision was actually instead made under a degree of compellation [= “might”] including the several forceful pulpit and floor claims that ‘there were no texts which opposed women ordination’. Clearly not every present there validly considered that to be a conclusive fact.
-It was personally reassuring to me to see that available, more precise vote counting technology was used in this Session, (and this “precision” should be the default requirement for all such SDA sessions right up to the General Conference Session), because the delegates survey approach, as used in the CUC meeting, is not at all optimal. Case in point, I am sure they would have missed the 65% count that occurred in the PUC meeting and just assumed that it was a 2/3 vote. (Hopefully they would have judged that a written or counted ballot vote would instead be necessary). There should also be a documentation of how each delegates voted so that the local constituency that they represent can transparently, informedly know if they want to have that person be their delegate for other sessions.
-Quite evidently, the PUC Session was much more costly than the CUC meeting, as: it was held in a Hotel and not an SDA Church, though, especially for one day during the summer months, a University Campus, like Loma Linda University would have probably been just as “accommodating”, [unless of course they charge the same, or higher, “accommodating” rate as that Marriott Hotel!!]; the utilized, rented, vote counting technology (really the SDA Church, at at least the Division level should purchase such technology (which manifestly costs ca. $40 per unit), and lend them out to various Constituencies as they hold such meetings, or, of course, simply have local volunteers serve in the meeting as sectional ballot vote counters [and also for vote registering documenters]. Sure that latter option will take a little more time, perhaps 10 minutes per vote, but it will practically be free.)
-The CUC and now PUC deliberation highlighted/exposed a very significant deficiency in the SDA organizational operational structure, and that is that, although, like the country in which it is headquartered, the USA, it has, (as actually pre-monarchial OT Israel had) separate Legislative and Executive powers, it actually does not at all have an explicit, or at least standing, “Judicial Power”. And that is most strikingly seen in the fact that in such discussion, (and this is a phenomena which I have personally microcosmly encountered in various Biblical discussion with SDA on e.g., internet forums), people merely, effectively, “spout off” their personal views and opinions and....that is overwhelmingly it...unless the person makes a completely irrational claim. There is, particularly in non-policy matters, -for there is at least one Conference Legal Representative present, no one who “judges” whether what was said was true, factual, Biblical or not. So, e.g., a delegate gets up and claims that this text, precedence and/or policy supports or opposes the action, and there is no “truth/fact/judicious-checking” of that claim. Instead, and most mimickingly as the lamented days of Ancient Israel when ‘there was not a judge in Israel’, everyone is left to do/decide whatever is right/truth “in their own eyes”. If a “judicial panel” made of up e.g., Scholars from pertinent Biblical Research Institutes was also present, the many quite simple errors which are left standing as truth due to complete non-challenge would keyly be promptly corrected and/or resolved and prevent anyone present making a decision based upon wrong information.
In fact, a standing, independent Judicial Council, made up of e.g., for this case which involves an issue involving the General Conference vs. a Union Conference, a delegated representative from each of the Church’s 13 Divisions would serve to resolve this technical issue of whether the attempt by the Union is not in conflict with GC policy. Of course, as with any system where such a Judicial Power exists, the Legislative Power can change its laws to, as the PUC tried to do, state that it has a right to go against a GC policy which its sees to be opposed to the Church’ (next to Supreme) Law, the 28 Fundamental Beliefs (The Bible/Ten Commandments being the Supreme Law), but for those who validly saw that attempted (but narrowly failed) bylaw amendment attempt as being very dangerous, a studied out, facts-based judicious ruling, which nonetheless could in turn be then subjected to the “jury” debating and then voting of delegates, with that vote then being based on an objectively impartial, multi-party decision, would provide a much better basis for voting than the current “whatever is right in your own eyes and private understanding (or lack thereof)” approach.
So, in summary, the GC should be looking to also having a full scale Judicial Council at such committee meetings to immediately help decide such Biblical and also Policy issues. It should be well understood that unlike Teachers and Scholars, Lay People, Local Pastors and/or Conference Administrators cannot expend much time in engaging in scholarly studies on certain topics, so it is quite strange not to have Church Scholars also prominently present and involved in such discussions.
-Also related to the above, when there are even opposing votes to a motion there should be a brief post voting procedure to find out exactly why those who had voted against did so. Of course it is assumed that this is because of some or all of the opposing opinions made during the pre-vote discussion, however/so this post-voting hearing procedure would really be most beneficial where the above discussed judicial measures had already occurred and would then reveal any lingering or outstanding, unresolved views issues, which, if found to be valid, could judiciously result in further debate and a second vote.
This of course is all time consuming, but I recall a group of youngsters who felt the urgency and need to clearly know and understand God’s will and did not mind at all to spend all night in deliberation and prayer until they had done all in their power to ascertain what the Biblical Truth was on a matter, and God no doubt honoured that devotion through the gift of prophecy so as to not let this sacrificially and wholly expended effort come to naught.
-It is quite wrongly claimed that the issue of women ordination is a “matter of conscience” and so a simple ‘voting of one’s conscience’ can be done to resolve it. But as it was opposingly stated, it rather is a matter of theology. It indeed involves an absolute Truth. A matter of conscience is one for which the Bible is completely silent on. So e.g., deciding whether to drive two hours to attend a local campmeeting on Sabbath Morning, or, most extremely, flipping a light switch, is against the Sabbath, is ultimately left to one’s conscience. (cf. Rom 14:5-6) In that first example, for an elderly person, such a drive would be so fatiguing, that it would be tantamount to work for them, but not so for a younger person.
So only when all of the facts and truth on the matter of women ordination will have been completely, exhaustively, clearly, conclusively and transparently done, would the matter then equivalently, effectively become a matter of conscience, for in that case, the Bible would have clearly spoken on the issue so each would be left to freely vote. But foundationally claiming that this is a matter of conscience is incorrect.
-The various bursts of applause during that meeting, (especially the clapping for the prayer team going aside to pray during the whole meeting [30:50] (cf. Matt 6:5-6)), perfectly demonstrate what “applauding in Church” only means: it is pointedly done in relation to/for the person/individual and not for the Spiritual substance (usually) also involved. And that all is reflective of a wrong personal spirit being variously present in meeting, where, as the chairing PUConference president Ricardo Graham rightly relatedly pointed at the end of the meeting the ‘celebrations’ which broke out at the announcement of the results of the final vote, the whole thing was clearly being viewed as an ‘us vs. them’ conflict/‘competition’ instead of the ‘let’s ascertain what God’s will actually is on this matter’, for then a natural Amen would most likely simply have be heard. And I fault all of this on the flawed procedure of this whole matter which, as stated above, does not involve properly and/or conclusively arrived at Biblical understandings. E.g., I don’t think applause broke out the GC Session when a Fundamental Belief of the Church was approved.
-I am not sure if those who do these now typical SDA session-long praying are actually also hearing/watching the development of the sessions they are praying for but, really they substantively should because, their praying then could actually merely constitute a varied, yet nonetheless repetition of merely only one thought in that prayer, =both “vain repetitions” and “many words” (Matt 6:7). And God is not deaf or dumb. I.e., He heard you the first time. Instead those people should be praying as the actual perceived needs are throughout meeting, and so they should be also watching the development of the meeting. In that way, if e.g., someone should get up and be demonstrating a wrong spirit, or they see that an improper decision/procedure is being made, they could then tangibly pray for God to intervene and send a specific impartation of His guidance and wisdom on that pointed issue.
Even prayer to God is something out of a tangible reality/necessity, indeed, most basically, a concrete expression of one’s will, and not something “religious”. Tellingly enough, some of the most powerfully answered prayers in the Bible are quite short/concise, simple and (straightly/linearly, vs. circuitously/convolutedly) to the point, prayers. (E.g., 1 Kgs 18:36-37; 1 Chr 4:10; especially, pertinently enough, Jesus’ model/template prayer Matt 6:9-13; cf. 6-7). Even Solomon’s comparatively long Temple dedication prayer, which actually was a quasi-dedication homily which rehashed the past unworthy history of Israel, was non-repetitive (1 Kgs 8:22-53; 54-61). An interestingly enough, when it is said of Jesus that he ‘prayed all night’, it was when He, seeing the by now resolute opposition to Him by the Jewish leaders, evidently saw that He would have to establish a new leadership (=DA 291.2ff), and so, being about to fully/officially choose 12 people as His “apostles” from the large group of disciples who had come to support/follow Him thus far (Luke 6:11-13ff, 17a), He then probably spent the night actually reviewing with God the Father a mental listing of various complimentary people He was considering as well as praying for those who He had already informally chosen. So that prayer may have been also, or paramountly, a concrete back and forth judicious interaction on each of these name. Furthermore, in Elijah’s prayer for rain, it is actually only said, actually implied, that he only prayed once for that, if he actually then was praying and not only worshipping God (1 Kgs 18:42b) and only had 7 times been telling his servant go and see if the prayer was answered. (1 Kgs 18:43ff). Indeed by Elijah having already told Ahab to look for showers very soon after the fire response on Carmel (1 Kgs 18:41), Elijah may actually not have explicitly prayed/been praying at all here (PK 155.2-3). Even the season of fervent prayers for Peter when he was imprisoned (Acts 12:5ff|AA 144.2ff) was in the light of the tangible fact that he had not yet been delivered by God. So all of these examples show that praying without an actual tangible point, such as in not being actually aware of what is developing at a session being prayed for, is really not Biblical. And related, wider, case in point, even the many “rites” and ceremonies of the OT Sanctuary system were not for vacuous and pointless “religious” reasons but that tangible object-lesson and faith confirming purposes. So, as applicable, do “get real” with God. He craves for such, fully “mindful” interaction.
-As similarly/relatedly stated above in this post here: is it me, or should a voting delegate (and I moreover understand that only registered delegates were admitted in that meeting’s Hall), actually be an SDA member in “good standing”, unless, of course, the SDA Church now accepts, (contrary to its Fundamental Belief of Christian Behavior), that members wear (inherently “display”) jewelry, in this case, earrings [03:35:53ff]??!
-There, at least tacitly exists this clearly widespread, actually “humanistic”, belief that one can hold a view despite any opposing substantive (Bible/SOP) statements or objections against it. Similarly to what I said earlier, I have also encountered this attitude in discussions with SDA’s. It is actually all out of the typical “false facade/appearances” belief of such people that it is believed that not opposing something that is (supposedly) “wrong” is quite perfectly acceptable. And so if the Bible or SOP states something which opposes view of someone it is rather seen a more righteous to outrightly ignore that statement and hold on to one’s belief than to, and that validly, instead state and show how there was some degree of (honest) “error” (which usually is merely incomplete understandings) in the Bible or SOP. And so in this case of women ordination, many choose to ignore the many statements by Paul which seem to oppose women ordination, and that is also found in attempts to exegetically resolve those issues, where the arguments made still do not prove to be conclusive. So, e.g., it is deemed a sacrilegious to say that in 1 Tim 2:11-14ff Paul was actually presenting his personal view rather than something that God had directly revealed to him. I.e., dealing with manifestly a particular problem in the Church where it was probably already long understood, especially if/as Galatians 3:28 (written in ca. 48-49 A.D.) preceded the Letter to Timothy (ca. 62-64 A.D.), that there no longer was a distinction between men and women in Christ, that Paul then had to deal with a social-born problem where pointedly most women were actually uneducated, particularly religiously, and so it was detrimentally for them to “speak up” in Church or defaultly have ‘governing authority’ in the home. But then it is deemed as perfectly acceptable by those same people to just ignore that opposing passage in their decision making on women ordination. Proper exegesis will appropriately contextualize the meaning, scope and bindingness of such passages.
And the actual principle then involved in 1 Tim 2:11-14 rings even more loudly that despite the fact that everyone has a right to teach or govern, those who are not diligent to properly understand the facts of matters involved, whether male or female, should just keep silent on the issue rather than cause confusion. Such a principle would most pertinently be helpful in the present Women Ordination issue, as it has been seen that trusted people variously saying things which they have not properly studied out, and equally, conversely, similarly trusted people not being studied enough to immediately correct and redress those errors, has misled others/ the “Church”, and cause confusion, all resulting in various significant wastes.
And incidentally, Paul (as also with EGW) typically bolsters his personal/specifically applicable views/opinions with at least thematically corroborating Biblical (OT) passages, but that does not however mean that this was a direct word from God, nor a all-inclusively or “eternally” applicable principle/counsel. Neither Paul nor EGW spoke/wrote “ex-cathedra”, for, in EGW’s case, she then would have never recommended people to make the Bible the highest authority in doctrinal/spiritual matters, and similarly Paul would have never explicitly made his qualifying “permission vs. commission” statements, nor tried to corroborate even his “permissive” statements with Scripture, but both would have rather said something in the line of “just (only) go by what I have said/written”.
-In this interactive technologies day and age, there should be a more substantive way of deciding who to fully hear during the deliberations at such meetings. I was personally frustrated at summary voting decisions to cut off discussion as it was not known what argument someone then still in line to speak would make. A perfect and most appalling demonstration of this was a delegate during the CUC meeting [03:22:41-03:23:31] who got up at the last minute to say something who, who indeed really/actually knows, may have been something that God inspired him to say in the light of a recent statement, perhaps even something that would have corrected a critical error, which in the case of a doctrinal understanding error, manifestly does not qualify as a “point of order”. But without even getting an indication as to what that person was going to say, which, self-rationally enough, if he thought it was inconsequential would not have tried to be “urgently heard”, a perfunctory vote was taken and it was ‘opined’ (vs. actual “decided”) that hearing what that person had to, again, urgently say, was not important. I mean....based on what...his outward appearance????
So to correct such “moronic” and insubstantive decision making, there should be a merit-based (vs. the current ‘firsts come firsts heard’) way for delegates who want to speak, (or for that matter a present non-delegate), to state in one sentence what their argument/point entails and then for other delegates to vote in advance, particularly if they are using electronic voting gadgets which have numerical pads, to, even dynamically, as added suggested points may be made, select the posted points, from having read those succinct, one-liner summaries, which ones they would like to hear, and even in which order. Thus the substantively merited points, -the ones with the most votes/highest rankings will be sure to be heard.
Or, at least for (immediate implementation now) now, “points of order” should be allowed for the immediate valid/concrete substantive (vs. mere opinion) correcting of a just made Biblical statement. These “points” could actually be titled as ‘points of doctrine/fact’.
Again, this all depends on what the actual goal in those meetings are. God himself foundationally pervasively involves a judicious decision making in everything He does vs. merely ‘democratic voting’.
-Indeed it seems that there is a fundamentally flawed belief in such SDA deliberations that merely democratically voting on something establish it as truth. And so judicious ascertaining usually takes a back seat to proper, or even actual, truth/fact-finding. But valid, decisions, even “opinions” are only based on properly resolved facts and not mere, subjective, and quasi-whimsical “opinion”.
-To slightly, (perhaps explicitly), “hone” something which Randy Roberts had stated in his pre-session sermon while listing a sample of significant women in Biblical/Church history: it logically was an inevitable reality/necessity that ‘the mother of our Lord be a woman’ (Mary, of course), but it was a distinctly special and commendable achievement on Mary’s part that she was quite evidently, and even as a woman in those times, entirely entrusted with the religious/spiritual education of Jesus. (See DA 70.1ff), -the education upon which the Savior of the world would, and that most counter-culturally, be shaped into foundationally properly understanding the God of Heaven and His Word!!...And pertinently enough, this task/commission was not done without God’s special ‘Holy Spirit anointing’ (= Biblical “ordination”) of Mary as the SOP reveals in SJ 30.5 that:
“God Himself by His Holy Spirit instructed Mary how to bring up His Son. Mary taught Jesus from the Holy Scriptures, and He learned to read and study them for Himself.”
Relatedly, EGW did rightly understand that it was the Holy Spirit which determinatively qualified someone for a, thus inherently, “ordained” (i.e., Holy Spirit anointed) position in the Church and its work, including ‘pastoral’ (=“shepherding” (Eph 4:11)) (type) ones:
“It is the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit of God that prepares workers, both men and women, to become pastors to the flock of God.” RH January 15, 1901|6T 322.1 {DG 251.4|PaM 47.2}
Post Script #3 - “Equal But Subordinate”
February 12, 2013 - In this GYC 2012 Seminar Presentation, Stephen Bohr tries to speak against the Ordination of Women by presenting an “equal but (still) subordinate” perspective, chiefly demonstrating from the Bible and SOP that this is how the Trinity, mainly the relationship between God the Father and God the Son, is. While that hierarchal subordination is indeed involved in the Trinity, as mentioned in some of the preceding points of discussions, there seems to be a confusion/conflation of the issues here in regards to specifically Women Ordination. Again, first of all, what is ordination?? If it is viewed in a Catholic way, where one comes to function as a priest in order to deal with a person’s sins, then that is completely unbiblical in the New Covenant. Women were not permitted to hold priestly functions because it was the woman who had convinced man to fall into sin, and so they would be trusted to function in the doing away with it. But then again, later on, it was only Levites who were allowed to be priests out of all the tribes of Israel because they had uniquely stood for the Lord against the Israel-wide apostasy in the Golden Calf incident. And then later on, in the Post-Exilic era, because of the historical failures of that priestly line of Levites in not duly dealing with sinning in Israel, it was specifically Zadokites Levites were only allowed to hold that position. (Ezek 40:46; 43:19; 44:15; 48:11). So God has always enforced the straightforward principle that those who lead out in sinning should not be the ones who are to be His functional representatives in dealing and doing away with it. In the beginning the were only two people and it was the woman who was guilty of this, this evidently due to the emotional influence by which Eve, the woman had caused Adam to give in to sin, God there dealt with a most-present reality and as a safeguard prevented women from holding a priestly position. Then since God did choose in Deborah a woman to hold the most powerful leadership position in Israel of judge (which included life and death power over men), when the People had become settled in their promised land, and since God did raise up women prophets in also OT times, then it is clear that God does not have a problem with a woman holding a leadership position, particularly if a woman is the best candidate available. It is just that in OT times, holding a priestly function was not allowed for women. So a leadership position is not necessarily a priestly position, and thus the question squarely is: are the (SDA) positions of Elder, Pastor, President: “priestly functions” and accessible only through an “investituring” ordination rite??
February 12, 2013 - In this GYC 2012 Seminar Presentation, Stephen Bohr tries to speak against the Ordination of Women by presenting an “equal but (still) subordinate” perspective, chiefly demonstrating from the Bible and SOP that this is how the Trinity, mainly the relationship between God the Father and God the Son, is. While that hierarchal subordination is indeed involved in the Trinity, as mentioned in some of the preceding points of discussions, there seems to be a confusion/conflation of the issues here in regards to specifically Women Ordination. Again, first of all, what is ordination?? If it is viewed in a Catholic way, where one comes to function as a priest in order to deal with a person’s sins, then that is completely unbiblical in the New Covenant. Women were not permitted to hold priestly functions because it was the woman who had convinced man to fall into sin, and so they would be trusted to function in the doing away with it. But then again, later on, it was only Levites who were allowed to be priests out of all the tribes of Israel because they had uniquely stood for the Lord against the Israel-wide apostasy in the Golden Calf incident. And then later on, in the Post-Exilic era, because of the historical failures of that priestly line of Levites in not duly dealing with sinning in Israel, it was specifically Zadokites Levites were only allowed to hold that position. (Ezek 40:46; 43:19; 44:15; 48:11). So God has always enforced the straightforward principle that those who lead out in sinning should not be the ones who are to be His functional representatives in dealing and doing away with it. In the beginning the were only two people and it was the woman who was guilty of this, this evidently due to the emotional influence by which Eve, the woman had caused Adam to give in to sin, God there dealt with a most-present reality and as a safeguard prevented women from holding a priestly position. Then since God did choose in Deborah a woman to hold the most powerful leadership position in Israel of judge (which included life and death power over men), when the People had become settled in their promised land, and since God did raise up women prophets in also OT times, then it is clear that God does not have a problem with a woman holding a leadership position, particularly if a woman is the best candidate available. It is just that in OT times, holding a priestly function was not allowed for women. So a leadership position is not necessarily a priestly position, and thus the question squarely is: are the (SDA) positions of Elder, Pastor, President: “priestly functions” and accessible only through an “investituring” ordination rite??
And this is from where the Old vs. New Covenant issue, revolving around the Cross, comes into determinative sway as, if Jesus is the anti-typical High Priest, as is the NT teaching, and by the grace for all that His sacrifice has provided He has indeed broken down all (albeit pointedly ceremonial/religious) partitions, including between men and women (Gal 3:26-29), -indeed the way was now made open to quasi-freely allow Gentiles to become part of God’s Israel whereas that was greatly restricted in the OT. So Paul’s statement in 1 Tim 2:11-15, especially if a statement of commission, and not permission as it appears to ‘personally’ be, would be speaking of a default state of things. But God has repeatedly demonstrated that He will utilize anyone through whom He can work, and that demonstration of God’s approval and empowerment in a person’s ministry is what “ordination” is and should be all about.
And God has always had to deal with the oppositional mentality of the wider culture at large, even from amongst His own people. So, mainly as to not cause His attempted work to be unnecessarily hampered, He has many times, unless completely unavoidable, permitted what people would most readily accept. E.g., the “wholesale” inclusion of the Gentiles was quite offensive to Ethnic Israel, though there were OT provisions for it, so Jesus stayed away from even pointedly preaching on that coming reality. Similarly when God wanted to select a prophet for His Remnant people, His first/best candidate then was a black minister, William Foy, but because of the racial discrimination of the people then, that prophetic ministry was completely hampered. So God instead chose a ‘weaker’ candidate, in a white (lay)man, Hazen Foss. But he proved to not be spiritually devoted enough to allow God to fully work through him. So God chose the, factually speaking, ‘weakest of the weak’ in those time, a woman, who then did not even have voting rights, let alone, formal leadership rights, and Ellen White became the anchoring leader of that Remnant Movement.
Similarly while Paul had declared that there no longer were free man or slave (Gal 3:28), when he spoke on a particular instance in his letter to Philemon, he did not then advocate abolition. As an, especially racial/ethnic, affair of the powerful Roman Empire then, slavery was virtually impossible to try to overthrow. But within the Church itself it surely was not encouraged. However in Onesimus case, by having stolen from his master Philemon, he did owe him a debt and that had to be repaid through indentured servitude. So Paul was evidently speaking against ‘blanket slavery’ in Gal 3:28 where people were enslaved despite not having a tangible indebtedness to someone else, but outstanding debts still had to be repaid, and also attacking the institution as a whole, where that distinction was completely blurred, was not a “present truth/mandate” for the Church then. Working to change the hearts of these people would be more practical and effective.
Relatedly, Doug Batchelor has brought forth the argument that ‘after the Cross’, when choosing an apostle to replace Judas, the Church then chose two men as candidates and, as claimed, ‘God’ then elected one of them. (Acts 1:21-26). First of all, while it can be accepted that “God” did the electing here, He obviously did not do the candidate selecting. The disciples themselves chose two men, and based on what they were seeing as their natural qualifications for this position. To me, at best, that all reflects that the disciples, the Church, even the world, then was not ready to factor in this possibility that God could use a woman in that capacity, and so God did not overrule them then, as He later would with Peter’s view on Gentiles (Acts 10). Then there were the practical aspects of things here that, while the position of an Apostle (=‘a sent out person to lead in Evangelism’, -indeed distinct from a disciple, who it can be argued is a follower who is still studying, and is not yet ready to be “sent out”), was not at all a priestly role, it would involve many physical requirement which would be too demanding for a woman, such as in travelling, the natural and also imposed hardships of public preaching, such as persecution, and even being readily accepted. (E.g., the Apostles themselves had had trouble believing the testimony of the woman about the resurrection of Jesus). So for practical reasons and physical requirements, a man was a better option to fill such a position and it was not necessarily because that position was off-limits to a woman. In fact, it may be that there had not been close/ever-present woman followers of Jesus, even of John the Baptist, as the qualification requirement stipulated (Acts 1:21-22), why a woman was not selected as a candidate. Indeed if only 2 out of over 120 met these qualifications, then that field was inherently quite narrow, irrespective of gender.
So while there indeed is a hierarchy in the family, just as there is in the Godhead (=1 Cor 11:3; Eph 5:23), that does not preclude that God will never fill a woman with His Spirit to do leadership work; especially now in New Covenant times, when the prior ‘dividing wall’ here has been removed (Gal 3:28b). And that hierarchy in the home may pointedly be in terms of default, final decision-making (and that in an ideal spiritual family), where in the case of a split deliberation on an issue, the woman would have to submit to her husband’s decision. However that does not mean that the woman is not to have a significant or influential say in family matters. I see that the SOP-recounted deliberation in EW 149-153 between God and Jesus in regards to saving man as most illustrative: i.e., Jesus humbly went three times before the Father to plead with Him to be allowed to die for man and He finally managed to convince God the Father to accept that plan of redemption. Jesus was submissive to the Father’s initial decision, but that did not mean that He could not injunctively have an most influential say into the final, evidently overturning, decision that was eventually made.
And just like not every male pastor is automatically/necessarily later ordained unless they have demonstrated the working of God’s Spirit in their lives, similarly a woman who, as EGW, demonstrates such Spiritual qualifications, should also be formally recognized and allowed to fully carry out her quite manifest Divine Calling. Frankly, if God Himself really ‘never allows a woman to teach’, then the SDA Church is a most unbiblical, even, as most claim because of EGW, a “cult”, because of that most prominent, most effective leadership and authoritative teaching position that the Church has allowed her to have, and still have.
In the New Covenant Era, when all are again made priests by Christ’s resetting Act, it is the demonstrated working of God’s Spirit which entitles someone to hold an influential/leadership position in His Church. I personally see that God’s OT examples of, e.g., Deborah the prophetess and judge (Jdg 4:4), and Huldah the [also married] prophetess (2 Kgs 22:14) (who are both used to validate EGW as also a “prophet”-ess), was deliberately done by God to set a precedence for a wider New Covenant allowance. Indeed, quite typically, every “new” thing that God has come to do in the NT, He had provided at least one precedence/example in the OT.
So the actual reconciling resolution here is rather “Subordinate but Equivalent” indicating that while there may (still) be a natural hierarchal order of things, it does not preclude God’s superceding “ordination” whenever, wherever and however He deems needed and fitting. (On these latest issues here, see this (better, i.e., much more Biblical vs. subjective), 05-11-13 sermon (mp4) on the Woman Ordination topic by Jonathan Henderson, and also his related 05-25-13 sermon (mp4) on Male/Home/Church Headship.)
See my further, discussion comments on this issue in this thread from here & here; -which is eventually pertinently/substantively continued here/here.
See my further, discussion comments on this issue in this thread from here & here; -which is eventually pertinently/substantively continued here/here.
Post Script 09-30-2013 - In this 09-14-2013 sermon, Stephen Bohr pointedly addresses the Woman’s Ordination issue of, mainly, Deborah having the position of a judge in Israel. I will not, as easily possible, debunk point by point the many misleading mis-quotings/applications done by Bohr, (which of course, as usual from him, are couched in an quasi-guilfeful, every-other-word, hyper-emphatic delivery/reading cadence which implies to the hearer that he is, as he explicitly implicitly, fancifully, (but also overall, theologically/prophetically grossly erroneously), claims in here [01:08:32-01:11:10], that ‘he is that “Divinely enlightened” (much) later person who would figure out EGW’s deliberate, veilingly mysterious, diplomatical craftings in her writings/prophetic expositions’), because frankly the SDA Church does deserve whatever it will (surely cataclysmically) “reap”, (indeed stemming from its entrenched unbiblical ways where it seems that its Pastors come out of its seminaries even dumber than when they went in, this time deliberately choosing to ignore various aspects of proper exegesis), and produce the scenario of the SDA Church being either formally or effectively split into two camps, and most comically enough, from the present stances from both camps, with neither camp having come to their decision based on what the Bible actually teaches. So the SDA Church will here have most fittingly inflicted its own disorganization wound. Quite prophetic how SDA leaders/pastors who think it is in their duty to “keep things exegetically stupid” for the “benefit” of their maintainedly simpleton flock are just fulfilling the Ezek 34:17-19 cursing (=EW 36.2; SpM 369.7). (And relatedly, what is it with the vast majority, (i.e., by my SDA Yearbook reckoning: instead of an equal representation of ca. 8%, rather ca. 62%), of the members of that ‘GC-leaders-voted, “main”, ‘106-member’ Theology of Ordination Study Commitee’ being [officially] NAD representatives?? How is that supposed to be an actual World Church Study? Clearly here, this is all the rotten fruit of the concentration of advance SDA studies being Capitalistically ““efficiently”” confined to the NAD.)
So I’ll thus succinctly address Bohr’s spurious claims here and the many Scriptural references are deliberately withheld so that SDA Preachers can themselves do their homework:
-Moses was, on top of the Chief Legislator and Executive in Israel, also, and most prominently so, its Chief, (“Supreme”), Judge, and as the head of lower “magistrate judges”.
-The act of Judging continued to be main responsibility of all of Israel’s leaders right through the monarchy. In fact God never wanted them to have a monarchy like the other nations around them, which supercede this role of the Judge, with Samuel being the last one.
-Even God promised to restore the Judging system in Israel following His Zionistic purging and restoration of them, thus showing, completely contrary to Bohr’s vacuous claims, that the period of the Judges was both ordained by God and was the ideal organization for Israel. Indeed God had already stipulated his covenant and laws and all that was to be done now was to make sure Israel lived according to it, which would come to involve judges making sure that this Law was properly applied.
-For Bohr to [at ca. 40:00ff] circularly, more “elliptically”, claim that the waywardness of the people ‘doing what was right in their own eyes’ following the leadership of Joshua, during the period of the judges, was due to an ‘organization system/order’ failure is either outrightly ignorant, merely moronically glib, or willfully deceptive, to say the least. There was no ‘failure in organizational structure’ then...the organization was just as Moses had instituted it...it was rather the people who, after these Godly leaders and pioneers had passed (=“Jos 24:31|PP 544.4” ), then indifferently/roguely chose to ‘be their own Chief Judges’; including ungodly leaders coming into those positions of leadership and influence (cf. PP 544.2ff)....
-The fact that the people came to the prophetess Deborah, who was already judging Israel, to get judgements from her as “Chief Judge”, is substantiation of what ordination is really all about, and which SDA leaders are confusedly missing. It all depends on who God is actually working through by His Spirit, whether a man or a woman. Israel did right in going to Deborah because she clearly had the Spirit of God working in her, and thus could be trusted with making the injunctive decisions of a Judge.
-The Bible also indicates that it was Deborah who summoned and appointed (somewhat as a “Czar” judge) Barak, as the leader for a pressing military campaign. So she clearly had more (Spiritual) authority than him, although she necessarily/practically let him take the lead in those war efforts. And Barak himself saw that his efforts would be futile if the well-known and respected (“ordained”) authority of Deborah was not close by to validate him. Bohr’s citing of Barak’s mention in Heb 11:32 is no evidence that Deborah was not important is exegetically false. He was just mentioned there as one of those renowned leaders who had led Israel to great warring triumphs, but Barak himself would tell you that he could not have done it without the explicit endorsement of the Judge Deborah.
-Which reminds me, in regards to the, really based-on-Biblical-ignorance issue of EGW prior ordination not being sustained, name 10 SDA Pastors or Elders from the days of EGW and quote their writings/sermons statements which are to be considered authoritative today...Point is, it is not at all the position, let alone gender, of a person which makes them Biblically “ordained” but whether or not the Spirit of God is working to them...And it surely was working through EGW thus making her Biblically ordained.
-The Bible is clear that there is an order of authoritative position in God’s Israel, including for the NT Church, with Apostles, and Prophets being in the top tier, and pointedly because they are the closest to the direct voice of God/Jesus and thus can be trusted to make “inspired and wise” decision/judgements in Spiritual matters. Bohr’s hollow quoting and misapplying of an EGW statement to try to claim that all positions are equal in the NT Church is, simply said, indifferently fallacious.
-The only position that women could not hold in OT Israel was that of a priest, and that was for religious reasons stemming back to the Fall. But there is no earthly priesthood position or function in the New Covenant. There also isn’t, as Bohr “uniformedly” (and more likely: indifferently/knowingly, straw-manly postulates) “(sacramental) priestly religious leadership” in the NT Church. That frankly is Roman Catholic Theology.
The New Covenant equivalence of that Old Covenant special ministry/consecration is now to be wholly found in the pertinent Holy Spirit Wisdom and Understanding that any person (=Jer 31:34), particularly in the still needed Ecclesiastical leadership positions, (with the office of a prophet being, pointedly today, -2000 years after Christ in person appearance on Earth, the topmost (cf. Luke 11:49; 1 Cor 12:28; Eph 2:20; 3:5)), should have in order to make the proper Biblical decisions and judgements...and, through God’s empowering/complementing Spirit, (beyond just the basic substantive knowledge that can easily be accessed and had by educational/informing means), that now can be achieved by either a male or a female. (e.g., Joe 2:28-29|Acts 2:17-18).
The New Covenant equivalence of that Old Covenant special ministry/consecration is now to be wholly found in the pertinent Holy Spirit Wisdom and Understanding that any person (=Jer 31:34), particularly in the still needed Ecclesiastical leadership positions, (with the office of a prophet being, pointedly today, -2000 years after Christ in person appearance on Earth, the topmost (cf. Luke 11:49; 1 Cor 12:28; Eph 2:20; 3:5)), should have in order to make the proper Biblical decisions and judgements...and, through God’s empowering/complementing Spirit, (beyond just the basic substantive knowledge that can easily be accessed and had by educational/informing means), that now can be achieved by either a male or a female. (e.g., Joe 2:28-29|Acts 2:17-18).
-The fact that Deborah was not a king means absolutely nothing in regards to her Spirit Ordination as Israel did not have a monarchy then. The fact that Huldah later never became a king (i.e., monarch) also means nothing as that just was not what she was called to fulfill, and Israel did show that a woman could be accepted as the Monarch of Israel in Queen Athaliah if (supposedly) their were no male offspring to succeed. But that too was just merely according to the monarchial ways of pagan nations.
-Bohr (manifestly prefers) to conflate the governing headship issue in the Bible, which defaultly has the male as the head, with that of religious leadership, which it is God’s Spirit who decides who will fill such positions and has repeatedly, in the OT and NT Eras, shown that He will select male or female for such positions. Again it is God’s Spirit which determines ordination and not gender or mere accession to a position.
-Bohr claiming that ‘women can fill any position in the Church from Pastors, to Evangelists, to Conference presidents, but just not be ordained’, is hoodwinkingly deceptive and Biblically ignorant.* Fact is that all who ever fill any of these positions should actually also be ordained, i.e., called and manifesting fruits of God’s Spirit working in them. And again, God has shown that He will also ordain women, and as seen in Israel’s history, right through to the selection of EGW, it is typically because the men are not living up to the main advantages that they naturally have to be able to easily fulfill such positions that God has had to turn to the female gender for the next best candidate for such a task, and even if He has had to supernaturally empower a woman to do so...just as His Spirit would likewise have had to come to the aid of a not naturally gifted/educated/knowledgeable male for such a position.
The most manifest Truth of the matter is that, if it was up to God, women would focus on what they are naturally gifted to do best, which is nurture the family and men would do the inherent “heavy lifting” work in the public realm. It certainly is not God ideal that the roles be reversed here as men cannot do what women can better do and vice-versa. But because both sides are deficient, leading to all sorts of confusion in society as a whole, God has had to injunctively empower, especially women to do what men have neglected to do...and frankly in all of this, and even in the present contemporary situation where women can easily get the same “heavy duty” education that men get to fulfill their tasks, it inevitably is the next children generation which is short-changed by this roles inversal leading to all kinds of fully blown and/or budding societal dysfunction, however there are now many tasks that women can now easily be qualified to do as men could, pointedly given the fact that proper home-making has become much more simpler so the actual principle that can be taken from this whole/wide “role of women” issue, is whether or not the various home-making tasks, for actually also men who are supposed to have the role of Spiritual/Religious leadership in the home, are being neglected. I.e., if a man spends so much time at work and other activities outside the home circles and thus is not fulfilling his Spiritual leadership functions, then that is just as a problem as a women likewise so involved in pursuing a career and neglecting various home-making responsibilities.
The overarching principle is, and actually for the benefit of all, for people to do what they are in a position to readily, best do, and it really is intrusion and progress of sin which has caused a division is especially Spiritual responsibilities, whereas initially both Adam and Eve (i.e, Male and Females) were to be equal Spiritual leaders in their homes, yet in terms of Physical tasks, God clearly had specific roles for males vs. females and indeed specially created them to best/readily meet those roles. And, as it actually is implicitly stated in the cursing of the Man’s and the Woman’s main task by God in Gen 3:16, 17, this can be seen to non-prejoratively be: the Female being designed to give and nurture life and the Male was designed to providingly sustain that life. If either side did not meet its role, then life on this Earth, including God’s original abundant life plan/ideal, which actually depended upon the complete population filling up of this planet, would not be achieved. And it is actually in the pursuance of those God-attributed roles that the Man and the Woman would fulfill their ‘ideally distinct’, but joint, default parts to (properly) ‘rule over this’ planet. (Gen 1:27-28; cf. 1 Tim 2:15). Only in today’s sinful/selfish world are these things seen as wrong and that is indeed what the encompassing and reflective Satanic Capitalistic system and mindset seeks to pervasively instill in man so that this ideal of God would never be reached, pointedly as, if there is that rate of increase in world population it would force people to resort to just resource sharing measures (=Biblical Socialism). Tellingly enough even SDA have bought into this sly Satanic deception by endorsing (elective) abortion and also preaching that the increase in population is a Sign of the Apocalypse all because that they to believe that their cannot be life outside of their revered Capitalistic system....
* Another related example of the often, inherently indifferent, frankly, i.e. calling things as they are intended,“air-faced/quasi-air headed”, thus “hoodwinking” claims of/from Stephen Bohr is his claim here [41:43], (during his “Anchor School of Theology” series), that ‘1 Tim 2:12 does actually allows a woman to “teach” [oh, really??], but just not at a cross-jurisdictional/global level as someone who is “ordained”’, with that woman’s ‘permitted jurisdiction’ being claimed to be her local church or Sabbath school class. (So then, that woman can easily serve as a “local” pastor and/or teacher. That claim in itself indeed makes no sense as it is inherent self-contradictory as the issue here is “teaching” not “jurisdiction”. And to circumvent that quite obvious fallacy, Bohr claims, from his recurring “hoodwinking” pseudo-exegesis resorting that: ‘the Greek word for “teach” in 1 Tim 2:12 is not the normative one for “teaching”, but rather a special one which involves ‘teaching with authority’. Well first of all, that Greek word is didasko (#1321) [91 occurrences in NT; -204 (lemma) occurrences with LXX; relatedly see also Strongs #1317-#1322 (+#2085; #2567; #3547; #5572) for an added 114(+19) Greek words which are derived from didasko.)] which, as taught in “Greek 101”s, as I myself encountered, is the pointed/default word for “teaching”. The NT word which would come close to what Bohr could claim as a “secondary word” for “teaching” would be katecheo #2727 (lit. “according to[#2596]+‘echo’/noise”[#2278] i.e. ‘what has been said/sounded-heard’ =“catechism”) which has only 8 occurrences in the NT and means merely “instructing” which just involves a ‘(rote) repeating of something/knowledge’. So that would thus mean that women, when, “locally: of course, preaching or teaching are only permitted to repeat what they have heard from others (i.e., a male teachers) and certainly not advance new/original Biblical/Spiritual understandings.
Update: 11-08-13: Approving results, at 85%, of what is now dual-talkingly said to be ‘merely-NAD’ findings: here and here... So I guess that the 12 other Church’s Divisions better, for reasons of “efficiency”[##:##] of course, deferentially rubber-stamp these findings from “Jerusalem”... See a comprehensive sermon/presentation based directly on the NAD findings’s (voluminous) report here.
Update: 02-26-14 “Hermeneutics”: Most succinctly said, neither the [here, here then here discussed (by opponents)] NAD’s newly proposed: “Principle-Based Historical-Cultural” (PBHC) hermeneutic, nor the presently standing “Historical-Grammatical” (HG) “Thought Inspiration” Method of Bible Study are the proper ways of studying the Bible. The PBHC is too inherently prone to subjectivity and “human culture/traditions”; and the HG is actually only selectively strictly followed by its (SDA) proponents, not to mention in regards to textual ‘grammar’ issues. Instead, as cited for the “Eden in the Wilderness” section in here, the straightforward/realistic/logical “method” used and shown by Jesus in Matt 4:1-11|Luke 4:1-13 is the proper approach. It involves:
* Another related example of the often, inherently indifferent, frankly, i.e. calling things as they are intended,“air-faced/quasi-air headed”, thus “hoodwinking” claims of/from Stephen Bohr is his claim here [41:43], (during his “Anchor School of Theology” series), that ‘1 Tim 2:12 does actually allows a woman to “teach” [oh, really??], but just not at a cross-jurisdictional/global level as someone who is “ordained”’, with that woman’s ‘permitted jurisdiction’ being claimed to be her local church or Sabbath school class. (So then, that woman can easily serve as a “local” pastor and/or teacher. That claim in itself indeed makes no sense as it is inherent self-contradictory as the issue here is “teaching” not “jurisdiction”. And to circumvent that quite obvious fallacy, Bohr claims, from his recurring “hoodwinking” pseudo-exegesis resorting that: ‘the Greek word for “teach” in 1 Tim 2:12 is not the normative one for “teaching”, but rather a special one which involves ‘teaching with authority’. Well first of all, that Greek word is didasko (#1321) [91 occurrences in NT; -204 (lemma) occurrences with LXX; relatedly see also Strongs #1317-#1322 (+#2085; #2567; #3547; #5572) for an added 114(+19) Greek words which are derived from didasko.)] which, as taught in “Greek 101”s, as I myself encountered, is the pointed/default word for “teaching”. The NT word which would come close to what Bohr could claim as a “secondary word” for “teaching” would be katecheo #2727 (lit. “according to[#2596]+‘echo’/noise”[#2278] i.e. ‘what has been said/sounded-heard’ =“catechism”) which has only 8 occurrences in the NT and means merely “instructing” which just involves a ‘(rote) repeating of something/knowledge’. So that would thus mean that women, when, “locally: of course, preaching or teaching are only permitted to repeat what they have heard from others (i.e., a male teachers) and certainly not advance new/original Biblical/Spiritual understandings.
Well the duality of the above sequitur implications from Bohr’s (pseudo)-claim would all posthumously disfellowship EGW from the SDA Church as (1) she certainly, and with wide and formal acceptance, did preach and teach, and that most authoritatively so, in fact, even to this day, the most, especially in terms of prolific quantity, authoritatively so in SDA History, and that not merely in her ‘local Church, Sabbath School Class and/or home Bible Study’, but from General Conference session pulpits and platforms, campmeetings worldwide, and in globally circulated publications, including her authoritative “red” books; not to mention special testimonies, counsels and rebuking letters to also men, including those in formal authority in the Church right up to the office of the GC President. The Biblical authorizing reason is that her “anointing” as a prophet did indeed put her at the topmost Spiritual authority in the Church. (Eph 2:20; 1 Cor 12:28)
Update: 11-08-13: Approving results, at 85%, of what is now dual-talkingly said to be ‘merely-NAD’ findings: here and here... So I guess that the 12 other Church’s Divisions better, for reasons of “efficiency”[##:##] of course, deferentially rubber-stamp these findings from “Jerusalem”... See a comprehensive sermon/presentation based directly on the NAD findings’s (voluminous) report here.
Update: 02-26-14 “Hermeneutics”: Most succinctly said, neither the [here, here then here discussed (by opponents)] NAD’s newly proposed: “Principle-Based Historical-Cultural” (PBHC) hermeneutic, nor the presently standing “Historical-Grammatical” (HG) “Thought Inspiration” Method of Bible Study are the proper ways of studying the Bible. The PBHC is too inherently prone to subjectivity and “human culture/traditions”; and the HG is actually only selectively strictly followed by its (SDA) proponents, not to mention in regards to textual ‘grammar’ issues. Instead, as cited for the “Eden in the Wilderness” section in here, the straightforward/realistic/logical “method” used and shown by Jesus in Matt 4:1-11|Luke 4:1-13 is the proper approach. It involves:
(1) That every word spoken by God be fully, taken into consideration (Matt 4:4|Luke 4:4)
(2)&(3) The complete testimony of what God has pertinently directly/explicitly/“prophetically” or even merely ratifyingly said and/or done takes authoritative and determining precedence over what any Bible writer has expressed. (Matt 4:6-7|Luke 4:10-12 = Deut 6:16 = Exod 17:4-7 = Num 14:22) & (Matt 4:10|Luke 4:8 = Deut 6:13 cf. 10:20 = Exod 20:3-5|Deut 5:7-9)
Ergo since, [as for the issue of the inclusion of the Gentiles], God has precedentially allowed for women to have the highest Civil and Spiritual/Instructing/Guiding (=teaching) authority in His Israel by Anointing (=Ordaining), in the OT, the Judge & Prophetess Deborah, and Prophetess Huldah, and in the NT, by speaking prophetically through women who then had to bindingly heed by the rest of His people, (as later again done through EGW), then it is whoever God objectively/transparently shows is called/commissioned/anointed/ordained by Him who actually is, -and, (either way), whether male or female!
So Paul’s various statements and reasoning as to why he himself did not [defaulty] place a woman in “governing authority” over a man, or teach men, is easily trumped by any woman who God would, as He has already done, have anointed with/for such duties. Paul rightly stated the clear default case, but that does not handicapped the (injunctive) judgement, wisdom and authority of God in such matters.
Therefore, in summary: the proper method of/for Biblical study is the “(hierarchally) realistic” (i.e., in regards to how Inspiration actually works): God’s (including Jesus’) statements/revelations/actions first and then anything else in Scripture subordinately after, -(including the likewise “realistic” differentiation from what is included in the corpus of Scripture between what is (verifiedly) derived/based on those direct expressions of God and what actually just is not....even if it is “descriptively/journalistically” included within Scripture).
As, (as documented throughout this blog (see e.g. here)), I myself have consistently seen and experienced ever since adopting this “realistic” way of engage God and the Bible, which is fundamentally based on believe that God ‘says/does what He means and means what He says/does’, instead of various imposed “sanctimoniously apologetic” and/or merely rotely scholastic methodologies, you not only arrive at the Concrete Truth, but it also, (usually recursively through a better perception of what has actually already been (especially Divinely/prophetically) revealed in the Bible and SOP), opens up valid/proven avenues of/for sound, deeper and most enlightening Theological understanding!
Update 03-23-14 - For mostly documenting/journalistic value, see Bohr’s insider TOSC deliberations account, albeit coloringly biased from his view/stance, here [present wave of discussion on this issue, i.e., 2010+ is at 17:58ff. (Bohr’s commenting on issues of difference, most pointedly or generally debunked by what has been presented in this blog section on this issue is at ca. 38:34ff)
Update 06-18-14 - See here [38:00ff] for a presentation, from Stephen Bohr, on a “Third Option” which was claimed about Women Ordination in the June 2014 TOSC meeting.
EGW|Prophet and Baptizing - In regards to EGW’s Biblical (higher level of) Ordination, and what was permissible/acceptable for her to do:
-Trying to claim that the gift of prophecy is not proof that it is an office is again most unbiblical. And if people received their “different” Spiritual Gift at baptism but only were eligible to hold office through a different or matured gifting, then that would mean many people are generically given the gift of prophecy at their baptism but only some of those come to “mature” that gift. Fact is that God anoints/ordains and appoints people to the Prophetic Office at any needed time. And it is actually Prophets who would, at God’s leading, select (initial) kings. It is because God/Jesus themselves chose and appointed Apostles and Prophets that they, (and also those who they may in turn select, and God accept to succeed them in that office), had the highest position of leadership in God’s Israel, indeed above priests in the OT and pastor-teacher, evangelist, etc, in the NT. SDAs need to turn this hierarchy upside down because they are trying to justify the fact that they do not directly hear from God. So they have come to make it seem that God’s topmost authority is those who they themselves (“democratically”) select and vote into presidential and pastoral offices. But the overruling fact is that whenever God steps in and raises up, especially a prophet, who him/her-self directs to the establishment of a governing leader, that is to be considered the top most position in effect. In fact the counsels and writings of EGW, all pointing back to the Word of God, still hold such a topmost position in the SDA Church, but it is only subjectively/selectively followed by the lower Presidential and Pastoral leaders today.
-LOL, if, as per Doug Batchelor: ‘the selection of deacons in Acts 6:1-7 is to also be indicative that only men can be ordained’ (1 Tim 3:8-13)...then (1) how is Phoebe also called a deacon-ess (Rom 16:1), and (2) why does the SDA Church currently have deaconesses???!!! -And, debunkingly, in 1 Tim 3:11, Paul merely repeats, now for women deaconesses, what is pointedly applicable to them....which strongly implies that many men sins such as drinking were not prominent sins of women. And it is in this light of relevantly addressing the particularly main sins of each group, that Paul goes on to add the issue of men having more than one wife (1 Tim 3:12), which, as already discussed, most logically was not in regards to adultery, but in regards to Israel’s lawfully permitted bi|poly-gamy....The status quo of uninformed stupidity still reigns supreme in the Church, at some level or another, even, even more mind-bogglingly, when people are selected to represent the Church such deliberative, study committee. It would not at all shock me that many of these representative come to these discussion not to Biblically study together, but rather to merely just to pridefully champion their pet views and rationalizations.... Seriously, after 2+ years of ‘studying together’ how in the world does anyone still spout of uninformed and erroneous claims and views such as this one....It probably is the case that most of these participants would fail a factual exegesis-based test on the pertinent passages and arguments presented on the issue...Why then should their mere summary voting be considered valid!?? And of course, as is the Cainly-irresponsible/indifferent norm in SDA Circles, no one on that panel, who probably knew this was erroneous, cared to set the record straight, even for their audience, or, if for nothing the sake of Biblical Truth....But perhaps they actually all indeed are ignorant on that issue, and then who also knows what else, as made to seem here.
* So, as per that indeed ‘“fluffy/airy’ reasoning’, now that North America recognizes gay marriages, then the NAD/Church should ‘do what is acceptable in their region’ and also recognize and do gay marriages, and hire&ordain practising gay clergy.
* Case in point, as the NAD (effectively) quasi-tauntingly stated in a responding statement to the GC 2015 decision, it, the NAD still has, and will have, women pastors, and will continue to ordain women as elders and deaconesses, not to mention also let women “teach”, -nor also serve as “(Departmental) directors” (also over men), as well as, since the first “General Conference” in Acts 15 was composed of Apostles and elders, -all men (Acts 15:6-7, 22), who were to study out, then make, and thus exercise, “authoritative” decision over/for the entire Church then, then women also shouldn’t be serving as delegates for any SDA Church Constituency/Business meeting, nor be part of deliberating or study committees, -all things which the TOSC Position 1 side has explicitly or effectively vehemently [incorrectly] argued were (supposedly) contrary to Biblical teaching. (July 17, 2015): See more on this prior Vision and its seemingly wrong message explained in (prophetic) detailing in Knoll’s next, post-GC Vote Dream #72 posted on July 11, 2015 which indeed hones in on the misleading motion for that GC “Women Ordination” Vote.
Notes
[1] See also Nelson’s 10-06-12 sermon on ‘rethinking male headship’ entitled, from, (supposedly thematically pertinently) Psa 68:11 (NASB)*: “A Mighty Throng of Women”, which mainly presents the correct Biblical Hermeneutic that God can supercede a previous law/order which He had given through His own, clear/explicit, overturning leading and/or direct actions.
* Quite unlike the instance when, in the July 21 AM (i.e., Sabbath Morning Service) sermon here (mp3) [at 35:26-37:32-38:04] during a sermon as the invited, final weekend, main speaker at the 2012 Alberta Conference Campmeeting, Jonathan Henderson was resolutely, yet nonetheless politely/agreeably, interrupted by someone in the audience to be corrected on the view he had just claimed that ‘the actual/only reason why Sodom was destroyed was because of the socio-economic sins ‘“explicitly” cited by God’ in Ezek 16:48-50.’ It indeed was not the only reason, but probably the precursory selfish sinning which then led to a next level of “abominable” sinning (=Ezek 16:50b; Jud 1:7 (see here); cf. Josephus, Antiquities, 1:11.1 [#194] -typically bloodshedding and/or sexual perversion) which “haughty”/arrogant/righteousness disdaining people just would not be rationally corrected upon, and so God had no other choice then to efface such a pervasive, threatening and spreading culture of perversion, probably sickness, violence and death.#
As, (as documented throughout this blog (see e.g. here)), I myself have consistently seen and experienced ever since adopting this “realistic” way of engage God and the Bible, which is fundamentally based on believe that God ‘says/does what He means and means what He says/does’, instead of various imposed “sanctimoniously apologetic” and/or merely rotely scholastic methodologies, you not only arrive at the Concrete Truth, but it also, (usually recursively through a better perception of what has actually already been (especially Divinely/prophetically) revealed in the Bible and SOP), opens up valid/proven avenues of/for sound, deeper and most enlightening Theological understanding!
Update 03-23-14 - For mostly documenting/journalistic value, see Bohr’s insider TOSC deliberations account, albeit coloringly biased from his view/stance, here [present wave of discussion on this issue, i.e., 2010+ is at 17:58ff. (Bohr’s commenting on issues of difference, most pointedly or generally debunked by what has been presented in this blog section on this issue is at ca. 38:34ff)
Update 06-18-14 - See here [38:00ff] for a presentation, from Stephen Bohr, on a “Third Option” which was claimed about Women Ordination in the June 2014 TOSC meeting.
EGW|Prophet and Baptizing - In regards to EGW’s Biblical (higher level of) Ordination, and what was permissible/acceptable for her to do:
[obvious/well-known scriptural allusions/references omitted]
-Both Paul and Peter were also prophets, on top of being apostles, (with Paul having been commissioned (to the Gentiles) in a vision by Jesus Christ) who were prophetically guided to specially build up God’s NT Church amongst Gentiles.
-Both Peter and Paul (as apostles and prophets) had, or themselves, baptized people (Acts 10:47-48; 1 Cor 1:14-16 (=Acts 18:8)); therefore, from the Bible, it never was “only pastors” (or Roman Catholic priest) who could do baptisms.
-The ordination of level of Peter and Paul as apostle and prophet is, (as already stated in this thread), above that of a pastor/shepherd, though it is capable of being inclusive of the functions of the “lower levels” (cf. Acts 6:1-6; 1 Cor 1:17)
And so, with EGW having been ordained by God and His Spirit to that topmost ordination tier level of a prophet, and with her also receiving many commissions from Christ through direct revelations towards building up the Apostolic Remnant Church, which indeed “sent” her on many pioneering missions to the Global Church, (which is why EGW was “more than a prophet”, indeed, like John the Baptist (Matt 11:9-10 = Mal 3:1a), and as Jesus Christ Himself also, directly likewise, told her, a “messenger” (UL 160.1-6 =‘an (ambassadorially) sent one’), she thus was also ordained to that Biblical apostolic office which was never limited to the 12, she, ergo was Biblically permitted to baptize people, though she did not. -It just was not a “present truth/issue/understanding” for that generation of SDA’s.
Update 07-04-14 - This two part (Part 1|Part 2) discussion between Stephen Bohr and Jennifer Arruda on her ‘Open Letter to her SDA Family’ on the Women Ordination issue (see here|here, and commenting here), is perfectly reflective of how the against side is Truth-deaf in regards what the Bible fully teaches on this issue and how they prefer to dumbly, even, at least Spiritually, senilely (=Isa 29:9-14), double-down on their inherited Babylonian (i.e. Roman Catholic) traditions on this issue (e.g. God’s Spirit only “ordainedly works in men, Pastors and Elders = NT Priests; and baptism, communion, marriage are “(mystic) sacraments” (=“ordinances”) to be only administered by these “NT Priests”).
Update 07-04-14 - This two part (Part 1|Part 2) discussion between Stephen Bohr and Jennifer Arruda on her ‘Open Letter to her SDA Family’ on the Women Ordination issue (see here|here, and commenting here), is perfectly reflective of how the against side is Truth-deaf in regards what the Bible fully teaches on this issue and how they prefer to dumbly, even, at least Spiritually, senilely (=Isa 29:9-14), double-down on their inherited Babylonian (i.e. Roman Catholic) traditions on this issue (e.g. God’s Spirit only “ordainedly works in men, Pastors and Elders = NT Priests; and baptism, communion, marriage are “(mystic) sacraments” (=“ordinances”) to be only administered by these “NT Priests”).
Some other points:
[Part #2 at 08:43ff] - It was interesting to hear that GC President Ted Wilson reported that, and as, as mentioned earlier, I had remarked long ago: the main/GC TOSC Committee is made up of 80% of NAD/North American delegates....No kidding....But the funnier thing is that he manifestly can’t, or won’t, be doing anything to fix that gross representation imbalance.
[Part #1 at 52:08ff] - The argument that Peter statement about a “Royal Priesthood” and ‘Nation of Priests’ in 1 Pet :5, 9 is still not applicable to males because it is based on the OT statement made in Exod 19:6, when then only males were permitted to be priests, is perfectly reflective of the amateurish proof-texting exegetical bias and deficiencies that clearly “naturally/helplessly” reigns supreme in these TOSC meetings. All indeed proof that the Spirit of God is not at all aiding this Synagogue of Satan Church (again - Isa 29:9-14).
-First of all, Exod 19:6 was also stated to Ethnic Jews....So how can Peter be applying it to Gentiles (1 Pet 2:10) unless there now, in Christ, no longer are “Greek vs. Jew” (Gal 3:26-29) covenantal, even “(Spiritual) priesthood” (1 Pet 2:5) restrictions!!?? And by that same provision made by Christ, through faith, surpassing the restrictions in the “tutoring” Law of Moses (Gal 3:23-25), there no longer is, also ‘through now granted mercy’ that male vs. female restriction in the building up of Christ’s Temple/People (1 Pet 2:4-6ff, 10b). I.e., as already modelled in the OT, in Spiritual matters, in the home or in the Church, God can have His Spirit “ordain” a woman, over a/other (non-qualifying) men, either for a special instance/circumstance and/or for a lifelong commission, so that (as it was the case with Foy & Foss vs. White) His perfect will can be done.
-Secondly, God had made the Exod 19:6 statement as a far looking promise, i.e. if Israel had kept their covenant (Exod 19:4-5), which was actually only possibly achievable in the New Covenant, through the perfect/better promises of Christ (Heb 8:6-7ff vs, Exod 19:7-8). So that Divine promise of a National, and Royal, priesthood (=Rev 5:10) never actually even begun to materialize in the OT because just soon after God made it in Exod 19, Israel so grossly, nationally apostasied in Exod 32 that God was only able to partly apply that promise to merely the tribe of Levi since they had repented (Exod 32:26; Num 1:49ff). So only in the NT was that promise ever capable of being applied as Peter, under inspiration saw that it indeed was being unrestrictively fulfilled in the Church established by Christ. (1 Pet 2:4-10)
-Also, again, pastors and elders are not “NT Priests” their indeed is a ‘priesthood of all believers, male or female, “Jew” or “Greek”, “Levi” or “non-Levi”, as anyone in God’s Israel can now, through spiritual sacrifices (1 Pet 2:5b), have their sins directly taken care of through the High Priest Jesus Christ (Heb 4:16), and not through any Earthly/Human Priest. Quite telling, indeed fitting that Bohr et al. are most devotedly choosing to align themselves with Babylonian, Anti-Christ Roman Catholic Theology on this issue.
-Relatedly, it was most comical to pathetically hear from Bohr, (with his patent, vindctive, ego-maniacal grinning/grimacing), [Part #2 at 26:03ff]; [and also Arruda, -though Bohr had caveatly allowed her to, fittingy enough, ‘keep silence’ on these Spiritual claims, which manifestly/Freudianly were foreknown-by-him-to-be mere personal, wishful, thus Biblically indifferent, opinions]; that: ‘Prophets were not Spiritual leaders in God’s Israel. Moreover because Kings/“Leader” did not listen to them....and these are the same kings that Bohr and Arruda self-servingly just [Part #2 at 14:25ff] (wrongly) argued were never intended to be established by God in His Israel.’ How hot-air-headedly!!!!.... And Supreme Judge Deborah was on the same leadership level as Supr4eme Judge Moses..... And the prophetic gift is also to have an office in God’s Israel, just as the other leadership giftings cited, and that in authoritatively level order several times in the NT (e.g. Eph 4:7, 11-12)... And. By the way, EGW would long have been explicitly called “Prophet (White)”if she herself had allowed it (1SM 34.5-36.2)
-Again, all these are sample examples of how these people naturally and/or simply Satanically-blindedly, prefer to be Biblically illiterate to suit their own ego. Indeed all the most natural fruit of their cherished selfish and egoistical dysfunction, and moreover God just letting them gropingly advanced in this darkness, and even encouragingly guiding them through endorsing/approving “black light” (=Ezek 14:1-9 e.g., Ernie Knoll’s revelation on Women Ordination). All of this systemic, ‘dead, self-serving, work’ (cf. Heb 9:14) Ecclesiastical dysfunction is perfectly, indeed depictively reprensented in Ezekiel’s vision of a valley of already defeated and dried up bones. (Ezek 37:1-10ff). Any granted wake-up call (Ezek 37:9-10), (cf. ending “reformation” denouement in this SOP special revelation) will indeed be necessarily inclusively harrowing (=EW 15.2) (=Rev 11:13-14 =here)
...Therefore, do sequiturly expect, contrary to Bohr’s mere human/“natural”-wisdom (1 Cor 2:6-16) blind and ditsy expectations [Part #2 at 56:30ff], a Satanic result for the TOSC resolution at the 2015 General Conference Session, for Satan is indeed the one ‘carrying on this (humanistic/unSpiritual) work’ by the long abandoned Throne (EW 56.1)!! Clearly all of their past, even future “prayers and study” are/will be making no difference for Satan is indeed the one who is responding to, and guiding this, his, -moreover desperately cheating (cf. 1 Kgs 18:25b), Baalic (=1 Kgs 18:26-29) “Assembly of Satan”!!!
...Therefore, do sequiturly expect, contrary to Bohr’s mere human/“natural”-wisdom (1 Cor 2:6-16) blind and ditsy expectations [Part #2 at 56:30ff], a Satanic result for the TOSC resolution at the 2015 General Conference Session, for Satan is indeed the one ‘carrying on this (humanistic/unSpiritual) work’ by the long abandoned Throne (EW 56.1)!! Clearly all of their past, even future “prayers and study” are/will be making no difference for Satan is indeed the one who is responding to, and guiding this, his, -moreover desperately cheating (cf. 1 Kgs 18:25b), Baalic (=1 Kgs 18:26-29) “Assembly of Satan”!!!
Update 08-01-14 - With all of the Women Ordination opposing arguments trying to use the Old Covenant as the still determinative basis for this issue, it is interesting to hear an argument from a Jewish perspective which actually suggests that Jews did not repress the full contribution of Jewish women (e.g. “First Century Jewish Women Rabbis”). See the presentations done by Jim Staley of the Hebrew Roots Movement, Passion for Truth Ministry here [e.g. 39:31-52:33] and here (Part 3) -where some interesting, exegetical arguments are made on the popular NT passages on this issue. (Summarily stated, at least for now, I personally don’t fully agree with all of the (exegetical) substantiation that are made, but they are more than less, accurate/Biblical.)
Update 08-14-14 - During ASI 2014, 3ABN attempted, here [also available here] to do a (supposed) fair discussion on the Woman Ordination Issue during their Night Line program....and nothing is more indicative of “fairness” than to stack your panel with only people who hold the same, moreover presently deliberative 20% minority, view as your own, and, at best, relying on, biasedly enough: “devil’s advocating” to present the objections and view of the other main side(s). Not surprisingly this discussion is laden with the same patent, deliberately deficient “Biblical scholarship”, that actually is plaguing both sides, -(for that is indeed the best quality of “scholarship” that can be found in the SDA Church):
-Again their whole premise of what ordination is, is tetheredly rooted in mystical Roman Catholic “Sacraments and Ordinance” Theology and not at all on the Spiritual understandings of the Bible. In the Bible “ordinances” are merely legal decrees of God which require at the very least a proper understanding of God’s Law and the complementing guidance of His, now defaultly widely distributed, Holy Spirit. So these things (i.e., baptisms, marriage, commissioning/ordination) are not limited to a supposed “priestly” grouping.
-Male Headship, which indeed exists in/for the home is actually not strictly translatable to the Church Circle, because, as seen with Judge Deborah and the top tier leadership position of prophets, God has always reserved the right to ordain women for these (moreover top most) positions in His Israel. And again, as said/documented earlier, the teaching of the Bible/Law to the “seminaric” basis, even extent, which a “Rabbi/Teacher”, as Jesus was would need, should have been the work of a father and other male teacher. But God “anointed = ordained” Mary to begin to do that education for Jesus and from that (probably directly) ‘inspired’ basis, Jesus had all He needed to continue to make proper Light of God’s word.
Male headship in the home can also be superceded if/when the husband/father is not being a moral leader, thus permitted the wife/mother, (if she remains in that marriage 1 Cor 7:10-16), to not follow his prohibitions against the teaching and doing of Biblical things. The “Spirit” always (can) pre-empts and supercedes the (inherently) inexhaustive “Letter”.
-Claiming to have a Biblical view while smugly glossing over those clear and Spiritually significant acts of God is actually what is ‘doing the devil’s work and pleading his Truth-deficiencing cause’ (e.g. Matt 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13). Indeed only properly and rightly (i.e. hierarchally) involving ‘every word/act that has proceeded from God’ will produce the Biblical Truth here, and not this idolatrously subjective, scholastically stupid and pridefully smug selective choosing of only certain (seemingly) supporting passages, as patently done by both/all sides in this (SDA) issue.
-Unlike what Paul (perhaps, given the common deficient education of women then, merely narrowly/specifically) meant in 1 Tim 2:12; there actually is no “self-fabricating” or “self-governing authority” involved in a woman holding the ordained office offices of pastor, teacher, judge, prophet in God’s Israel, since/as long as they remain faithful to properly interpreting and applying God’s word and (Prophetic) Revelation....Trumping case in point indeed: the Ministry of Ellen White. Again quote from, or even name, 10 ordained ministers in her day which like her, should be as “authoritatively” read from the Church pulpits and publications. Such arguments from the SDA opposed side are so fundamentally self-dissonant, indeed in the light of what God has fully said and done in regards to such issues. As with the leaders who vehemently opposed the furthering works of Christ, most of which were based on simply OT precedences, there is a proscribed level of, really self-conveniencing./easing, “moronicity” involved in this obtusely narrowed reading and comprehending of the Biblical testimony/revelation
-Claiming that ‘Spiritual Gifts is distinct to the qualification needed for holding an office in God’s Israel’ is hilariously laughable, -Eph 2:7-13ff & Rom 12:3-8 easily debunks that claim. That vacuous view of SDA’s is actually perfectly reflective of what if fundamentally wrong with its leadership. They relying more on their reciprocal back-scratching/slapping, “good-ol’-boys” network for choosing and maintaining leaders instead of actual Biblical Truth and the harmonizing manifestation of God’s Spirit. As Jesus moreover told Nicodemus when speaking of the necessity for having God’s Spiritual Anointing to be a leader in Israel: “You are a teacher and you don’t (even) know these things” (John 3:10). E.g. a leader who does not basically know, or comprehend that having racially/socio-economically segregated entities in the Church is not completely contrary to the Word and Character of God, can’t/won’t surely make the right, even God-fearing, decision on these issue, and thus will only be hampering the work of God....-a Spiritual consequence/fact that they obviously also cannot understand....but ‘Hey!!! These are the greatest of leaders’...I mean, circularly enough, ‘look at the (high) office/position they (still) hold’! The SDA Church, being Biblically scholastically competent is not even a requirement for its administrative leaders, yet these are the people which people are to depend on to know how to make the right decisions in, inevitably always, Biblical matters. Being able to make proper Biblical application and extrapolation relies on first having a scholastically competent Biblical basis.
-Stephen Bohr again makes the, clearly now, bluffingly lying claim that the word “teach” (Greek didaskos) in 1 Tim 2:12 is not the common word for “teaching” in the NT. It is. And Bohr again needs to present no substantiation at all for that bluff of his. He may “insanely” think that fooling the Sheeple, and other SDA leaders, who may stupidly fawn at whatever he claims, will vindicate him, but he forget that not only does God know every neurotic impulse of his awareness and motives... but God also knows NT Greek...So keep fooling yourself and others and see how that “helps” you in your Special, Israel-leader final judgement!!
-Along these same, at best mere stupidity, but most likely just pridefully-maintained, guileful bluffing lines from Bohr, he claims that if women were supposed to be implicated in the Acts 1:14ff selection of a replacement 12th apostle that the word “sisters” (Greek adelphe; Strongs #79) would have been used ‘instead’ (or: in addition to) of the word “brothers/brethren” (Greek adelphos; Strongs #80)...Well clearly he is the only person who does know that, also in the Greek, masculin terms are used to generically refer to both males and females, for, e.g., the counsels in Rom 12 , surely does not only apply to men (Rom12:1ff)!??
-Clearly it did not begin to register with them here but this simple fact that the vast majority (i.e., 73.4%) of the ca. 2300 actual respondents (out of 10,000 mailings) to their (indeed “straw” and not “scientific”) Ordination survey [see at 16:29-23:23ff] were aged 50 and older (with 51.3% being over 60). It is not merely the fact that people of such an age, pointedly born in those prior era/times (i.e., as probably opposed to someone born in our era when they will later be of that age), tend to prefer to remain set in the beliefs and ways which they have grown up on, this present age group, as actually reflected in the similarly aged crop of SDA leaders, are typically, at best, superficially, if at all, scholarly competent, and so will more naturally hang on to expression and translation ‘penned by Paul for the KJV’, rather than scholastically engage these passages and let the original language be determinative of the truth here. So their typical ~70% opposing votings are not at all surprising, not is it actually substantively indicative of what the actual Truth is on the issue.
Moreover by all being “supporters” of 3ABN (rather than even just, more widely, viewers), these “invested” respondents probably indeed already “mostly” are in agreement with this view which variously presented on 3ABN. In other words, would these be “supporters” if 3ABN had been “drummingly” only presenting, through various like-minded preachers, a pro-Woman Ordination viewpoint. In fact I have not see from them, or on their network an original presentation of the other side on this issue.
-As discussed earlier, both/all sides on this issue in the SDA Church have a faulty or deficient hermeneutics, with it keyly not being “Divinely Hierarchal”. For example, if Paul is taken alone on the topic of Righteousness then it is to be seen as being merely by faith, but James, echoing the thoughts of Christ Himself, showed that it also depended on one’s deeds/works. In the Ordination Issue, God has also acted and spoken on the issue and he has and can do what Paul himself defaulty cannot do, and that is to, if need be, empower a woman to fill the top most leadership roles in His Israel. All that Paul, and any other today can do is honestly recognize this Anointing/Ordaining by God when he clearly has done it....and the SDA Church having given so much teaching and decision making authority to EGW, as well as them presently allow many woman to “teach/preach” in the Church. (A thought which further struck me as I was listening to (e.g.) Charissa Fong teach/preach during ASI 2014...is self-contradicting, tacit admittance and recognition by them of this ordaining/anointing of women by God...(for what else Fong, or any other women who gets up front to teach and preach in a SDA gathering is doing but that...for if she/they are not “teaching”, then so is not any man who stands in that same position and incontrovertibly does/says the same things!! SDA are just mindlessly, even guilefully lying, as with Bohr, when they claim either that (1) preaching women are not really “teaching” or (2) that they are not doing the type of (purported) “higher teaching” proscribed by Paul.
Again God ordained Mary to “teach” Jesus Christ; Women Prophets are both “taught by God” and are thus empowered, authorized/commissioned, (= Biblically “ordained”) to “didactively teach”. Any attempted, but just double-talking, differentiation by SDA, including them hanging on to a Catholic “priestly” view of ordination, both which need to ignore what God has, and can, indeed is still, doing, is really nothing else than a vacuous chauvinistic objection and argument.
-For those who actually have a proper hermeutics for Bible Study, which both incorporates ‘all that God has said and done on an issue and also has a Divine hierarchal authority, claiming that accepting Women Ordination will surely lead to accepting Homosexuality is clearly just a straw man, red herring or even scare tactic argument. However since the SDA pro-side does have a faulty dichotomic hermeneutic for this topic, the moronic-minded in that camp can indeed easily be deceived by similar arguments being made for Homosexuality. (Perfect case in point, the Scripture-twisting and Bible-blaspheming claims of Jonathan Henderson documented below; see a/his “first canon blast” here [reposted video] further discussed here.)
But on the issue of Homosexuality God has, unlike the Empowering/Ordaining of Women, never made an exemption, on top of actually formally explicitly speaking against it. (I.e., God actually has never said that a woman could not hold the top most authoritative positions of Judge (=King) and Prophet, and for that matter a priestly office. It is just that God did not allow for women functioning as priests in the Old Covenant. And when then New Covenant came around, that exclusive position was rendered obsolete (i.e. how it functioned in the OT). Now all can be their own priest, including women. Pastors just do not mediate between God and the sinner as Catholics have it.
And in regards to the fulfilled “nation of priest” promise in the NT, it actually is also further fulfill by how God’s Israel now is to minister towards unbelievers today by missionarily/evangelistically going out to them and help them bridge themselves to God. That was to be in fulfillment of Isa 61:1-6, which was to impetusly (cf. Acts 2:1-4ff) involve Joel 2:28-29’s Latter Rain “anointing” (=Holy Spirit “ordaining”) of all, ‘irrespective of socio-economic class or gender’, within God’s Israel, and pointedly: “prophetically”, -i.e. all/each directly hearing from God (=Jer 31:34), and to the benefit of all, so that they can then set out to do their priestly task in the nations. But that is something that OT Israel never came in a position to do, (and in certain ways, NT Israel stopped short of completing...arguably until God started to do so through EGW and her “anointed/ordained” prophetic, pastoral-teaching ministry which is still most authoritative today amongst peer-workers (i.e., can only be authoritatively superceded by Bible Prophets/Writers)). So the entire OT Covenant was spent on God first trying to get all of Israel to be fastenedly bridged to their own God. (cf. Jer 31:34)
In fact, in a further New Covenant context, as this ‘priestly “teaching” and witnessing “bridging” is still to be done, it is “only the 144,000” (EW 18.2) (later to also apply to the Great Multitude) who will be entering and function as priests in God’s Temple, and in the Plan A Millennium Scenario this will indeed be done by them as they minister to the remaining of the unsealed/unbelieving world. (Rev 7:13-15).
-As with a Women being Anointed/Ordained by God’s Spirit to be able to do what a man was naturally gifted and cultural facilitated to do, (e.g., Judge and Prophet), the only way that God’s Spirit would similarly validatingly empower a person who is in the Homosexual lifestyle, is by leading them to be born from above and thus not naturally giving in to their strong, counter-natural, tendencies. And as, from Eve literally greatly influencing Adam to decide to sin, women have, and still do have a great influence, and determinative effect, even control on the morality and decision making of man...(just check out many/most suggestively-pitched advertisments today), therein was the major reason why they were not normatively given leadership positions in prior times, for if, due to primarily, vitally and Spiritually necessary homemaking duties, they could not, like men indeed invest much time in getting the necessary education into God’s Law, a nd other civil matters, they it frankly would greatly be left to them resorting to their natural “influence” over men to sway them, even quasi-pityingly, into accepting their position as true. Case in point, Sarah reverse-convincing Abraham to have the Promised child with Hagar instead... “Natural” fact is, a non-competent man making a similar argument may more readily be dismissed than a, for various reasons, woman of similar educational/knowledge/wisdom level. So really until the pertinent intellectual difference between a man and a women could be objectively placed on an even level, i.e. through women today being able to time and home-making duties wise, “affording” to get the pertinent education for e.g., pastoring and religious teaching, -again a difference that God’s Spirit priorly had to Supernaturally make up before (as done with EGW), then it really was not until very late in this New Covenant Era, (and even beyond the precedential days of the prophetic|teaching|preaching|(effectively) pastoral and even presidential Ministry of EGW), that women, as is the case today, could be defaultly considered as Biblically valid candidates for the Ecclesiastical leadership position, non-of which are actually “priestly”, which indeed is no longer according to the Old Covenant “ceremonially mediating” model, but according to the New Covenant witnessing/evangelizing and prayer intercessional model. Indeed it would actually have been scandalous in the OT if Israel had formally “sent out” a women to witness to them about God (thus as “ambassadors”, =OT “apostles”), but that is the inclusive norm, indeed commission/mandate for women in the New Covenant. (cf. Matt 28:18-20; just like that commission is not limited to the 11, i.e., not also to other believing men, it is also not exclusive of women).
-If God always had a prophetic office from the very formal start of His Israel (Exod 3:10-16ff; cf. Exod 7:1), even before (Gen 20:7), but was most reluctant to establish a King over Israel (until they were ready, and which probably would straightly have (only) been the Messiah), then how does a prophet now play “second fiddle” to a King/President. This asinine defensive claim by SDAs is so mindlessly non-sensical, it indeed betrays their desperate defensive efforts to try to not recognize the clear and Biblical fact that women have been placed by God in the top most Spiritual positions in His Church. The SDA Presidency Office, which first came in existence (relatively) long after God had done His Remnant Church leading establishment through the Prophetic Office (of EGW), and which later only proved to, like virtually all but a handful of Kings in Israel, be an opposition to God’s leading through His Prophet, is Biblically and Spiritually not at all a “higher” position than God’s Prophetic Office.
Furthermore EGW rightly stated that the Presidency-led General Conference at one point was not longer the “voice of God”, and though the GC tacitly conversely, erroneously claim this many times about EGW, that indeed actually was never the case. Just like the U.S. Congress Power actually has greater potential power over the U.S. Presidential Power since it directly hears from the highest ruling authority in that system, the People, and thus can set Law, so do Prophets vs. Kings/Presidents, because they themselves directly hear from the Supreme Authority in God’s Israel: God Himself. In fact EGW herself stated, and as many examples in her life and ministry can substantiate: ‘she only followed the voice of the General Conference at times when she did not have clear light herself.’ (21MR 122.7 [1892]). Indeed the fact of the matter is that if a prophet has clearly related what God Himself has said, then a King/President really has no other choice but to obey and conform themselves. But that was an ongoing battle between EGW and the leadership of the Church, even to this day, including with God’s Contemporary (half)-prophets, and certainly not the full-one. And that is because Kings/Presidents always had their own private, humanistic and sinful agendas to pridefully maintain and defend, and they would not be rebuked and correct by “the (prophetic) word of God...but always just to their, judiciously adjudged, self-fastened personal and national doom and destruction!! (Matt 23:34-36; cf. 2Chr 20:20).
-The leaders in EGW’s day had, like they also still variously do today, a deficient understanding of ordination, yet as the evidence for this Truth was actually accessible to them if they devoted themselves to studying out the Bible, and manifestly as it also could not be a readily implementable, even not then necessary, “Present Truth”, EGW was not given any clarifying/determinative light of the issue, but she most likely fully knew and understood that she was doing the work of all of the highest “ordained/anointed” leadership positions in the SDA Church. The Church not/never formally recognizing her is certainly not “proof” that she was not ordained....It instead just showed that they were knowledgeably deficient on this issue.
-Not seeing that a competent knowledge is fundamental to one being ordained, indeed with God Himself doing this when it cannot be done otherwise, is like claiming that a person can be trusted to function as an engineer, doctor, lawyer without ever having had full education, training and experience in those professions. Furthermore, one’s ordination is not to be determined by e.g. the number of baptisms or membership growth that a pastor-teacher produces for if that is the criteria, then most Bible prophets were not ordained as they were roundly greatly/majoritarily rejected, even persecuted. Instead the substantive Biblical quality of the message being presented is what shows that God’s Spirit is working through that person. E.g. As sampled below, a preacher-teacher being “naturalistically” capable of “standing on his head” in the pulpit and spin the Scriptures in a creative or comical way, and thus can easily attract a similarly shallow and superficial crowd is, LOL, not proof that they are “anointed, thus ordained”. Just like the empty calories of a sugary breakfast cereal in not “proper nutrition”. When people became interested in Jesus even because of the Divine signs/miracles He could do, He immediately showed that this was not determinative of conversion. Rather the substantive Truth of God’s Word were. (John 6:26-27ff, 48-71).
-Not seeing that a competent knowledge is fundamental to one being ordained, indeed with God Himself doing this when it cannot be done otherwise, is like claiming that a person can be trusted to function as an engineer, doctor, lawyer without ever having had full education, training and experience in those professions. Furthermore, one’s ordination is not to be determined by e.g. the number of baptisms or membership growth that a pastor-teacher produces for if that is the criteria, then most Bible prophets were not ordained as they were roundly greatly/majoritarily rejected, even persecuted. Instead the substantive Biblical quality of the message being presented is what shows that God’s Spirit is working through that person. E.g. As sampled below, a preacher-teacher being “naturalistically” capable of “standing on his head” in the pulpit and spin the Scriptures in a creative or comical way, and thus can easily attract a similarly shallow and superficial crowd is, LOL, not proof that they are “anointed, thus ordained”. Just like the empty calories of a sugary breakfast cereal in not “proper nutrition”. When people became interested in Jesus even because of the Divine signs/miracles He could do, He immediately showed that this was not determinative of conversion. Rather the substantive Truth of God’s Word were. (John 6:26-27ff, 48-71).
-Trying to claim that the gift of prophecy is not proof that it is an office is again most unbiblical. And if people received their “different” Spiritual Gift at baptism but only were eligible to hold office through a different or matured gifting, then that would mean many people are generically given the gift of prophecy at their baptism but only some of those come to “mature” that gift. Fact is that God anoints/ordains and appoints people to the Prophetic Office at any needed time. And it is actually Prophets who would, at God’s leading, select (initial) kings. It is because God/Jesus themselves chose and appointed Apostles and Prophets that they, (and also those who they may in turn select, and God accept to succeed them in that office), had the highest position of leadership in God’s Israel, indeed above priests in the OT and pastor-teacher, evangelist, etc, in the NT. SDAs need to turn this hierarchy upside down because they are trying to justify the fact that they do not directly hear from God. So they have come to make it seem that God’s topmost authority is those who they themselves (“democratically”) select and vote into presidential and pastoral offices. But the overruling fact is that whenever God steps in and raises up, especially a prophet, who him/her-self directs to the establishment of a governing leader, that is to be considered the top most position in effect. In fact the counsels and writings of EGW, all pointing back to the Word of God, still hold such a topmost position in the SDA Church, but it is only subjectively/selectively followed by the lower Presidential and Pastoral leaders today.
-LOL, if, as per Doug Batchelor: ‘the selection of deacons in Acts 6:1-7 is to also be indicative that only men can be ordained’ (1 Tim 3:8-13)...then (1) how is Phoebe also called a deacon-ess (Rom 16:1), and (2) why does the SDA Church currently have deaconesses???!!! -And, debunkingly, in 1 Tim 3:11, Paul merely repeats, now for women deaconesses, what is pointedly applicable to them....which strongly implies that many men sins such as drinking were not prominent sins of women. And it is in this light of relevantly addressing the particularly main sins of each group, that Paul goes on to add the issue of men having more than one wife (1 Tim 3:12), which, as already discussed, most logically was not in regards to adultery, but in regards to Israel’s lawfully permitted bi|poly-gamy....The status quo of uninformed stupidity still reigns supreme in the Church, at some level or another, even, even more mind-bogglingly, when people are selected to represent the Church such deliberative, study committee. It would not at all shock me that many of these representative come to these discussion not to Biblically study together, but rather to merely just to pridefully champion their pet views and rationalizations.... Seriously, after 2+ years of ‘studying together’ how in the world does anyone still spout of uninformed and erroneous claims and views such as this one....It probably is the case that most of these participants would fail a factual exegesis-based test on the pertinent passages and arguments presented on the issue...Why then should their mere summary voting be considered valid!?? And of course, as is the Cainly-irresponsible/indifferent norm in SDA Circles, no one on that panel, who probably knew this was erroneous, cared to set the record straight, even for their audience, or, if for nothing the sake of Biblical Truth....But perhaps they actually all indeed are ignorant on that issue, and then who also knows what else, as made to seem here.
Gotta LOL at a Church which fundamentally think that they way to ‘Go Forward and Triumph’ is to sanctimoniously cover up individual, and especially corporate errors and waywardness. Do keep foolishly assuaging yourselves (Isa 28:14-22, 23-29).
Indeed the Bible Studying which launched the post 1844-precursor group to the SDA Church was not settled by voting but by an arrived at unanimous consensus on what the Bible actually taught on an issue, and it is indeed that spirit dedicated to arriving at the full and exact Biblical Truth that God could, and preservingly did, honor and compliment by His Spirit. The fact that the SDA Church will be both deciding Truth by voting, (and now, as expressed in this 3ABN discussion, their grand, “indeed” inspired (=EW 56.1), solution is, -since their paid and supposedly educated leadership cannot either arrive at a Biblical evident solution, nor, vacuously enough, give the people what they (inevitably ignoramusly) think/want/prefer, is to indeed turn these involved things over to a further confused and amateur direct-democratic vote....Good Luck with that...), and also that they have been going on, even concluded their deliberations when there still is not a unanimous consensus on the Truth, (and have they actually been pleading with God for decisive light on these issues...or would they even be given it), is self-evidence enough of the dishonourable partisan-based approach to this deliberation. The Church should not consider this issue settled, or even then mootly “votable”, without having a prior unanimous consensus on each and every contributive passage, argument and issue and sub-issue (e.g. hermeneutics) on this topic....But, as mindless typical with SDAs...who actually has time for arriving at, especially, clear/concrete Truth....For they have Capitalistic bills to pay on one side, and a before-their-death, supposed-generally-scheduled Second Coming to, not even hasten, but merely carelessly “keep on schedule” with, on the other side. Talk about ‘shooting themselves “in the top of the head”’....Inceptively precisely and generally why indeed I long, Divinely-Encouragedly, left that iceberg side-swiping, now clearly sinking, Ship. Thank You Jesus for every preserving thing indeed (Rev 3:7-13; 11:3-4ff). I certainly did not contribute to that ‘selfishness-rooted & -cherished, catastrophic navigational error’ of that vessel, so I certainly have no, even, human compellation to “sink with that ship”!!!
Indeed the Bible Studying which launched the post 1844-precursor group to the SDA Church was not settled by voting but by an arrived at unanimous consensus on what the Bible actually taught on an issue, and it is indeed that spirit dedicated to arriving at the full and exact Biblical Truth that God could, and preservingly did, honor and compliment by His Spirit. The fact that the SDA Church will be both deciding Truth by voting, (and now, as expressed in this 3ABN discussion, their grand, “indeed” inspired (=EW 56.1), solution is, -since their paid and supposedly educated leadership cannot either arrive at a Biblical evident solution, nor, vacuously enough, give the people what they (inevitably ignoramusly) think/want/prefer, is to indeed turn these involved things over to a further confused and amateur direct-democratic vote....Good Luck with that...), and also that they have been going on, even concluded their deliberations when there still is not a unanimous consensus on the Truth, (and have they actually been pleading with God for decisive light on these issues...or would they even be given it), is self-evidence enough of the dishonourable partisan-based approach to this deliberation. The Church should not consider this issue settled, or even then mootly “votable”, without having a prior unanimous consensus on each and every contributive passage, argument and issue and sub-issue (e.g. hermeneutics) on this topic....But, as mindless typical with SDAs...who actually has time for arriving at, especially, clear/concrete Truth....For they have Capitalistic bills to pay on one side, and a before-their-death, supposed-generally-scheduled Second Coming to, not even hasten, but merely carelessly “keep on schedule” with, on the other side. Talk about ‘shooting themselves “in the top of the head”’....Inceptively precisely and generally why indeed I long, Divinely-Encouragedly, left that iceberg side-swiping, now clearly sinking, Ship. Thank You Jesus for every preserving thing indeed (Rev 3:7-13; 11:3-4ff). I certainly did not contribute to that ‘selfishness-rooted & -cherished, catastrophic navigational error’ of that vessel, so I certainly have no, even, human compellation to “sink with that ship”!!!
-The fact to only baptism by men are recounted in the record of the NT cannot be seen as a determinant that “only men baptized” because these recorded baptism only, and that contextually so, represent a very small fractional part of the total baptisms in the NT Era, many of which could have been done by women, for, again, this claim that baptism is a priestly ordinance is just (literally) “Babylonian confusion”.
Update 09-01-14 - Response to “Third Option Video” - So here, Stephen Bohr produced and presented a video response to the (Nicholas Miller)-Third Option Video (also promulgated by Light Bearers ministry). [See some related video-discussion of this exchange in here]. The funny thing is, “funny” in the sense that this whole juvenile/amateur dysfunction of the members in TOSC is quite comical, as typical, both sides here have valid points, but instead of doing what is in order to consensusly reconcile those points, they’ll manifestly instead choose to wholly set up camp around their side. The, actually only, and also actually semi-valid point from the Bohr and the WO-opposed side is that a more careful Bible and SOP look at the Matt 12:3-4 response of Jesus, (which Daniel Mesa sassily -(as if that should help these pride-loaded “SDA colleagues” readily resolve their differences) protractedly expounds in this sermon), does show that He was not actually, and actually “blanketly”, “commending” David. The fact is that Jesus was “commending” the fact that David had partaken of that holy bread to meet that urgent, and paramilitarily/strategically hunger need. Jesus did not actually involve or go into the sinful and faithless basis from which David went about to procure that bread. (1 Sam 21:1-3ff; PP 655.3) So while God allowed the natural consequences of that sin to be reaped, the “Third Option” side is right here in that the point of Jesus merely was, as actually further made in His next example in Matt 12:5, that ‘even holy (i.e. specially set apart) things can be “profaned” in order to deal with vital emergencies and needs. Again, that is not God’s ideal, but God, as repeatedly demonstrated, is just not “Pharisaically” in the business of letting people die just to preserve some “holy order” (=Luke 10:30-37). In fact God was twice willing to ‘killingly “profane”’ His entire initial Israel plan because these “chosen” people were getting in His, still-being-obstructed (by pointedly SDAs 15MR 292.3-4), nationalistic way/plan of “blessing all of the nations of the Earth (Gen 12:2) and thus potentially salvifically redeeming most of them.
Sub-Update 09-04-14 - In a follow-up sermon on 08-30-14, this time at Bohr’s Fresno Central Church, Daniel Mesa there [20:24-22:50], based on the also Bible, and SOP textual evidence (see DA 285.2; RH, August 3, 1897 par. 1, 3 = Matt 12:7) given to him, albeit actually obtsuely, “corrects” this above claim of his that: ‘David was guilty of a sin in eating the shewbread’, but now indeed rather obfuscatingly, seeks to still find something/someone sinfully responsible of not following the law of the shewbread by claiming that it was rather the priest himself, who was guilty of ‘halvingly’ breaking God’s Law on this matter. This claim here is quite evidently an eisegetical contrivance to try to maintain this episode as something which is opposingly allusive to the Woman Ordination issue today by ‘SDA priests’. Fact is, yes this episode does not at all serve as a “Plan B” basis to warrant the ordination of women, as claimed by the TOSC “Third Option” side, but it also is actually not an example against it, as Mesa now tries to make it seem. This episode merely highlights God’s overarching Law of Life which allows for the “violation” of any law/statute/holy practice which comes to stand in the way of a righteous/innocent life to be preserved. David here was genuine and seriously starving, and him and his followers eating the only available food there, moreover while on effectively a mission on God’s side, was warranted.
The “Third Option” side is also right, though not actually for the surface/superficial externally “influential”, even culturally-relational, reasons that they claim, in presenting the view that there is an ‘alternative plan’ being involved here. However unlike them, I am not “defensively” seeing that this is actually God’s “Plan B”, but rather that this was always to be part of His Plan A. Meaning that just as, before the Fall, Eve was to be to Adam a ‘“second self”, ‘non-surpassing’ and ‘non-trampled’ “equal”’ to him (PP 46.2), thus also in ruling, and pointedly towards their globally-filling offspring, (and technically speaking, it must be respondingly distinguished here that Adam only ‘named all the animals himself’ because Eve had not yet been created (Gen 2:15, 19-20 then Gen 2:18, 21-23 (=PP 46.1); -and also, as expounded here, God manifestly originally did not have plans to create/invent a (human) female gender, but later decided/opted otherwise, and evidently actually before Adam himself realized this which is manifestly why Gen 2:18's Divine statement is made before the creation of animals, and Adam’s own realization in Gen 2:19-20), and thus, as “equals” they would have equal contribution in actions and decision making, both women and men can have the same level of position, though the Fall has actually naturally limited the height of contribution that the woman was supposed to have, in fact by likewise also limiting/curtailing that of man. In other words, because both man’s work and women’s child bearing, and their joint child rearing were complicated by the Fall, both men and women have not been able to actually be all that they could, particularly jointly be. There was now a pervasive sin issue to deal with and be preserved from, and towards that end their necessarily became specializedly non-equals. And so, all things considered about the Fall, including the level/nature of deception between Adam vs. Eve (1 Tim 2:14) and also given the fact that Man also had manifestly been deliberately given a greater “experience” (thus inherently greatly (slightly-aged) wisdom) than the woman by being created first (1 Tim 2:13), with God manifestly delaying His opted plan to create woman only Adam had lived and experienced a while, it consensusly seems to me that it is thus, in matters which involve that the man and the woman just cannot be equals, whether Spiritually, physically and/or intellectually, that an actually superior in these regards man is to have/exercise the determinative “headship” authority. But in matters/situation where God has, especially Supernaturally, as mainly done through a special imparting/anointing (=ordaining) by His Spirit, made it that a women can overcome these limiting inferiorities, then, particularly in regards to subjects/subject matter with which she is then on a equal(-ized) footing/standing with a man, then she is to be considered, and function as, an equal.
Update 09-01-14 - Response to “Third Option Video” - So here, Stephen Bohr produced and presented a video response to the (Nicholas Miller)-Third Option Video (also promulgated by Light Bearers ministry). [See some related video-discussion of this exchange in here]. The funny thing is, “funny” in the sense that this whole juvenile/amateur dysfunction of the members in TOSC is quite comical, as typical, both sides here have valid points, but instead of doing what is in order to consensusly reconcile those points, they’ll manifestly instead choose to wholly set up camp around their side. The, actually only, and also actually semi-valid point from the Bohr and the WO-opposed side is that a more careful Bible and SOP look at the Matt 12:3-4 response of Jesus, (which Daniel Mesa sassily -(as if that should help these pride-loaded “SDA colleagues” readily resolve their differences) protractedly expounds in this sermon), does show that He was not actually, and actually “blanketly”, “commending” David. The fact is that Jesus was “commending” the fact that David had partaken of that holy bread to meet that urgent, and paramilitarily/strategically hunger need. Jesus did not actually involve or go into the sinful and faithless basis from which David went about to procure that bread. (1 Sam 21:1-3ff; PP 655.3) So while God allowed the natural consequences of that sin to be reaped, the “Third Option” side is right here in that the point of Jesus merely was, as actually further made in His next example in Matt 12:5, that ‘even holy (i.e. specially set apart) things can be “profaned” in order to deal with vital emergencies and needs. Again, that is not God’s ideal, but God, as repeatedly demonstrated, is just not “Pharisaically” in the business of letting people die just to preserve some “holy order” (=Luke 10:30-37). In fact God was twice willing to ‘killingly “profane”’ His entire initial Israel plan because these “chosen” people were getting in His, still-being-obstructed (by pointedly SDAs 15MR 292.3-4), nationalistic way/plan of “blessing all of the nations of the Earth (Gen 12:2) and thus potentially salvifically redeeming most of them.
Sub-Update 09-04-14 - In a follow-up sermon on 08-30-14, this time at Bohr’s Fresno Central Church, Daniel Mesa there [20:24-22:50], based on the also Bible, and SOP textual evidence (see DA 285.2; RH, August 3, 1897 par. 1, 3 = Matt 12:7) given to him, albeit actually obtsuely, “corrects” this above claim of his that: ‘David was guilty of a sin in eating the shewbread’, but now indeed rather obfuscatingly, seeks to still find something/someone sinfully responsible of not following the law of the shewbread by claiming that it was rather the priest himself, who was guilty of ‘halvingly’ breaking God’s Law on this matter. This claim here is quite evidently an eisegetical contrivance to try to maintain this episode as something which is opposingly allusive to the Woman Ordination issue today by ‘SDA priests’. Fact is, yes this episode does not at all serve as a “Plan B” basis to warrant the ordination of women, as claimed by the TOSC “Third Option” side, but it also is actually not an example against it, as Mesa now tries to make it seem. This episode merely highlights God’s overarching Law of Life which allows for the “violation” of any law/statute/holy practice which comes to stand in the way of a righteous/innocent life to be preserved. David here was genuine and seriously starving, and him and his followers eating the only available food there, moreover while on effectively a mission on God’s side, was warranted.
Also claiming here that ‘the priest guilty and David innocent’ is as invalid as claiming that a person who shot someone to death was innocent, while the police officer who gave him his gun to do so was guilty. Both are under the authority of a higher law which determines is they are guilty are not, just like David would have been guilty if he had unrighteously broken God’s laws here. Therefore if the actual background circumstance in the officer and the shooter was one of self-defense where the police was pinned under the car of a person having deliberately tried to run him over and was now was trying to kill him, and the only way that officer could save his life was by tossing his gun to a bystander and telling him to kill the criminal driver, then under the law, both the officer and the shooter are not guilty of murder, but are fully vindicated through valid self-defense. So David would not have been able to be innocent because it was the priest who had given him the holy bread because the priest is not the Law/Supreme Authority in this case, and David evidently fully aware of the Holy Bread Law/Conditions (cf. 1 Sam 21:5).
Furthermore, the ensuing deaths of the priesthood and town by Saul was not at all, as Mesa tries to make is ‘consquentially’ seem, because David had eaten the showbread, but straightly and only because this priest, his collaborating (“conspiring” according to Saul) priestly order and the entire town had unwittingly “aided and abetted” someone who was wanted by the king. (1 Sam 21:7; 22:9-10ff, 17ff). As EGW states in PP 655.3, had Ahimelech been made fully aware of the facts/truth by David, he would have sought another way to (still) help David. Ahimelech was not at all killed because David had eaten the showbread, and actually not because they had unknowingly aided David, but because, as the SOP says, Saul was ‘blinded with passion and Satanic frenzy’ in (ST, September 21, 1888 par. 7). Indeed even his servants refused to carry out his judiciously unwarranted execution order. (1 Sma 22:17).
So the death of the priests cannot at all be “proof-textingly” contrived to be due to some “Plan B” effectuation by David in eating what was holy. At best, it could only be linked to David’s “Plan B” of faithlessly, indeed with any permission from God (cf. 1 Sam 16:1-2), not telling the truth to the priest, but really a sane-minded king would have seen that Ahimelech was indeed innocent (1 Sam 22:15b) and let him/them live. In fact it seems that it was only when Saul, after some time began to implyingly threaten all of his supposedly “conspiring” servants (1 Sam 22:6-8), of whom Doeg was one (1 Sam 21:7), that, in an attempt to vindicate himself, he only then made mention of the David visit to Ahimelech (1 Sam 22:9-10). Seems like Doeg also had tacitly “conspired” against, the surely clearly crazy Saul, but only spoke up here to self-preservingly distinguish himsel, -as also when he alone carried out the king’s unlawful order (1 Sam 22:18-19). I.e. the storyline just does not say that he at once reported this to Saul. (But perhaps this was because David’s lie had perhaps priorly fooled/convinced Doeg also).
But again, there is no actual ‘converse’ correlation/application with the showbread eating itself and the (unfortunate, unwarranted) fate of the priesthood/people of Nob.
Daniel Mesa goes on to expound in that follow up sermon on the ‘selection of a king by Israel’ claim in this “Third Option” video, but succinctly said here, though the use of that episode is not what warrants the ordination of women, pointedly with the inherent ‘as the other nations around us’ basis involved in that “Plan B”, it is actually the pertinent fact that God was eventually going to set up his own “Messianic” monarchy over Israel when both they were Spiritually/maturely truly ready for this and also when God would have found someone, thus a household, in Israel, who could be fully entrusted with this most important position/role/function, -which He later only truly found with David (himself) (Isa 11:1-5; cf. Ezek 37:24; 34:23-24; Luke 1:32) for this was to be someone who, having ‘a heart just like God’s own’ would be merely seeking to act as God’s “vicegerent”, and thus be faithful in seeing that God’s Supreme Law/Will was always done. (PP 603.1-2; cf. CC 156.4)
And contrary to what Daniel Mesa goes on to substantively airheadedly and biasedly chauvinistically claimed in that follow up sermon at [43:54ff] as he pompously rattles off the typical, vacuously inconsequential, deliberately selective listing of only male leadership groups in the Bible and the days of EGW, i.e. ignoring Chief Judge Deborah, and female prophets, including EGW who all Biblically, by God’s appointment had/held the highest ordained and authoritative positions in His Israel: ‘Mary was not considered in Acts 1:14ff as an apostle replacement because she was a woman, but rather because, as explained here against the likeminded “shamelessly moronic” and “exegetically idiotic”, Spiritually and mentally “immaturely” infantile claims/reasonings, (=what the Heavenly Intelligence itself also calls “stupid” (8MR 219.4; EW 111.2)), she had long disqualified (=Acts 1:21ff) herself of any such, moreover most gruelling, position because, though she had been “ordained” by God to (basically) “teach” Christ, (which, just as Jesus Christ Himself understood (Luke 11:27-28), is most determinative than Mesa’s ludicrous “changing his diapers”), at a certain point, probably starting from Christ’s Passover visit at age 12 and manifestly right through most of Christ ministry, she was not either physically or spiritually “following” Jesus, who she, and her other children deemed to have “lost His senses”. (Mark 3:21|DA 321.1-2, 325.1-3). So Jesus himself had publicly shown that she was disqualified (Matt 12:46-50; cf. Mark 8:34, 38), and all in an encroached context of the unpardonable sin against the Holy Spirit. (DA 324.3)
And contrary to what Daniel Mesa goes on to substantively airheadedly and biasedly chauvinistically claimed in that follow up sermon at [43:54ff] as he pompously rattles off the typical, vacuously inconsequential, deliberately selective listing of only male leadership groups in the Bible and the days of EGW, i.e. ignoring Chief Judge Deborah, and female prophets, including EGW who all Biblically, by God’s appointment had/held the highest ordained and authoritative positions in His Israel: ‘Mary was not considered in Acts 1:14ff as an apostle replacement because she was a woman, but rather because, as explained here against the likeminded “shamelessly moronic” and “exegetically idiotic”, Spiritually and mentally “immaturely” infantile claims/reasonings, (=what the Heavenly Intelligence itself also calls “stupid” (8MR 219.4; EW 111.2)), she had long disqualified (=Acts 1:21ff) herself of any such, moreover most gruelling, position because, though she had been “ordained” by God to (basically) “teach” Christ, (which, just as Jesus Christ Himself understood (Luke 11:27-28), is most determinative than Mesa’s ludicrous “changing his diapers”), at a certain point, probably starting from Christ’s Passover visit at age 12 and manifestly right through most of Christ ministry, she was not either physically or spiritually “following” Jesus, who she, and her other children deemed to have “lost His senses”. (Mark 3:21|DA 321.1-2, 325.1-3). So Jesus himself had publicly shown that she was disqualified (Matt 12:46-50; cf. Mark 8:34, 38), and all in an encroached context of the unpardonable sin against the Holy Spirit. (DA 324.3)
The “Third Option” side is also right, though not actually for the surface/superficial externally “influential”, even culturally-relational, reasons that they claim, in presenting the view that there is an ‘alternative plan’ being involved here. However unlike them, I am not “defensively” seeing that this is actually God’s “Plan B”, but rather that this was always to be part of His Plan A. Meaning that just as, before the Fall, Eve was to be to Adam a ‘“second self”, ‘non-surpassing’ and ‘non-trampled’ “equal”’ to him (PP 46.2), thus also in ruling, and pointedly towards their globally-filling offspring, (and technically speaking, it must be respondingly distinguished here that Adam only ‘named all the animals himself’ because Eve had not yet been created (Gen 2:15, 19-20 then Gen 2:18, 21-23 (=PP 46.1); -and also, as expounded here, God manifestly originally did not have plans to create/invent a (human) female gender, but later decided/opted otherwise, and evidently actually before Adam himself realized this which is manifestly why Gen 2:18's Divine statement is made before the creation of animals, and Adam’s own realization in Gen 2:19-20), and thus, as “equals” they would have equal contribution in actions and decision making, both women and men can have the same level of position, though the Fall has actually naturally limited the height of contribution that the woman was supposed to have, in fact by likewise also limiting/curtailing that of man. In other words, because both man’s work and women’s child bearing, and their joint child rearing were complicated by the Fall, both men and women have not been able to actually be all that they could, particularly jointly be. There was now a pervasive sin issue to deal with and be preserved from, and towards that end their necessarily became specializedly non-equals. And so, all things considered about the Fall, including the level/nature of deception between Adam vs. Eve (1 Tim 2:14) and also given the fact that Man also had manifestly been deliberately given a greater “experience” (thus inherently greatly (slightly-aged) wisdom) than the woman by being created first (1 Tim 2:13), with God manifestly delaying His opted plan to create woman only Adam had lived and experienced a while, it consensusly seems to me that it is thus, in matters which involve that the man and the woman just cannot be equals, whether Spiritually, physically and/or intellectually, that an actually superior in these regards man is to have/exercise the determinative “headship” authority. But in matters/situation where God has, especially Supernaturally, as mainly done through a special imparting/anointing (=ordaining) by His Spirit, made it that a women can overcome these limiting inferiorities, then, particularly in regards to subjects/subject matter with which she is then on a equal(-ized) footing/standing with a man, then she is to be considered, and function as, an equal.
So it seems to me that in opting/deciding to inventingly create woman, and also sensually, variously pleasurable sexuality, which God wisely knew could be, probably the greatest temptation to/for sin if the world was ever to Fall (e.g. Gen 6:2ff), that He deliberately had given man an inherently “headship” advantage by both delayingly making him to be created, and also experientially function, first (e.g. Eve evidently had to “second-handly” learn the given name of all the animals from Adam), so that, if(/when) sin came, there would be an inherently recognizable order to authoritatively keep it in check and also deal with. This actually all mirrors what took place in the Godhead, pointedly between God the Father and the (later to be called and function as) Son, when the Godhead decided to themselves created. As presented here, Jesus was then necessarily begotten into a lower physical form, in order to, as with the (human) female gender, have God actualize creative purposes through him, and also in the Divine glory/energy for all matter that Jesus gave over, and also to have a even more closer/approachable/intimate relationship with the angelic, then human creation, (as also properly seen in how children, both boys and girls, are typically/usually relationally-wise closer to their mother than their father. God has likewise indeed fitted the mother to most naturally provide that needed relational aspect, while the father best provides a decisive/authoritative one. And thus also, when it likewise came time to deal with the sin problem, we variously see, pointedly in the SOP, that it was God who was making the final decision, e.g. starting with the war in Heaven, where Michael/Jesus, was then functioning as God’s effectuating General of God’s GC “War” policies and plans, (which they manifestly actually had also both formulated during their secreted councils, probably also as “Lucifer’s” rebellion grew), and then also later, when Adam and Eve sinned, and God then had to flesh out a plan in regards to how, and if, they should be redeemed, and it was only after the winning insistence of Jesus that He opted to go with the redeeming plan. (EW 149-153, relatedly discussed in/from/around here).
All this to say that, in matters of pertinently existing and applicable differences, when thus the man and the woman are not/cannot actually be, on an equal or equalizable footing, then God’s included determinative “headship” provision “kicks in” and the, actually superior individual then, and even beyond male vs. female, as seen with the Levites males being the priests over the rest of the (priorly non-repentant) tribes in the Golden Calf episode, ‘takes their inherent Spiritual, physical and/or intellectual lead’. So that is why, e.g.: in matters of fighting a war, the Judge Deborah summoned/chose a capable military man Barak to act for her, those she actually “called the shots” and authoritatively validated him; in matters of teaching, Paul himself could not defaultly relegate that task to women of his days who factually were just not properly/suitable, if at all, educated for that task, however, as stated before, it conversely was Mary, who, through God’s special ‘ordaining’ anointing, was also the basic Spiritual teacher of the Son of God, and neither Joseph, nor the local Rabbis; and likewise repeatedly, when the natural order of things compoundedly failed in God’s Israel, where the most Spiritual person in all the land was not even a man, God then did work through women as His Prophets. They then literally occupied and exercised the overrulingly, or at least inevitably bindingly so, highest authority in the land. And that is actually how EGW came to be selected as God’s prophet when two chosen men before her, did not completely or at all carry out their commission. However it can actually be correctly claimed from those developments that, as detailed here, God probably always had plans to ordain a woman to be the highest authority for His Remnant Church cause by Him having been working with a very youthful and unprepared EGW (from ca. June 1842; cf. WV 17.6-7) around the time that He had prophetically called and appointed William Foy (an educated minister, in January 1842, who actually had formally documentingly ‘“entered” “in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the state of Maine” a testimonial affidavit of his two visions “according to act of Congress, in the year 1843”), and before the replacing Hazen Foss (“a man of fine appearance, pleasing address, and quite well educated”, but “naturally of a proud spirit”; in ca. October 1844), -(thus objectively and concretely proving that, the basically similar post-Oct. 22, 1844 “First Vision” of EGW (EW 13.3-19.1ff) was prophetically valid), to, what evidently would, at best have merely been a “forerunning” prophetic ministry, with EGW taking over the reins from them in the Remnant Church coalescing (=1844-1863) and establishing/expanding (1863-(1915+)) Era.
Therefore, it seems Biblical/Theologically evident to me that in matters of either actual parity, pointedly in relation to the subjects/subject matter; and/or in matters where God’s Spirit has/is acting to produce parity, or even superiority, of anyone/any class, including gender (cf. Joel 2:28-29), then equality or superiority of the parties involved, however actually pertinent then, is indeed the state of affairs. So if God is showing that He is working through the ministry of a woman, then such Holy Spirit signs, which are, or, at least, are to be, determinative when the Church recognizes, or even bestows ordination/commissioning of males, are to also be granted to a woman. Otherwise it, as an example, would be tantamount to the SDA Church having had, or now, rejecting EGW, and her, still greatly respected authority, as a prophet merely because she was a woman, and thus ignoring all what God’s Spirit was specially and empoweringly actually doing through her. Again, if God Himself can grant this highest of ordained authorities to a woman, then how can man stand against it, without detriment. The whole common obtusely and moronic claim of the Women Ordination opposed side, that ‘an elder, pastor or president is a priest’, and that these are the highest authority in the land’ is just a clear demonstration of their underlyiing chauvinistic mindset, because they are deliberately refusing to involve the actually Theologically foundational and determinative element in “ordination”, which is the actual selection, empowering and outworking of God’s Spirit on any individual. It is not a line-of-position, nor gender which determines who is, or is capable, of being ordained, and/or function in any position in the Church, but it instead is God’s Spirit.
And so, I would priorly have said that God does have a “Plan B” scenario here in effect in empowering women to also hold any/all the similar positions in His Israel that He/His Spirit is qualifying them to, -(and in the absence of this “ordaining by God”, the ‘deliberately created’ technical male-headship order is defaulty applicable), but, it rather has indeed been God’s Plan that both men and women should be “equals”, pointedly in matter where no Spiritual, Physical and/or Intellectual difference between exists, and in the light of the ultimate mission of God’s Israel to actually be a nation of priests and ministers to the rest of the world (Isa 61:6), male and females in God’s Israel then are actually on such an equal footing. And redeemedly, through the New Covenant, woman had also begun to also be so, in God’s Israel, particularly as everyone was now their own priest, which is the only distinct leadership position in God’s Israel that God Himself had made, and unwavveringly sustained a complete restriction to women...but now indeed, women themselves are their own priests, as is to be every individual in the New Covenant, just by them being capable of having their own sins being confessed and presented to the High Priest Jesus Christ ministering in the Heavenly Sanctuary. So really here, God is resuming, restoring His prominent, actual, “Plan A” Order, where barring an actual substantively determinative difference between the man or the woman, they are actually on an equal footing in whatever position in His Israel, and actually both in the Church and in the home. As a fully converse example, I am sure, and several documented examples may substantiate, that, also, beyond the Church, in the family Home of EGW, several, if not many issues of difference between her and her husband James, were settled by James deferring to her, given the Superior Spiritual anointing that she had, compared to him, -and even in matter where EGW may not have had direct light. And then in other pertinent, and perhaps also documented (e.g. in the EGW booklet series (online) by George Knight), cases of difference, where James had whatever would be the “superioritizing advantages”, EGW subjected herself to his rationale and decision.[2]
It also has become most evident to me that the real problem with that opposed side, is that they actually trust more in themselves, then submissively to the Spirit of God to the point where they do not dare go before God to see who He is actually ordaining. Ironically enough, they have indeed long exposed themselves as such self-serving and faithless frauds, because if they really believed what they claiming, then they would never allow a woman to get up in any pulpit in the SDA Church, to do any type of “teaching” (e.g. seminars, even Sabbath School), or “preaching” (Church Services or conferences). In fact, they would not at all be allowing for women pastors “as long as they are not ordained”, as if there actually was such a thing as a “non-ordained” pastor. Any person who occupies any of the positions in the NT Church is to inherently be ordained for that position....and if they show no signs of being anointed, then they are not to be merely prevented or demoted from being ordained, but are to straightly be removed from that position. It is all (i.e. anointing) or nothing)...and not seeing or doing so, from a faulty, even Catholic-priestly theology, is really at the root of the problems in the SDA Church, because there detrimentally are way to many “unanointed” leaders running around just perfunctorily/inconsequentially holding and “maintaining” a/their position....all indeed resulting that various deficiencies, wrongs and even abominations in the Church are unchecked and just grow. And since God’s Spirit can be withdrawn from any individual, thus “ordination” is never an “always possessed” granting, it is no surprise now that leaders in the SDA Church have actually all lost most, and mostly all, their prior anointing (=EW 54-56). And this is most objectively evident when compared to where the level of God’s Light actually now is. At best, these leaders are now merely operating on “anointing fumes”, which, compared to the rest of the world, is inherently still beneficial, But God’s Spirit is clearly no longer granting them any furthering unction of ordination. Like David feared, His Holy Spirit has been taken away from them (Psa 51:11), indeed, to the most blinded pointed where, like David before Nathan confronted him, they do not even have the faintest/conscious idea that their various whitewashed cherished capital and abominable sins and waywardness are just not accepted or ignored by God. Indeed God has just “silently”, all in order to candidly prove them, left them in their sins (=Heb 12:5-11) revealing that they defiantly have no intent to forsake and redress what they actually clearly know to be sin....And most reflective of that high-handed defiance is that they individually and collectively indeed think that God does, and also always will, approve of this. But like David, their (known and whitewashed) sin is actually ‘ever before them’ (Psa 51:3) and likewise is duly steadily marching onwards towards its retributive punishing.[3]
And to pertinently now further expound on the earlier made observation earlier, -all in relation to how the SDA Church is indeed complacently devoid of God’s Spirit, and also just do not have the proper understanding of the conditions when God will impart His Spirit, and also here, this is where man’s contributions can become a hindering enemy to the working of God’s Spirit, They clearly are not putting themselves in the sincerely exhausted position to warrant God most supernaturally granting His Spirit’s input to determine an issue. Indeed most unlike pioneer SDAs, they certainly are not assembledly staying up all night, and however long as it actually takes to properly study out and resolve their collective issues of differences. Instead they have scheduled for TOSC meetings, and manifestly not anymore, no matter what the state of, clearly still (unnecessarily) divided state of things is at the end of those scheduled meetings, and clearly, mainly through their customary idolatrously complaining about, and worshipful deference to, money, i.e., “each of these gatherings cost too much”...as if they could not satisfactorily, even if merely subsequently, conduct their meeting through the many cheaply, or effectively freely, available internet means, such a discussion forums, internet (even Churches-based satellite) video-conferencing, etc!![4]
Again, SDA pioneers literally, and figuratively, ‘exhaustively burned all of the oil of their lamp’ and then, when still at an impasse, God then imparted the missing and needed Holy Spirit “oil” and thus Biblical elucidating “light” so that they can come to the best/Biblical decision. (E.g. LS 110.4-111.4; See 2T 692.1; (P.S. 05-15-2016: Cf. the post-proceedings observation by TOSC member Ingo Sorke here [at 26:55-29:34-30:57]). And even then, with the furthering scholarly studies of SDAs since then, and by today, have shown, even that granted added light was only limited to what was an actual need then. I.e., “light” was not given to resolve issues, arguments or even seemingly disproving Bible texts, which they had not studied out then, or had not, would likely not, encounter from those opposed to their message. God would then only act, if/when such a situation arose, and then, only if the Church then was not in a position to resolve the issue from their already accrued or obtainable knowledge.
So again here, the TOSC meetings should be exhaustively seeking to have a full consensus on each an every point on this issue, and thus would, or should, naturally result a full consensus final decision (which the less scholarly delegates in the GC Session could then votingly approve, if such a democratized step would then even be utilized. I.e. the prior substantive consensus Theological and Scholarly decision of the Church would then be understood as approved unless a delegate, or anyone, at the GC Session could bring up a substantively valid objecting point....a dissenting point which they actually should have already submitted to the TOSC if they had had it in sufficient time before the GC). So do instead endeavor to have all of your issues of difference formally and officially resolved before the GC mere voting.-unless this issue will be just redundantly rehashed during the GC Session- instead of taking such, LOL, themselves deficient, “sermonic potshots” at each other.
All this to highlight the comical fact that the SDA Church, despite its various whitewashed exteriors is just helplessly both organizationally and Spiritual dysfunctional and bankrupt...and thus will only continue to produce, at best deficient, and worthless fruit, which not only will never be capable of “Finishing the Work”, but as with the potential, even likely, explicit or implicit, division upon the final decision of this issue, is just to (deservedly) further hamper whatever fumes of work they themselves think to be accomplishing for God.
Update 09-05-14 - Responses to OrdinationTruth.com Video Clips
Succinctly here, I will give the various debunking responses to the video clips put forth by the contro-Women Ordination Side of TOSC, which are clips which I gather summarily best crystalizes and presents their position/view:
Clip #1: Should We Ordain All? - Philip Mills
-First, and foundationally foremost of all...what is a “physician” doing on a committee which really is, or at least should be directly based on Scholarly Bible/SOP elements. (E.g. “gender” in Bible can be determined grammatically and not physiologically)...But anyway, when a Church just does/can not actually realize their Biblically scholarly incompetent such “fluff” actions are just the norm.
-There actually is no confusion about the term ordain/ordination in the Bible. There are underlying pointed/technical terms for it in the Bible, in both the OT and NT. But what is further interesting, the Bible usage includes two type of actions as involved for ordination, following a prior “initiating” calling by God (e.g. Matt 4:18-20; Acts 9:3-4ff; -personally here|here):
(1) an “anointing” by the Holy Spirit which is also the preparatory fitting (“testing” 1 Tim 3:10; 5:22; e.g. Bible College/Field School/Work) part for ministry (e.g. John 20:21-23|AA 35.2-37.2-3; Acts 9:17-19ff|AA 123-130; -personally in here), and then
(2) an “appointment/commissioning” which is the specific executing part for ministry; (e.g. Acts 2:1-4ff|AA 37.4ff; Acts 13:1-4|AA 161.1-162.2ff; 166.1 -personally here (cf. here).
And both the latter developments likewise can, though non-necessarily, involve a tangibly/publicly demonstrating “laying on of hands”. Also, for every higher or distinct ministry/leadership work to be done, an added impartation of God’s Spirit has to be provided, hence a distinct ordaining for such a higher/distinct task.
Clip #2: Does a Prophet Need to Be Ordained? - Philip Mills
-The claim encapsulated here by the TOSC’s contra-side that “prophets are not automatically ordained” is the objectively perfect demonstration of, at the very least, skewed Biblical understanding, and/or at worst, chauvinistically biased mentality. Indeed the Truth here is so Biblically clear that it thus makes it dismissal and ignorance indicative of an underlying and controlling ill-will. As already stated many times in this post, the leadership positions in the Bible/NT Church are clear, and they show that not only is that of a prophet a distinct one, but it is also the most ‘foundational’ one, meaning, it is the topmost leadership position in the Church, right along side that of apostles, and when an apostle does not have light beyond what God/Jesus had directly told and commissioned them with, then the prophet takes the topmost lead in/for the Church whenever he or she has received direct light from God on the issue. That was also the applicable case in the OT where prophets were (inherently) also above kings.
A prophet is anointed to be a prophet, and not to fulfill the lower ranked task of that of a pastor-teacher, evangelist, elder, deacon. To claim/think that ‘a pastor, or even a president (who typically is a former pastor), is the topmost position in the Church’ is being completely Biblically obtuse, and that deliberately so and clearly is only reflective of Catholic Priestly theology which sees its priestly/papal order as the ‘topmost/representatives of God on Earth’. All of this is completely unbiblical. For a prophet to also have to take on the added burden of that of a pastor/shepherd, teacher, etc, would require them to also have that specific anointing for that task, which actually can occur. E.g. EGW was a combined Prophet & Apostle/“Messenger”, an effectively a Pastor-Teacher to the Church, as well as, through her authored outreaching works, an Evangelist. She was specially anointed for each of these roles in order to properly do them, which she indeed did. And still today, the topmost earthly/human leadership in the SDA Church, undeniably continues to be the Prophetic office, both from the Bible and also from EGW’s SOP.
This persisting claim that EGW needed to be ordained indeed is circularly asinine, in the sense that it neither understands the position of the prophetic office, nor what Biblical ordination is and clearly it is only being claimed in order to defensively try to invalidate that God has placed women in that, and other, still Ecclesiastical-existing, Biblically topmost leadership positions. And about that claimed example of Paul, as already expounded above, in Acts 13:1-4 Paul then received a special ordination to execute his distinct/added ‘“apostolic” task to the Gentiles’ (Acts 9:15; Rom 11:13; 1 Tim 2:7). But before that, He had already effectively been ordained by God Himself as a prophet right when Christ sovereignly called him, and revealed Himself, and the Messianic Truth&Gospel in that vision on the Road to Damascus (Gal 1:12, 15-17|AA 115.1-116.1). Indeed since God has throughout the Bible anointed/established people as prophets by He Himself directly appearing to them in a prophetic dream or vision (Num 12:6), as more recently documentedly done with EGW, and actually from her first two, much more than personal, prophetic dreams (EW 78.3-79.3 (see here) & EW 79.4-81.1 (cf. here)). And Paul also had received a distinct evangelist’s anointing/ordaining which was manifested in his “days of preparation” when he then was preaching the Gospel to nearby Jews (Acts 9:19-22; AA 123-130).
So “ordination” is not a one-for-all-positions gifting, moreover in a priestly sense. An elder’s ordination does not qualify him to be a prophet, conference president, pastor or even a deacon. Each position and Holy Spirit establishment of God requires its distinct ordaining. So a prophet, as with EGW, was distinctly ordained for that role. The SDA Church then, and still now, just does/will not BIBlically understand this, but that just does not change the Spiritual Fact here. In fact, a prophet is indeed typically directly anointed/ordained by God Himself, and not by men, pointedly as God typically duly raised up more prophets to do works of judgemental reforms rather than constructive/furthering establishments in His Israel.
-Acts 13:1 is clear that there were both “teachers” as well as “prophets” in that group of five men. And though it may have been only Paul and Barnabas who were actually the “prophets” here, they would have already been anointed/ordained for that distinct prophetic role and now were only being addedly ordained to distinct function as Apostles (=formal Church Ambassadors). So the reading and applications here is both narrow and obtuse.
Clip #3: Spiritual Male Headship - Kevin Paulson
As 1 Tim 2:12 is patently/foundational cited by the contra-WO side, the following exegetical facts should calibratingly be helpful here.
‘exercise authority over’ - First of all, succinctly said, exegetically study out the Greek term authenteo, (forcedly in other Greek writings as this is the only time that term itself occurs in Bible, including the LXX), as well as its relatedly derived terms (authenteis, authetichos), all foundationally built from the Greek term auto (=self), and its distinct and specific clear meaning of “self-authenticated|self-validated authority/governance” is incontrovertible. Indeed it does not merely mean “to rule over”, as the Greek term/verb from “kurios” (=master, lord e.g. Luke 22:25; Rom 6:9, 14) involves, but more pointedly refers to an self-originating authority; -one which has not been conferred by another, but is intrinsic to the person. So it actually does not merely refer to the “exercising of authority over’, but rather to the ‘self-appointing of authority over’.And so, it is in that sense that Paul goes on to cite the granted inherent male headship example of Adam. As stated before, that is indeed the default order of things, including, even in the “equal” status that man and woman were actually to have, the woman was not to appoint herself over the man. But again, what Paul himself cannot do, and thus must defaultly go by the order which God had established, -and again, this determinative male headship is in effect in regards to a “tie-breaking” decision, God Himself has precedentially done, by appointing women to topmost leadership positions where they then also had governing, as well as teaching, authority over men.
And even in the home, if a wife can provide a more Biblical/Spiritual, even Factual reason why something should or should not be done in the household, then they then effectively have, through this Truth Authority, exercised the headship, particularly as the Bible does not require that she should subject herself to the unbiblical decisions of her husband. She then has grounds not to submit herself to his unbiblical headship.
‘to teach’ - Same thing goes in regards to teaching. Only what is most truth should be taught, by which ever gender has such empoweringly authoritative instruction. And, as seen with the selection of EGW, if men refuse to do, or properly do, their task, then God will give that ordained task to a woman, even if He has to teach her Himself.
And again, if anyone does not see/think, that EGW, or any other woman who has been permitted to stand in an Ecclesiastical pulpit has been teaching, for they surely did not get up there and straightly only read from the Bible, then they are just living in biasedly sickly, and even clear Holy Spirit resisting/rejecting, denial. Indeed contra-WO SDAs have long proved themselves to at best be hypocrites on this issue, just by this common fact of allowing women to teach, and even speak, in Church. They don’t make these counsels circumstantially applicable to the conditions that Paul was dealing with, which is the fact that women were just not educated in the generally hard to access Scriptures/Law, moreover as most of their time was taken up by homemaking tasks. But that is completely unlike today where woman can easily and, less than more, non-detrimentally (as e.g. school-aged children as collectively educated in school, instead of the prior default private home-schooling approach), get the same education as a man. So on that factual level, they are then equal, and can even have superior knowledge just going by better grades and mastery of the subject matters. But when the “ordaining” element of God’s Holy Spirit is also considered, where, as in the case of EGW, the woman’s education/studying has objectively been addedly blessed with similar or even greater Spiritual insight, then, as Peter similarly said in regards to God likewise working with the priorly kept apart Gentiles, ‘who can then refuse (and in mere rites), what God has already been doing’ (Acts 10:47; 11:16-18; cf. Acts 2:16-18). (See more on this at Clip #5 below).
-While Eve most likely did not lose her robe of light when she first, alone sinned, it very well may be that God had specially wired the brains/sight of Adam and Eve so that they themselves could not see one another’s covering robe of light, but others always would. (E.g. Just like Elisha, or Balaam’s donkey, were permitted to see surrounding angels, but Elisha’s servant and Balaam could not (2 Kgs 6:17; Num 22:31)). So Adam (himself) would not have (ever) been seeing Eve covered in a robe of light, but as the Bible’s take on this states, they were both naked, thus themselves always saw each other naked, and were not ashamed. (Gen 2:25). Conversely enough, it was when Adam and Eves ‘eyes were opened’ by them now knowing of evil, and thus only now realizing that there was something potentially sinful/evil with the naked condition that they, most likely always ‘“unashamedly” pleasurably’, were in (Gen 3:7), that they sought to cover themselves. (Gen 3:7) Indeed, they themselves may actually have never realized that they actually had a covering robe of light around them. Which is why God did not ask Adam: ‘how come you can now see that you are naked’, but rather (candidly/genuinely): “who (externally) told you you were naked” (Gen 3:11a).[5] And pertinently here, the reason why God did indeed address Adam as the responsible person here is because of the inherent headship privilege that God had given him, which in this case he should have exercised in at least causing a stand off here with Eve and thus preventing sin from befalling in the world due to this tie in their ruling “caucus”. Indeed by having been created first, and knowing as a fact that God could create a woman from him, Adam had the needed added/superior knowledge/information and wisdom to make the Spiritually better decision on this matter. But he chose not to, and thus is indeed to be primarily held responsible.
And also, as other studies show, through full thought/living privacy, God and Heaven were actually candidly unaware of Adam’s sin until Adam began to mention he was naked. God/Jesus having had to look for Adam also probably alarmed God/Jesus that something was not right here. Those who do not have this backgrounding Theological understanding here may think that God was trying to make a particular headship point by calling out to Adam first, already knowing he had sinned, but I rather see here that God had rather expect to, as before, readily find both Adam and Eve in the garden, or when they typically met, and when He did not, and now had to go searching for them, suspecting that something was wrong, it is then that He invoke the established “chain of command” and called out for Adam first. (E.g., if the President perfunctorily needs to get an update about the status of deployed Division, he most efficiently sets out to do this by asking his Secretary of Defense, and not even by directly calling a general, let alone a private.)
So that is all why Adam is ultimately held responsible for the fall of this Planet, as he was more specially informed to be able to have averted this. As with the President example, a failure or loss in a war is not blamed on a General, or the Secretary of Defense but on the Commander in Chief President himself due to the inherent fact that he should have been aware of the looming defeat and, if applicable, should have taken measures to prevent this. Likewise Adam should have offset Eve mistake by himself resisting, but he did not, and thus is rightly fully held responsible. And his resisting action may even have spared Eve particularly since sin did not actually befall this planet until both sinned for only then did they realize that something was wrong (starting with them).
But that default male headship does not preclude a female with an actually Truthfully/Biblically superior position understanding not entitled to subject herself to it rather than the deficient/unbiblical male.
Clip #4: Is the Word Ordained In the Bible? - Eugene Prewitt
-Understanding that the ‘idea of ordination’ is indeed throughout the Bible is one thing, but being able to see that each leadership position, including that of Judge (=King, President) and also Prophet, has its own distinct ordination/anointing, is a correcting other thing. A Woman Prophet or Judge was “ordained”, and even, then necessarily, by God Himself. They certainly did properly do the work of a judge and prophet.
Case in point, EGW is the readiest, even greatest barometer of “orthodoxy” in the SDA Church, (i.e., where the Bible revelation does not detailedly, or at all, speak on an issue), so by Prewitt defining of the elder’s task here, EGW was also anointed, and “ordainedly” function as, and elder!!
Clip #5: Did Ellen White Support Women’s Ordination? - Don Mackintosh
-Against the common ‘Capital sin/Second Coming hindrance/Later Rain’ claim of the pro-WO side: Addedly to some valid (factual/historical) corrections by Mackintosh, but also more Biblically and consequentially in regards to the ensuing Theological/Spiritual issues here: ‘Denying’ already/qualifyingly called & prepared women to fully exercise what God has appointed for them, will actually be a detriment to the Church....just as the shunning or ignoring of EGW, particularly by General Conference officer who taught they knew better than a prophet, inconvertibly proved to be catastrophic for the Church, indeed resulting in the Church then not being fit to usher in the Second Coming in their day. The ultimate hindering problem with the Church today indeed is not the denial of women ordination as pastors or elders, but it potentially is closely related in just them not being able to exercise whatever individual or collective difference and contribution they could be making in those key leadership positions. It is generally well observed that girls/women are typically smarter then men, or at least, better apply themselves scholastically. So that in itself could be a correcting contribution that they potentially could make to the current mostly indifferently incompetent and or deficient pastoral scholarship. And again, women may be less susceptible to condone waywardness in the Church which the current “good ol’ boys” SDA Administrative leadership is effectively conspirationally not dealing with. And in fact, the prior, and current hindrance of the Biblical women ordination right to be recognized by the Church may dually serve to help them realize not to act unbiblically, even unexegetically, and indifferently on issues as the leadership of men has, and instead immediately seek to thoroughly resolve such issues.
As it was the case with the selection of EGW vs. W. Foy and H. Foss, God may now be actually seeking to more powerfully work with women in these leadership and teaching positions, given that the priorly selected men have refused, or not properly done this work.
There would, should, be no ‘divisive strife’ if SDAs were actaully more Biblical and Theologically competent on this matter, and ignorance almost inevitably, i.e. rather than rebellious ill-will, is at the source of any sustained division and strife. SDAs may think that they have fully submitted themselves to God for these deliberations, but their inherent and manifest refusal to fully/exhaustively, competently and properly engage this matter is what is “reapingly” at the root of their lingering, and thus distracting/hindering contention. Indeed they variously have long chosen to systemicly either directly or tacitly operate according to the various individualistic, covetously selfish and/or profiteering dictates of capitalistic ways, and that is why they now cannot properly and conclusively or consensusly, and even unanimously so, see this task through. (Cf. Jude 1:18-21). Both/All sides in this TOSC assembly will equivalently be responsible for whatever divisive and contentious “seismic” fallout may (likely) result from the final decision on this issue.
Ironically, but typically enough, for/from SDAs, if the earlier discussed 3ABN poll is indicative of the SDA general membership stance on this issue, where +70% of them are against WO, but the current ca. 80% favoring vote in the TOSC, and at least two other Union constituency votes translates into a similar approving vote in the GC, then it will probably an issue of money which will “decide” the matter when many of the opposed 70% members withholding or reallocating their (optional) tithing, especially if they have been assigned a woman as pastor, or have a woman elder. Then will then Church give in to the effectively (i.e. unBiblically) whimsical “democratic” view of the laity, all to preserve their income and pensions.
Clip #6: Can We Really Take 1 Timothy 3 to an Extreme? - Eugene Prewitt
-Unlike with deaconess which the Bible defaultly speaks on women’s inclusion in it, the appointing of women in the other default positions of overseer, pastor, teacher, evangelist, elder, could, pointedly in that time of great basic qualification inequality, have to directly come from God’s own choosing/appointing. So that is why the stipulations for a qualifying male are made in those passages. And it was probably realized that since/if it would be God who would be doing any appointing of women to these position, then it would also be unnecessary express the sought for qualifications here since God surely would not be making a mistake in those selections.
-Again, “gender” is actually not the final determinant here since God has put women in those similar and topmost positions. God’s anointing selection and appointing is the final determinant and all must humbly seek to be able to properly recognize this. Furthermore, the actually only off limit leadership/Spiritual position in God’s Israel to women was the priesthood, but now it no longer representatively/publicly is, as all, including women, are their own priest. (=1 Pet 2:5) That verse itself may glibly not seem to mean any radical thing to us today, but to say this to people who were engrainedly accustomed to the OT Sacrificial and Priestly Service, and moreover also Gentiles, that they now ‘were priests, and in a royal priesthood’, and ‘were offering spiritual sacrifices’ in a spiritual temple/house, -individually themselves and collectively, the Church, and also while that Temple and Priesthood were still standing and ministering in the desolate and forsaken Jerusalem, did indeed have fully revolutionary overtones.
-“husband of one wife” - There technically is not such a thing as a “serial” polygamist, in Prewitt since of ‘a man leaving one wife and marrying another, then another’ or unwarrantedly having many wives at one time. Both of these straightly are adultery. (e.g. Matt 19:9) Bigamy/polygamy is indeed involved here, but that was actually something lawful in God’s Israel when done for genuine reasons of the bareness of the previous wife/wives. But given the various problems which that household makeup could have, (see e.g., Jacob) it was best for men in such situations not to addedly be given a leadership duty.
Clip #7: Personal Testimony - Ingo Sorke
-The actual/real issue here is rather ‘telling women anointed by God that they cannot do what God has called and gifted them to do’. Again, imagine doing this to EGW. The office of overseer/president, pastor, elder is just not greater/higher, and also not even more significant than that of a prophet, or Chief Judge (Deborah). If the contra-WO side can/will not admit that clearly stipulated and demonstrated Biblical fact, then they just remain in their (own) division-causing darkness/blindness.
-To say that ‘you affirm women in ministry’ is really an empty saying since, and if you really believed what you claimed, that ministry would not involve anything beyond teaching children in the home, and certainly not leading out, preaching or teaching anything in a church setting, (beyond a deaconess). The term “ministry” here is thus self-assuagingly and others-hoodwinkingly misleading. It really is rather being made akin to something on a house chore level. “Ministry”, and as implied here “Church Ministry”, defaultly implies what men themselves do. Perhaps “Women’s Ministry” would be a better term, and to be “Biblically” valid according to the contra-WO side, it would only be limited to (privately) ministering to other women (at best), or simply children.
-Scholarly study is indeed useless without the guidance and authority of the Holy Spirit, particularly as the deepest of most original Scholarly study can at best be ambivalent, if not outrightly ambiguous, but it also is a Theological fact that the Holy Spirit will not reveal or do for people what they can know/find out or do for themselves. Again that is why SDA Scholarship has actually furthered, even correctingly substantiated many of the Biblical conclusions and proofs which SDA pioneers had managed to arrive at, even with the prophetic assistance of God’s Spirit. As related e.g. here|here, I have also experience this Holy Spirit leading in studies and only when, and in proportion to, the actual measure of assistance that I genuinely needed then.
-According to the contra-WO side ‘Mom should not be allowed to preach/teach in/from a pulpit’!...
-The only issue of fairness and equality about Woman Ordination, comes from, as later discussed next (also from Sorke) in Clip #8 on Gal 3:28, on what Christ’s New Covenant has provided and not what the culture is dictating. But a Wise God has sure laid enough of precedential foundations so that, when women would come to be more readily fitted and accepted as leaders in society, the Church would already be in a position to provide the actual Biblical model for this. Ironically enough, it is the world which more then less allows the ‘better qualified candidate to win’ which better emulates God’s own stipulation that those who are best Spiritually qualified should lead whenever and however applicable. Again the example of/through EGW is incontrovertible, for even when she was heeded or even ignored, the truth from God which she was communicating still had its binding effects or repercussions.
-The contra-WO actually does not have the Biblical stance on this issue. So if ‘young people are leaving the Church because the Church is not ordaining women as overseers/presidents, pastors and elders’, then it is indeed because of the unbiblical stance of the contra-WO side. Doing the right thing is determined by what the truth actually is on the matter.
-Ironically enough, with SDA’s permitted women to preach and teach, in the Church, and even with authoritatively reading and teaching from EGW, “the horses are indeed out of the stable” already. The contra-WO stance just does not harmonize with what they actually willfully allow on this issue, and that is all because their stance is one which indeed does not harmonize which all that God has said and done on this issue. Instead it desperately is a stance which is hanging on to even Catholic Theology, and foundationally has shoddy hermeneutics.
-Without proper/basic hermeneutics (cf. Isa 28:10; 13a) as currently is the pervasive case with the misled, and sustainedly noviced SDA laity (=Ezek 34:17-19), they won’t even be able to arrive at a Biblically valid position, not being able to follow along with God’s Freely acting Spirit (John 3:8) and being able to recognize/determine who is actually anointed, thus “ordained” by God. So such a move here is really akin to the shepherds opening the gates and letting the wolves into the sheepfold. Focus instead on properly doing the leadership job you were appointed, and are being paid to do, instead of handing a unpinned grenades to the laity and just telling them to ‘keep holding on tight’!
Clip #8: Gender Differentiation - Ingo Sorke
-Distinct gender functions actually serve to uniquely contribute to an equalized rulership, (as seen in the Godhead rule of Three bodily and functionally distinct Beings), where only a male, or really now, more Spiritual/truthful/competent person should have/take/guide towards the lead.
-Ahhhh, Gal 3:28. The contra-WO side has managed to claim a trumping understanding of that verse by claiming that its “context” merely speaking of an equality of salvation in Christ. Well the fact is that they have actually not allowed the context to both “fully contexturalize”, and speak for, itself. This determining context here goes back to Gal 3:19 and extends to Gal 4:7. And that context shows that Paul’s “nemesis” here to the equality, and really through reconciliations, in Gal 3:28, was the Law, pointedly the ceremonial laws which God had given to distinguish His people. As he says, the Law then functioned as a tutor until faith brought through Christ could/would take over. That “tutor” then most elementarily just made it that Jews and Gentiles should defaultly remain apart, unless Gentiles met certain stringent conditions, likewise the slave, even the indentured slaves, was through inherently some guilty faulting of their own (i.e., people who became poor were to be restoringly aided (e.g. Deut 15:7-11) and not at all, even if limitedly, enslaved (cf. Deut 15:12-18), not to be lawfully considered or treated on par with other economically responsible, free, people. And likewise, the Law, because of Eve’s initiating role in the Fall, had defaultly made the women unworthy of having, especially Spiritual, authority in God’s Israel (cf. 1 Cor 14:34), pointedly when it came to dealing with issues of sin as the priesthood was to do. It was only when God acted to overturn things, e.g. by choosing a woman to be a prophet or a judge, that this restriction was lifted, but tellingly, never in regards to the Old Covenant priesthood. So the “tutoring” Law itself had woodenly mandated these three distinguishing divisions. Indeed that it the rotely didactic role of a tutor. However when Christ came, these default, Law-imposed distinctions/restrictions were remove through faith. Now all can equally be heirs of Abraham’s Promise.
Paul does, but really parallely make the point that: while having distinctions/restrictions for Gentiles, slaves and females, the Law also was “tutoring” Jews, free people and males and therefore itself, not considering any of this “lawful” class greater than the “restricted” one. So really it is two levels of overturning which was achieved by Christ: (1) a reconciliation with God of all (equally sinners), but also (2) a uniting between these three groupings which the Law had been necessarily keeping distinct and restrictive.
So foundationally here, in the case of “males and females” both Adam and Eve were reconciled for their distinct sinning as distinguished by God in Eden (Gen 3:16, 17-19), Adam’s guilt for generally causing the world to Fall was overturned here and Eve pointed role in initiating that Fall. Indeed just like unconverted Gentiles, can, and indeed had led God’s People astray, and just like a person worthy of the punishment of slavery would be detrimental to Israel’s socio-economic if not so punished for their failure, in a similar way, the Law served to keep the woman in check since her expressed and inherent influence over the man had led him, and thus every pertinent one more generally to sin. (Rom 5:12) If Paul only had meant a general reconciliation towards God, then why mention groups which were entrenchedly divided.
So, as typical with most seemingly/genuinely irreconcilable issues, particularly in Biblical Study, the Truth of the matter is not an either/or resolution, but rather a both/and. In this case for Gal 3:28 all are reconciled from an equal debt of sin, and also, priorly deliberated divided sides are now reunited to how they were, or should be, before the consequences of sin. To not see this double involvement here, would require to still be imposing the ceremonial restrictions which were on Gentiles and slaves, just as it is insisted to still be done for females. Again, the only position which remained, or really always was, off limit to a female, was that of the priesthood, but now females are also self-priests and themselves can directly approach God (cf. COL 386.2-3).
-Now a serious follow up issue, is how can Paul then make his other, later, statements such as in 1 Tim 2:12-14. Well, it seems to me that Paul actually somewhat back-pedalled on his prior statement in Gal 3:28, which I am seeing as a (Biblical) “tradition” that he had given the Church (1 Cor 11:2) not because his prior statement was Biblically/Theologically incorrect, but because it was practically not fully implementable then, pointedly in regards to women. Fact is, they just were not in a position to be entrusted with default/self-validated authority, and so, I am seeing here that Paul himself made a further case for ‘default male headship’ thus calibrating I truth/reality his prior given “tradition” (1 Cor 11:3ff; cf. Eph 5:22-23ff). He also had to do a similar checking thing about the God-given, but abused, (enduring) gift of speaking a foreign tongue (1 Cor 14:6-25). So Paul fixed any, manifest, confusion issue created by factually uneducated and not knowledgeable women, wanting to validate themselves as capable teachers and leaders over men and/or their husbands, indeed without any warranting, superceding evidence for this leadership. So Paul rightly made appeal to ‘inherent headship’, which in this case and times defaultly was possessed by a man. Still today, for various reasons, men amongst believers are typically, naturally the Spiritual head, if they have any devotion God, so the default and “tie-breaking” headship in the Church typically rests with a man, but again, in a case where the man is not a believer and/or unSpiritual, but the woman is, this headship, at the very least, effectively rests with the woman, particularly if the decisions of the man go against Scripture.
The entrenched, then present-day reality of, pointedly Christians being slaves, and also vice versa, caused Paul to also give a follow up counsel in that regards (Eph 6:5-8, 9; Philemon 1:8-18; cf. 1 Tim 6:1-2). It was really in matters of Jews and Gentiles that Christians were free to then fully implement God’s de-restricting will. Eventually slavery was made obsolete in Christian circles; and even more so by now has any still merely ceremonially restricting issue between equally Spiritually qualified and Anointed/Ordained men vs. women in regards to any leadership position in God’s Israel.
-The expression “wife of one husband” in 1 Tim 5:9 is a active perfect participle, thus, in regards to a widow is (more smoothly) best translated as: ‘having had been the wife of one husband’, thus the still widow was only married once before, which means, since a pluperfect would be render that notion, than a perfect, this only once married state is enduring in her widowhood, thus she now, and while being over 60, is also still not being inherently supported by a male companion, and more unlikely to get remarried as “younger widows” (1 Tim 5:11-12, 13-15). While this expression is the linguistic opposite of what was used to counsel men considered for an ordained leadership office, it actually would not be applicable for a woman being considered for such an office, as the issue for men was in regards to the lawful right to have more than one wife in cases of genuine female bareness, but the Law did not ever allow for a woman to have more than one husband at a time for any reason. Levirate marriage/child-bearing was instead her solution to have children, but only if her husband had died, (and of course while she was still in fertility years). So it was mootly unnecessary for Paul to makes such a stipulation in regards to females. I.e. for the defaultly permissible position of deaconesses in 1 Tim 3:11. If Paul had had a pool of actually educated, and thus defaultly competent women for the higher task and responsibilities of overseers, pastors-teachers, evangelist & elders, etc, as is presently the case, then it is likely he would have also made specific stipulations about them for those roles. The higher, and highest positions of both prophets and apostles actually inherently relied on God’s own educating revelation, so it could not defaultly be considered for only men. And, as with EGW and her “apostolic” Church/Institutions-expanding spear-heading-establishment ministry, she received the needed anointing for such a role directly through her prophetic gift. Similarly Deborah evidently qualified to also rule over all Israel as a Judge because she also was a prophetess. (Jdg 4:4).
So Paul silence in regards to females stipulation for lesser leadership roles, which all defaultly involved self-acquire knowledge, is not an argument against having women having those roles, indeed poitnedly because now women can just as easily be properly technically prepared for these roles as men. And isn’t like God to not overburden someone, indeed anyone, whether male or female, for a ministry calling by requiring that they themselves do something in preparation/conducting which is practically impossible.
-Deacons/Deaconesses -It rather lexically seems to me that translating the Greek word diakonos as “servant” actually lessens it pointed meaning for it inherently refers to someone who has been given a particular/specific (managerial) task. Yes they are still “servants”, by they are instead higher than that as “ministers”. They certainly are not on the same level as a slave/bondservant.
Also mentioning Phoebe’s ministering (Rom 16:1) in direct connection with a Church, formally makes her a “deaconess/minister” in/of that Church. (cf. Phil 1:1). I’ll even etymologically venture to surmise that the word dia-konos is combined from words which jointly means ‘through-togetherness’. It thus would represent a grouping of common folks brought together so that they, together, can better execute a managerial task, or one which involves greater responsibility. Public Servants/(Parliamentary) Ministers are today an example of such common folks who together run a countries government instead of this task priorly being alone done by someone of royal stock. So the strength of deacons, is in their togetherness, and it manifestly is because of this default, committee-like, basis of operating together, -unlike elders, pastors, overseers who defaultly functioned alone, that women were defaultly entrusted to be capable of having this position. Indeed the pertinently applicable counsel in 1 Tim 3:11 for them is evidence that they defaultly could belong in that Church-officiating group, together with men. Unlike men, women were just not permitted to ‘have more than one husband at a time.’
So the contra-WO TOSC side is wrong in not accurately seeing that women were defaultly permitted to be deaconesses, and such was the formal position of Phoebe in Rom 16:1 (Evidently EGW herself recognized the validity of “deaconesses” (21MR 97.6)). And the testing of people for deacons comes before they are actually appointed to formally function as deacons (1 Tim 3:10). And the selection of, and laying upon of hands on, deacons in Acts 6:1-6 was not a ‘separate act of ordination only for males’, but straightly the process of selecting and appointing those deacons. So likewise a female deaconess could be selected and appointed through similar laying on of hands, to function as a deaconess.
-Rom 16:7 - This issue of “Junia” is not really that determinative. I loosely go by the claim that it was a husband and wife teams, as others in Paul listing, and that they were “of attesting mark within apostles”, but that indeed would not necessarily make her or them apostles. Whatever the case, apostleship is rather conferred by a direct commissioning by God/Jesus, as done with Paul, then also Paul’s travelling companion Barnabas in Acts 13:2-4, cf. Acts 14:14.
-An overseer/bishop has the same function as a pastor, but it is not on the same level as a pastor. The overseer is indeed of greater and wider responsibility. For the usage of that word in Luke 19:44; 1 Pet 2:12 as “judgement/decisional visitation” it evidently involves one who goes around passingly visiting congregations. Therefore it is not the local pastor, but rather the regional pastor. As it also does mainly involve pastoral duties (cf. Acts 20:28; 1 Pet 2:25), (and probably over a group of churches (cf. Acts 20:28a) all led by elders, -with elders themselves manifestly effectively functioning lesser local “overseers” (Titus 1:15-7; 1 Pet 5:1-2), which are based on having the proper man-obtained education, then it itself was defaultly of limit to a woman. (1 Tim 3:1-2ff). But, again, the highest position of prophet, which could intrinsically warrant the functioning as a work-establishing apostle, would, respectively, actually and effectively/naturally be defaultly open to a woman, as God Himself selected/ordained/led.
Clip #9: Does Culture Drive Biblical Interpretation? - Dave Read
-Again, and seriously so again, what really is an, even SDA, attorney doing, or needs to contributively do on a Theology/Doctrinal Study Committee, unless the basic premise here is so skewed that issues from world developments are really influencing other members in this committee and/or Church.
-Really...: [04:43ff] ‘what God has done through EGW and her ministry has served as a skewing and deficiencing detrimental influence on understandings about woman ministry/ordination.’ Wow....So that’s what’s an “attorney’s” neutral contribution is to a Theological Committee is: ‘Directly play the obfuscating, “advocating” devil and, also through a straw man “culture” basis, create “Spiritual” “reasonable doubt” against the greatest argument/evidence to your case’...The Prophet, whether male or female, in the topmost, and also enduringly so, human authority in God’s Israel! That’s just the Biblical Truth as modelled through EGW, -who actually submissively did not interfere with the predominant/inherent male-headship view in the SDA Church.
Clip #10: The Bible provides our directives, not culture - Daniel Scarone
-The contra-WO sides’ hermeneutics is equivalent as deficient as the pro-WO side pointedly because they both engage in not properly taking into consideration the text which actually or seem to contradict their view. The only Biblical position is one which properly incorporates and reconcilingly incorporates both, as done in this present post!
-Ordination is not a ‘“blanket” qualifying for all leadership position’. Each position is distinct and requires its distinct calling/qualifying and anointing/ordaining for it. E.g, a pastor is not automatically also a prophet, nor a deacon automatically qualified to be president. A person may be anointed more than once for distinct positions, but that indeed should involved distinct commissionings. It may be ‘economical’ to simply have a “one-service-all-ordination” ceremony, but that is not at all Biblical.
Update 10-02-2014 - GC President “leverage” - For typical “moron-proofing” reasons, GC President Ted Wilson has seen as most contributive from him to remain ambiguously “neutral” in expressing his views during this whole Women Ordination Deliberation, -(perhaps he honestly was himself in fact not sure about what the Biblical Truth was on this). But now, as seen in this article, pointedly with his revealing/betraying: “we are to take the Bible just as it reads” ‘urging’, he is manifestly being less opaque about what position he supports. But here is the utter irony in all of this. Now, upon over 2 years of study and deliberation, it should have been that the SDA GC President should have himself been, especially as a Seminary Educated, (formerly functioning) Pastor/Evangelist, exegetically-competent enough to know that “taking the Bible as is reads” just does not mean ‘not involving proper exegesis and, when and where applicable, correcting deficient translating of the underlying text. Thus, in the light of what has been “correctively” exegetically brought forth in the present post, “taking the Bible as it reads” just does not lead to the Theology that ‘God had/has forever intended for women to not also function in the topmost leadership positions in His Israel’....But that’s all what happens when a Church innately has an effective amateur Theological competency level as the preference for its topmost position.
-Ordination is not a ‘“blanket” qualifying for all leadership position’. Each position is distinct and requires its distinct calling/qualifying and anointing/ordaining for it. E.g, a pastor is not automatically also a prophet, nor a deacon automatically qualified to be president. A person may be anointed more than once for distinct positions, but that indeed should involved distinct commissionings. It may be ‘economical’ to simply have a “one-service-all-ordination” ceremony, but that is not at all Biblical.
Update 10-02-2014 - GC President “leverage” - For typical “moron-proofing” reasons, GC President Ted Wilson has seen as most contributive from him to remain ambiguously “neutral” in expressing his views during this whole Women Ordination Deliberation, -(perhaps he honestly was himself in fact not sure about what the Biblical Truth was on this). But now, as seen in this article, pointedly with his revealing/betraying: “we are to take the Bible just as it reads” ‘urging’, he is manifestly being less opaque about what position he supports. But here is the utter irony in all of this. Now, upon over 2 years of study and deliberation, it should have been that the SDA GC President should have himself been, especially as a Seminary Educated, (formerly functioning) Pastor/Evangelist, exegetically-competent enough to know that “taking the Bible as is reads” just does not mean ‘not involving proper exegesis and, when and where applicable, correcting deficient translating of the underlying text. Thus, in the light of what has been “correctively” exegetically brought forth in the present post, “taking the Bible as it reads” just does not lead to the Theology that ‘God had/has forever intended for women to not also function in the topmost leadership positions in His Israel’....But that’s all what happens when a Church innately has an effective amateur Theological competency level as the preference for its topmost position.
October 14, 2014
Secrets Unsealed Woman Ordination Symposium
Here are most succinct engagements of plausibly “worthwhile” claims made during this rehashing symposium on “Position #1” on this issue... “plausibly “worthwhile” because this whole exercise was an asininely ‘blissful’, compounding doubling down on fundamentally exegetically and/or Spiritually flawed premises which are already debunked in the present post:
-Paul’s letters were not written in a contextual vacuum. So the expositor today many times has to exegetically and/or sequitur/logically infer what the preceding/underlying responded to issue actually is.
-Paul’s “we”/“our” inclusivity in Gal 3:23-25 shows how he is considering the ‘adopted sons’, “you” Gentiles as now equally also part of the “tutor-less” Covenant of God (Gal 3:26-28), along with the ‘natural sons’ Jews. (Gal 4:1-3) And that Law barrier which had been set aside to allow for that equality and unity, has also done the same for the barriers between men and women, slaves and free. Salvational equality is not the issue here as, even in the Old Covenant, Gentiles, women and slaves could be saved. The issue of them then still being restricted and divided by the Law which they had entered into covenant with is what is being dealt with here.
-LOL, the OT is full of object-lesson examples of Israel self-permissively considering an even directly-talking God Himself as a ‘mere “counsellor”’, and so how much more, his spokesperson-prophets (e.g. Deut 18:15-19)...and look what good that has ever done to them. (e.g. Dan 9:5-6; 2 Chr 36:15-16; Jer 44:4-6) Do likewise keep up this sly, Satanic, “Anti-Christ-ish” “priestly” delusion (2 Thess 2:3-4) and see what good that will do for you!!* (Matt 23:29, 34-36) In fact, “priests” in God’s Israel were mere functionaries and facilitators, -which is why the Roman Catholic Church had to established its heretical priesthood on an attempted, usurping, God+High Priest level. Furthermore, unlike the priesthood (NT = all believers/members) the higher position of Apostle, which is today equivalently (to be) represented by Church Conference Officials in that they are responsible for administering and organizing Churches in a jurisdiction, correspondingly has a higher (judicious) authority than priests (members) in that they can, in finality, judiciously decide, beyond a shepherd’s/pastor’s indicting recommendation, which sins of a member, thus that person’s membership, is to be retained or removed (John 20:21-23) all in the process of organizing and administering the Church. (As patently seen in Paul’s pointed counsels in/for local Church affairs (e.g. 1 Cor 5:1-5))
* Quite fitting and telling how the Heavenly Intelligence has once again, through the prophetic ministry of Ernie Knoll, also on this issue, seamlessly, in his (June 7, 2014) Dream #69 par 9-11, given a “concretizing” message which is right along the lines of this “pompously cherished heart idol” claim of contra. Women Ordination SDAs. This is indeed all according to God’s Ezek 14:1-8 (necessarily self-administered vs. evil-contracted, i.e., Isa 6:8-13 vs. 1 Kgs 22:19-23 ~ 2 Thess 2:11-12) plans to keep leading the SDA Church to through its Whirlwind Shaking Judgement right to still the long sought for 1 Kgs 22:17, 36 tiering end. (=Rev 11:13 = Ezek 9 = 5T 80.1-81.2).
-The compounded Greek word ek-tithemi #1620 (derived from #5087) occurring only 4 times in the NT (i.e. Acts 7:21; 11:4; 18:26; 28:23) is being purported as the type of (so-called) “teaching” that a woman can (also) do (Acts 18:26). The word literalistically involves ‘from what has been laid down/put forth’, and is thus best succinctly rendered as “explained”...So by that “logic”, women should only be allowed to basically read the Bible in Church for any sermon. It certainly cannot mean that they cannot expressed any thought or idea which has not already ‘been put forth’. Well the fact of the matter is that neither male pastors have such a right/gifting. Only prophets and apostles, the topmost-tier of Holy Spirit gifted positions in Israel’s leadership, has such a right because they have directly heard and been commissioned by God (presently, clearly through His Spirit (of Prophecy)). (cf. Eph 2:20; 1 Cor 3:10-11) EGW then certainly did do the “didasko” “teaching” cited by Paul in 1 Tim 2:12, even ‘over men’....and to this day...and this is indeed perfectly Biblical because she had received that “knowledge” and “authority” directly from God.
So again the circumstantial context of Paul here of women generally not being educated, or as educated as men is determinative in barring here women from self-exercising such an authority and teaching role over men, but it just does not Biblically mean that men would not ever do so, because as (directly commissioned) Prophets or Apostles they could, while no shepherd/pastor, actually ever could. Case in point, a pastor today claiming to have such “New Light” in the SDA Church, actually is not authorized to start “teaching” it, but is instead to first have it validated by up to the presently highest standing authority in the SDA Church today, which is the Church meeting in constituency...right up to, as applicable, its General Conference in Session. So 1 Tim 2:12 does not even apply to those in shepherd/pastoral functions as they actually are all only authorized to ‘“explain” what has (authoritatively) already been put forth”“ (#1620)!!
-Interesting to hear how someone from the pro-women ordination side referred to the writings of (non-SDA) people who espouse New Age, Wicca and Homosexuality. It just goes to show how, actually both/all SDA sides in this issue have a deficient or erroneous approach and hermeneutic for arriving a sound Biblical teaching...
January 14, 2015
-Stephen Bohr’s attempted claim here is tangentially, exaggeratedly/conflatedly spurious, as 1 Cor 9:13-14 only shows that, like the OT Priesthood, Pastors, -and ‘hard working Elders’ (1 Tim 5:17-18; 1 Cor 9:9ff)), and also Apostles (1 Cor 9:1-6; cf. 2 Thess 3:8-9) and Evangelists as these all “proclaim(/establish) the Gospel” full-time who are to likewise be wholly devoted to that work, are thus to also be fully supported by the tithe. Neither that verse, nor its context, makes any attempt to substantively|function-ly equate/“link” the OT Priesthood with NT Pastoring (or really any NT Church position, as, moreover, all believers are their own priest now), let alone claim that NT Pastoring, et al. is also only to be reserved for males.
February 8, 2015 - Headship Reprising
-In Stephen Bohr’s “2014 Secrets Unsealed Summit” -[which exposingly enough he could not hold in his wastefully/redundantly, specially built for, $2.6+ million, Ezek 8:5 jealousy-idol, most grossly ill-conceived (cf. e.g. here), private (audienced)-recording studio] presentations, he goes on to protractedly reprise his indifferently obtusely held claims about male headship, expounding on how: ‘“priority of existence”, gender, birth order, age and (physical) height’ all are shown in the Bible/SOP to determine who has the headship. That is all true, but as typical with false teachings/teachers, and especially “Pharisaical” ones, is that they deliberately/outrightly ignore and refuse to engage whatever does not fit into their pompous, authoritarian stance (e.g, Matt 22:41-46; 23:23-24), but yet, pridefully deluded by Satan, just defiantly press on in their misleading course (=Ezek 34:1-22)
as already Biblically debunked above in this post: male, (and indeed existence, birth, age, height [cf. 1 Sam 10:23-24]) headship is default ordering of things, but it just is not absolute. That is consistently seen throughout the Bible with e.g., Jacob vs. Esau; Joseph vs. Reuben/brothers; David vs. brothers; prophets (including women) vs. kings; even with Jesus Himself vs. the Father (EW 149-153 vs. Matt 26:36-46). All such examples show that the default headship of things can be overruled, typically by truth, righteousness, justice (Psa 89:14; 97:2; cf. Pro 20:28; 29:14) and also mercy. (E.g. Isa 1:18-20; Exod 33:11-14)) I.e. if someone holds these qualifiers over even their “head”, then they are the ones which are to be submitted/subjected to. Perfect case in point, especially as in both OT and NT times, it involved women chosen by God, a prophet, since they directly have heard from God thus can to have, even if momentary, headship which should be submitted to. And the people of God, right down through the ministry of EGW, paid dearly for refusing to subject themselves to this God, thus inherently “ordained”, overruling (i.e, out of the normal “male) order of things) headship.
This “only default” stance by Bohr and other SDA’s is so (and moreover, indifferently) Biblically and Spiritually flawed that it is most laughable, and clearly is just the working of Satan on the pride of such people who are themselves incompetent in Biblical, especially Spiritual things. And really, much more than the various typical, (indeed, as also cited/documented above in this post) preposterous stances by the Pro-Women Ordination side, it is this obtuse stance by the Against-WO side which will contribute more to any literal or effective Church/Beliefs schism which may transpire upon this issue, because, as I see it, the actually Biblical teaching on this would do much more to reconcile and harmonize both sides here, indeed instead of each of them pulling at their obtuse/unbiblical extremes. (Rom 16:17-18)
March 14, 2015 - Bohr’s ‘Highest Authority’ Proof
In this[50:29-51:49], Spiritually sufficiently-demonic, indifferently dissonant, diatribe
which delightfully revels in the fact that: ‘kings/church leaders (including pastors) could do whatever they wanted to a prophet of God and their counsel; which proves that they had greater, and the greatest, authority in God’s Realm’...(yah right: e.g. 2 Kgs 1:9-16); Stephen Bohr does indeed expose what kind of spirit he is of, and also in regards to this Women Ordination Issue. To him ‘actual authority’ is to be found in the person who is able to “execute” force to do, or not do, something, whereas the Most Powerful Being in this Universe does not determine Authority, nor Rule, in that way. That is Satan’s way. Moreover, before that non-Biblical idea of “having a king like the surrounding heathen nations’, who indeed could forcefully wield the most powerful authority, it was people who many times also had the prophetic gift, e.g., Moses, Samuel, who had the highest authority in God’s Israel.
God Himself is the Greatest of Counsellors to all of His created beings, and look, as most tangibly demonstrated through Jesus Christ, they are free to do whatever they want with His Righteous Counsels, including abusing Him (Matt 17:12). It certainly does not mean that ‘they have higher authority than God/Jesus. (Luke 22:25-30; John 10:18; 19:10-11; Matt 23:29-33; cf. GC 47.1-48.2) Which is all why ‘God chooses the weak, including the “weakest of the weak”, things to confound the (supposed) wise.’ (1 Cor 1:27; 1984 JNL, HEVI 83.22)
Bohr and his camp clearly have fundamentally have the unbiblical, to say the least, understanding of this issue, and clearly reveal that they are mainly concerned about ‘maintaining authoritarian power’ rather than heeding God’s “still small voice’ will. (Zech 4:6). The Highest Authority in God’s Realm is His Truth.
-Just “retire” and “disappear” already, you pride&selfishness-controlled, SDASS, wastefully, and also erringly, repetitious, “cumberer of the ground” (4T 385.3)...
March 14, 2015 - EGW and Women Teachers+
...And speaking of what EGW actually said/meant: she “was shown” that ‘women teachers in the Gospel Ministry’ was acceptable and needed (5MR 323.1-327.3); See this sermon by Dwight Nelson. I however to not at all agree with him that ‘both positions in the WO debate are solidly Biblical’ [23:51-24:21]. Nor are 1 Cor 14:34-35 & 1 Tim 2:12 ‘to be ignored’ [27:23-28:00]. They factually, and actually both, as claimed/presented, are not. That satisfied belief is all reflective of the deficient hermeneutics which reigns in the SDA Church.: There just is not “two-position” solution on this issue. Just like it later became clear that Jewish Christians were wrong for continuing to adhere to Old Covenant ceremonial rituals and laws, and that Paul, through his God-revealed, and OT-sampled, Gospel (Gal 1:11-12), had been right all along, God had steadily, indeed from OT days, been indicating that He was never limited by gender in His ordaining and commissioning elections, and EGW, who was actually too advanced for her time, and whose ministry actually did represent that “two position” compromise that is now being retarded sought, -as, though not formally the leader of the SDA Church then, she certainly effectively was, and as such did reveal what God is willing to do through anyone, indeed beyond gender, age and/or education, who He will ordain through His Spirit to, here, the most consequential, and thus inherently highest, influential, and thus (supposed to be) authoritative, position in His Israel...But Laodicea is so smugly Spiritually blind, and Babylonian-wannabe-ly confused, of course. Only the rightly interpreted and harmonized view here is the lone “Biblical” one and such Biblical Truth is the best unifier and testimony (John 17:17, 21).
April 4, 2015 - Women “Preachers” but not “Teachers”
In this response video to an Adventist World article on Women Ordination, Stephen Bohr also makes the spurious claim that God is okay with women being preachers but not teachers, nor pastors. First of all, I have also quite manifestedly seen a distinct Holy Spirit gifting in one who is able preach, pastor and teach. I.e., a “preacher” is typically a local pastor or evangelist who has manifested the gift of having a message for a wider audience than just his local church and/or already baptized people. And relatedly a “teacher” typically does not make the best pastor or evangelist, but is skillful (e.g. grammatically-wise) at providing instruction from an established curriculum. Pertinently enough, it was mind boggling for the scholars of Christ day that either He (John 7:15, 16-17) or his disciples (Acts 4:13) were able to (convincingly/effectively -cf. 2 Pet 3:16) preach while being (“grammatically”) unlearned/uneducated.
So to me, it has been quite evident that the gift of preaching has always been distinct and superior than that of pastoring and teaching. And that Spiritual observation is concretized in Scripture. First of all 1 Cor 12:28 shows that there is an hierarchy in God’s Spiritual Giftings and positions namely: apostles, prophets, teachers, miracle workers. Evidently all depending on which one was of more direct/closest commissioning to God, =(with miracle workers actually having to injunctively depend on God’s responding will when the endeavored to do a supernatural act). Then it seems that Eph 4:11, which was written after 1 Corinthians, fills in this hierarchal listing more by adding evangelist and (actually) “pastor-teachers”, i.e., ‘pastors who are teachers” vs. ‘pastors who are not (educated) to also teach’ (sort of like the professional vs. lay pastor distinction made today). So in short, it seems Biblically clear to me that the gift of “preaching” is considered to be of a higher commission than that of “teaching” and/or pastoring.
Several Scriptures bear out just why “preaching” is of such great and higher Spiritual significance:
-it is the proclamation of a injunctively/radically changing message (thus necessarily ultimately) from God: Luke 2:10 (angels); Luke 3:16-18 (John the Baptist); Luke 16:16 (Jesus); Acts 14:15 (apostles); Rev 14:6 (Angels/Remnant Movement).
-can be directly dictated/indicated through Divine?Prophetic Revelation: (Gal 1:8-12, 15-17, 18-24; Rev 10:7)
-Is a Holy Spirit ordained work: (Luke 4:18; Matt 11:5; 1 Pet 1:12)
-The “ordained” and “commissioned” (Acts 1:8) Twelve did it: (Luke 9:6; cf. Luke 8:1; Acts 5:42)
-Can indeed be a distinct gifting, e.g. from preaching & prophesying: (Luke 20:1; Acts 5:42; 15:35; Acts 13:1)
-Could involve baptizing (Acts 8:12; 14:21)
-But is more important than baptizing (1 Cor 1:16-17)
In summary, it is evident from the examples in Scripture (especially Paul) that “preaching” itself distinctly involved the expert/capable task of rightly selecting applicable OT Scriptures and fulfilled/fulfilling OT Prophecies and proclaiming this “present truth” message, whereas “teaching” itself was being skilful in making known such an already prophetically established “curriculum” (e.g., of (established) faith & truth 1 Tim 2:7; cf. 2 Tim 1:11) Jesus Himself as also a “Teacher”, as was His common/popular Title (e.g., Matt 8:19; 9:11; 19:16 =Strongs #1320]) = “Rabbi” (John 20:16), but in the first place, being also a prophet, Jesus was also able to Himself prophetically establish what that “curriculum” was. (e.g. John 7:14-18ff). Ellen White, as firstly a prophet, was also able to do such teaching, in/through, mainly, her authoritatively widely & enduringly published (=preached) writings.
So from the Biblical testimony, it is evident that the gift of “preaching” is more, or better: higherly, Spiritually gifted than that of teaching (which typically is from an already establish/sanctioned curriculum), which all in turn is greater than mere pastoring which really basically involves looking after the psychological Spiritual needs of a local congregation. Indeed a “pastor-teacher” is actually higher on that Spiritual Gift hierarchy than an mere pastor. Also further sort of like the difference today with a pastor who has gone to Seminary/Graduate School vs. one who has only had Undergraduate Theological Education.
Of course Stephen Bohr does not see things this way because, like a cat being given more string, he is compoundedly still enlaced in his indifferently and stupidly, stubbornly held above debunked many spurious and outrightly false beliefs on the various elements in this Women’s Ordination, -which he indeed mindlessly repeat throughout that presentation. On the one hand, his perpetuating problem is that he is preferring to limitingly merely engage the Biblically/Exegetically/Spiritually deficient opposing side on this Issue withing the SDA Church and TOSC, and of course, thinks to find full justification from their also many quite obtuse/moronic reasonings and unscriptural arguments. Then on the other side, there is also the natural and/or carnal/prideful “stubborness” of/in old age where one is psychologically afraid to admit their error because their whole career and figuratively “existence”/lifelong raison d’être would literally all, or quite significantly, come crumbling down, and that with so little time left in their life for them to “rebuild it”. So they desperately prefer to selfishly double down and only look out for themselves, and not for the Truth. But such prideful and detrimental false shepherds (Ezek 34) have their reward. And the SDA Church itself is indifferently conducively, indeed by now systematically, replete of them, on both sides.
Another Secrets Unsealed WO Symposium, Bakersfield (June 12-14, 2015)
Just a rehash, but also expounding therefrom, from Stephen Bohr & Co. of the same, above Biblically and Theologically debunked arguments against Women Ordination.
July 9, 2015 - General Conference 2015 Vote
So on July 8, 2015, the GC 2015 Session voted on the Women Ordination issue, and voted against it: Yes 41.35% No 58.44% (see here+video)...Or did they, in either way here?????! I rather straightforwardly see that the motion merely had at issue ‘whether GC Divisions would be individually/discretionarily free to ordain women or not’. So it rather seemed to me that the above discussed situation that the TOSC members actually believed that all 3 of the Final Positions they came to were equally/concurrently acceptable Biblical Truths....(Indeed see again the (fluffy sermon) rehash in his June 6, 2015 sermon [21:38ff] by TOSC member Dwight Nelson.*)...In that Babylonianly-stupid case, then why has it now voted to be wrong that the Division follow whichever of these 3 “true/Biblical” final TOSC positions!?????**...More symptoms of God’s Spirit, neither substantively or influentially, having anything to do with SDA Proceedings (cf. 1 Cor 14:33 ala. LDE 50.2-4)...it is all, at the very best, “foolish/moronic” virgins oil fumes (Matt 25:8-9) ...and thus the stupefiedly blinding spirit of Babylonian, -moreover witless, even blissfully, or really, indifferently so, Confusion also reigns supreme therein.
* So, as per that indeed ‘“fluffy/airy’ reasoning’, now that North America recognizes gay marriages, then the NAD/Church should ‘do what is acceptable in their region’ and also recognize and do gay marriages, and hire&ordain practising gay clergy.
...The SDA Church does not actually have Paul’s Missional specific issue of seeking to ‘become all (lawful) things to all men, (here Jews), in order to save some’ (1 Cor 9:19-23), pointedly because, as it stand, the pro-WO TOSC members have not ever properly validated their position that the ordination of women is Biblical, as it indeed is, but only for the Biblical/Hermeneutic/Exegetical/Theological reasons discussed above. The believers in the book of Acts were still transitioning between two God-Ordained dispensations, one passing, the other newly established. E.g. the Apostles still went to the Temple to observe Jewish Feasts. So Paul did have that leeway to choose whichever one would be best received by his audience. In a way, the SDA has long been, i.e. since the ministry of EGW, transitioning to recognizing that God does call, gift and ordain (by His Holy Spirit) women to any position in His Israel/Church, but they still need to first learn how to properly make this case from a solid Biblical presentation...and because they not only have not done that, but more significantly, they evidently competently cannot do that, nor do they want or care to be able to do that, then they do deserve to remain in the forced error of their priorly sown, cultivated and cherished wayward ways....At least they are still “wholly united” in their joint unBiblicalness....
....But once they realize that they have indeed established that Women Ordination is valid and only voted for the Church to majoritarily all do the same thing, this issue will again be revived at/for another GC....unless of course they are blind enough to think that God has decided the issue once and for all here at GC 2015,,,because He/His Spirit did not...There, most negligently and indifferently, thus outrightly incompetently, was no achievable solid Biblical foundation/basis for God to work with....
...Case in point, now, post-vote, (some from) the defeated pro-WO side is on one hand consoled by having received ca. over 800 similar siding votes from non-North American delegates, as they are lamenting, even (“stereo-typically”) crying (-really!???-), about some injustices. Fact of the matter, contrary to their claims, this was not a: ‘democratic’, “religious liberty”, “liberty of conscience”, or “discretionary” matter, it was always a Biblical one, and this pro-WO side did a most shoddy and selective/subjective/whimsical and outrightly incompetent job in regards to arriving at a Biblical decision...as likewise did the side against WO in substantiating their stance. Hence no Biblical decision was actually done, or arrived at, in this GC Session and the prior 2-year TOSC deliberations.
** And just to stressingly highlight the entrenched Scholarly Incompetence and Spiritual myopia (Laodicean) diseases of/in the SDA Church, this is actually what those 3 final positions/conclusions from TOSC:
...Case in point, now, post-vote, (some from) the defeated pro-WO side is on one hand consoled by having received ca. over 800 similar siding votes from non-North American delegates, as they are lamenting, even (“stereo-typically”) crying (-really!???-), about some injustices. Fact of the matter, contrary to their claims, this was not a: ‘democratic’, “religious liberty”, “liberty of conscience”, or “discretionary” matter, it was always a Biblical one, and this pro-WO side did a most shoddy and selective/subjective/whimsical and outrightly incompetent job in regards to arriving at a Biblical decision...as likewise did the side against WO in substantiating their stance. Hence no Biblical decision was actually done, or arrived at, in this GC Session and the prior 2-year TOSC deliberations.
** And just to stressingly highlight the entrenched Scholarly Incompetence and Spiritual myopia (Laodicean) diseases of/in the SDA Church, this is actually what those 3 final positions/conclusions from TOSC:
Position 1: Against WO: Starting by not properly understanding ordination, they also failed, both Scholastically and Spiritually to Biblically see that, even starting in the OT, God called and ordained women to positions that were higher than that of priesthood, which itself had become an unrestricted position in the NT to apply to all believers.
Position 2: For WO: Through a litany of Scripturally unfounded “reasonings” they foundationally claimed that the (doctrinal) understanding of Scripture was to be defined by what is acceptable in contemporary culture, and so had no qualm about outrightly ignoring whatever passage the saw as being opposed to their view.
Position 3: For WO: This was probably the even most alarming group in the TOSC gathering as they claimed that, as it supposedly was the case/“norm” in OT Israel, God was deferently open to accept whatever Scripture-rebelling and opposing decision they insisted on following instead.
‘Vision’ from Ernie Knoll (June 25, 2015)
In his Dream #71, Ernie Knoll relates that Jesus repeatedly affirmed that the GC Session coming up in a few days then would vote in favor of ordaining women. The GC actually did not, or perhaps/rather they tacitly/effectively actually had, and really just can’t now decide if the World Church is going to allow individual Division to follow whatever of the 3 TOSC Final Positions (2 of which claimed that WO is Biblical) they agree is truth!???
In any case, I am still seeing this as the Heavenly Intelligence mockingly continuing via Ernie Knoll their Ezek 14:1-9 (see here) remonstrating confusing of SDAs and the SDA Church* due to them worshipfully cherishing those heart idols. I.e. Since they actually really believe that the Bible teaches 3 different and 2 contradictory things about this issue, then that is indeed what the World Church has inclusively approvingly voted.
* Case in point, as the NAD (effectively) quasi-tauntingly stated in a responding statement to the GC 2015 decision, it, the NAD still has, and will have, women pastors, and will continue to ordain women as elders and deaconesses, not to mention also let women “teach”, -nor also serve as “(Departmental) directors” (also over men), as well as, since the first “General Conference” in Acts 15 was composed of Apostles and elders, -all men (Acts 15:6-7, 22), who were to study out, then make, and thus exercise, “authoritative” decision over/for the entire Church then, then women also shouldn’t be serving as delegates for any SDA Church Constituency/Business meeting, nor be part of deliberating or study committees, -all things which the TOSC Position 1 side has explicitly or effectively vehemently [incorrectly] argued were (supposedly) contrary to Biblical teaching. (July 17, 2015): See more on this prior Vision and its seemingly wrong message explained in (prophetic) detailing in Knoll’s next, post-GC Vote Dream #72 posted on July 11, 2015 which indeed hones in on the misleading motion for that GC “Women Ordination” Vote.
Notes
[1] See also Nelson’s 10-06-12 sermon on ‘rethinking male headship’ entitled, from, (supposedly thematically pertinently) Psa 68:11 (NASB)*: “A Mighty Throng of Women”, which mainly presents the correct Biblical Hermeneutic that God can supercede a previous law/order which He had given through His own, clear/explicit, overturning leading and/or direct actions.
* Contrary to what is claimed in that sermon, Psa 68:11 does not actually substantively speak on the women ordination issue. All that that verse is saying in its context is that the women are “announcing a good message/news” (=Greek: euangelizo -LXX Psa 67:12) after God has led Israel’s army to a great victory. Indeed, as e.g., seen in 1 Sam 18:7; cf. 21:11; 29:5; Exod 15:20-21 women typically did this in Israel’s culture. In fact, as found in my Bible’s margin cross-references, Psa 68:11 is pointedly referring to what occurred in Exod 15:20-21 (cf. Psa 68:7-8, 9-10). So what is being “never-in-doubtly” related in that context of Psa 68, is that: in between the depictively chief/bookending actions of: (a) God’s command (=declaration of war) and (c) the women who announced the victory (=military victory parade) was (b) an indeed successful warring campaign.
Therefore that statement is not necessarily/actually saying, as implied in that sermon that: ‘these women are preaching as ordained ministers as did/would the Messiah’, all simply based on a shallow lexical matches of the Hebrew word “basar” in Isa 61:1 = Luke 4:18. “Good News” is not defaultly, technically, “Preaching the Gospel”, and that in an ordained capacity, but the bearing of any “good news”, -which nonetheless surely included the mere announcement of Christ’s resurrection (John 20:17-18), yet it does not in itself provide a theological proof for the ordination of women.
Therefore that statement is not necessarily/actually saying, as implied in that sermon that: ‘these women are preaching as ordained ministers as did/would the Messiah’, all simply based on a shallow lexical matches of the Hebrew word “basar” in Isa 61:1 = Luke 4:18. “Good News” is not defaultly, technically, “Preaching the Gospel”, and that in an ordained capacity, but the bearing of any “good news”, -which nonetheless surely included the mere announcement of Christ’s resurrection (John 20:17-18), yet it does not in itself provide a theological proof for the ordination of women.
Hopefully, the newly-formed SDA GC and Divisional Theological committees on this issue (cf. here -members listing, to which Dwight Nelson has said that he is a part of, will be doing a deeper and accurate job in studying out this issue. Also hopefully, superficial subjective claims such as the fanciful/oblivious one by Jonathan Henderson in his 12-15-12 sermon [05:37-06:48; 12:55-13:15] that: ‘women should be [also ordained] pastors/leaders because they can handle the ordeal of childbirth’ (indifferently, vacuously, more pompously re-claimed here (on 02-14-13); and then a year later, on 03-28-14, now also moronically, idiotically reprised here) -(a Biblically groundless claim which was mindlessly applauded by (some of) his members/audience [=Matt 15:14]....Seriously?????)*, will not be a factor at all in the studying out process and decision making conclusion. I think God knew that physical fact all along when He barred woman from exercising headship in Eden upon the fall (Gen 3:16b) that Eve initiated and then overwhelmingly influenced upon Adam. In fact, were it but for Eve’s sin, childbirthing would have been quite easy and painless for women (Gen 3:16a)! The, pun-intended, crux of this issue is: did the Cross reset the causative spiritual matters here. Also, as intimated in Nelson’s sermon, this GC beliefs/policy task will not be spuriously influenced by an obliviously vain belief that: ‘“time is running out” so let just expediently do whatever is expedient’ for, for a Church with the various available resources as the SDA Church has, that is a “slothful excuse” that God will indeed not begin to honor. (Matt 25:24-28)
* Quite unlike the instance when, in the July 21 AM (i.e., Sabbath Morning Service) sermon here (mp3) [at 35:26-37:32-38:04] during a sermon as the invited, final weekend, main speaker at the 2012 Alberta Conference Campmeeting, Jonathan Henderson was resolutely, yet nonetheless politely/agreeably, interrupted by someone in the audience to be corrected on the view he had just claimed that ‘the actual/only reason why Sodom was destroyed was because of the socio-economic sins ‘“explicitly” cited by God’ in Ezek 16:48-50.’ It indeed was not the only reason, but probably the precursory selfish sinning which then led to a next level of “abominable” sinning (=Ezek 16:50b; Jud 1:7 (see here); cf. Josephus, Antiquities, 1:11.1 [#194] -typically bloodshedding and/or sexual perversion) which “haughty”/arrogant/righteousness disdaining people just would not be rationally corrected upon, and so God had no other choice then to efface such a pervasive, threatening and spreading culture of perversion, probably sickness, violence and death.#
Henderson ‘indeed’ has as a way of knowingly/deliberately purporting, especially theological things, which are ‘indeed’ (relatively, theologically/Biblically, speaking) substantively vacuous and/or self-contradicting and “beyond the pale” (e.g., actually, adlibly and/or overstatingly, spuriously or outrightly, fabricated(-in-plain-sight/hearing), Bible or SOP claims), which he moreover, annoyingly, attempts to substantiate with, compoundingly, straw-man or tangential (more-moreover, 198/90'ish, -i.e., youth/people today no longer have controlling “aspirations” to do what is socially common, a.k.a. “cool”, but really, in these “I/you” vs. “us/we” “times”, more pointedly and self-idolatrously, cerebrally (vs. “jivishly”), whatever will variously, individualizingly distinguish them from the “common” rest) caricaturish jestings (contra e.g. Ev 640.1ff; 641.2ff), -which are thus inherently irrelevant/inconsequential and thus also not the form of ‘good, truth-based, humor’ which he claims he solely resorts to. Evidently, as discussed here, Henderson think that He needs to be God’s PR agent, -to restore the image of God, but quite unlike both Jesus and later EGW’s similar works, he is, moreover quite knowingly, selectively attempting to do this with many things which God Himself clearly has stated in His Word. The Spiritual fact of the matter is that Henderson most manifestly does not have a full/enough experience with God in deeply, vs. Henderson’s “cosmetic”, dealing with the root issues of sin and this Great Controversy, to be able to accurately grasp the mind, and re-actions, of God to these things. (=1SM 25.4) And such a deeper, God-like experience is naturally and only obtained when, like Jesus, one truly engages the physical, vs. merely sociological or even psychological, root cause of the sin issues here. I.e., God does not only deal with these issue by speaking about them, or even trying to “tap” into the psyche of people who are committing them, but also by thoroughly physically counteracting their overspreading detriment...And that is actually going to incontrovertibly take systemic reformation!
And as someone (more than less) rightly pointed out to Henderson (see here [36:28-37:28ff]); “emotionalism” indeed does not produce a rooted/healthy/lasting harvest....It certainly does not prove anything...actual/sound, comprehensively, if not exhaustively, pondered, (and that, the first time around), Truth does!!
# Most likely related/contributive, it is indeed quite normative for Canadians, (presuming that the correcting man was himself a Canadian), [with addedly, substantively, here, this being in Canada’s Bible belt], to be so “intelligently insulted”-to-the-point-of-unconventionally-reacting (cf. in here) when it is perceived/deemed that someone, -who is probably taking advantage of their default niceness, is endeavoring to “pull the wool over their eyes”, particularly if it is an American, -who generally/typically presume that Canadians will sheepishly just go along with everything they advance. (Most emblematically/classicly, see e.g., here; cf. here)....As the lyric goes: “we (Canadians) ain’t serious unless we really gotta be”...and when one nips in the bud the many non-factual, self-manufactured problems, crises, and conflicts which Americans common-senselessly|mindlessly|moronically, thus "strawmanly" (cf. here), “haughtily”, create, embrace and/or “fuel”/perpetuate, then there naturally comes to be ample time to “have a social life”!...
Post Script: Frankly stated, the quite easily observable hard fact about Jonathan Henderson clearly is that: after ca. 15-20+ years, he just has not risen above being merely a “preacher hack” with a theological wit entrenchedly, basely controlled by a vexatiously whimsical, Freudian-longing/nostalgic (see here (on 05-03-14) [at 10:32ff]), ‘graphic-caricaturist’ wannabe, psyche, and who, moreover vacuously, -and actually bordering on clinical mental deficiency, and/or, and as also observed by several others: ‘quasi-demonic possession’, pointedly in, as amply, emblematically documented severally in this blog, him putatively, "correctingly", outrightly thinking that he knows more/better than (the even clearly stating): God, Bible, Bible people and/or the SOP... when it actually predominantly clearly rather, circularly, is nothing more than his own pridefully pompous, novice-(self)-maintained, ignoramus psycho-psyche producing brain "burps".
Post Script: Frankly stated, the quite easily observable hard fact about Jonathan Henderson clearly is that: after ca. 15-20+ years, he just has not risen above being merely a “preacher hack” with a theological wit entrenchedly, basely controlled by a vexatiously whimsical, Freudian-longing/nostalgic (see here (on 05-03-14) [at 10:32ff]), ‘graphic-caricaturist’ wannabe, psyche, and who, moreover vacuously, -and actually bordering on clinical mental deficiency, and/or, and as also observed by several others: ‘quasi-demonic possession’, pointedly in, as amply, emblematically documented severally in this blog, him putatively, "correctingly", outrightly thinking that he knows more/better than (the even clearly stating): God, Bible, Bible people and/or the SOP... when it actually predominantly clearly rather, circularly, is nothing more than his own pridefully pompous, novice-(self)-maintained, ignoramus psycho-psyche producing brain "burps".
Seriously, I have not heard/seen anymore, unbiblical, and also quasi-heretical, preaching claims and waywardness in the SDA Church, -pointedly in regards to various slanderings*, than Henderson(’s)...There are seriously, at the very least, some various psychological issues here. And tellingly enough, even his various superiors who are/may be aware of all of this, just indifferently let him, literally “carry on” as if, as he clearly believes, his “hip”, -really loopy/nutty, act(s) trumps/sets both Truth, and pertinent Biblical/SOP (pastoral/preaching -e.g. PaM 198.2-3) counsels/testimonies.
*...And yet again, another case in point of these patent, wanton sermonic blasphemous slanderings of Bible people, here[07-19-14] [at 41:36-42:32] (mp4) Henderson dares to put Satanic/diabolical words in Paul’s mouth (cf. Gal 1:9) by claiming that Paul would today have also said for Gal 3:27-29 that ‘there is no difference issue with a practising homosexual vs. and heterosexual’..But the actual, express, facts are that: (a) Paul was not at all addressing “sinning” conditions in that passage; (b) Paul has blisteringly and utterly damningly spoken on the evils of homosexual lifestyle and practise (Rom 1:26-27, 32; 1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:9-11); and (c) so though Paul himself could have, he clearly did not, include this issue in Gal 3:27-29 when he had that chance. Really??? How much more lowerly, ‘eyes-wide-shutly, conceitedly, pompously blind, moronic/stupid and blasphemous’ does Henderson “need” to get???!!!! (=2 Tim 4:3-4)...Better hear, on this issue, from (a) converted people, who (b) actually (experientially) know what they are talking about, e.g. here & here; {cf. here [30:24-35:56]}+ here (See also Danielle Harrison’s Testimony & Ministry (videos)) ....And look, the Church has not been excluding, nor marginalizing, them!!! (This issue, heightened later by Henderson, is further discussed here.)
....And now he’s about to also unleash all of this “confused confusing “cool” confusion” full-time on unsuspecting, mostly “plastic”, college students#..As typical with the Synagogue of Satan SDA Church....Great (“Cain-ly”-collective, cowardly) call!!....
# E.g., Speaking at PUC on 01-11-14 (mp3), he smugly, nonsensically, “brain-burpingly”, re-claims at [00:46-02:45] that [and just ignoring his prior, as often, timidly/tacitly, “half-pregnantly” hinted at, heretically spurious Character of God% view/stance]: (a) ‘the Sabbath is not “called” (=‘understood as’) the day of worship in Scripture’ (contra. Lev 23:3; Ezek 46:1-3); (b) Isa 66:23 actually means that ‘people will be worship God for 7 days a week, during every week of every month’, when that is exegetically not at all what the Hebrew (nor LXX) grammar and syntax is saying (i.e., compared to how “durative” notions are expressed in Exod 27:21; Lev 23:32; 24:3; Num 9:21).
# E.g., Speaking at PUC on 01-11-14 (mp3), he smugly, nonsensically, “brain-burpingly”, re-claims at [00:46-02:45] that [and just ignoring his prior, as often, timidly/tacitly, “half-pregnantly” hinted at, heretically spurious Character of God% view/stance]: (a) ‘the Sabbath is not “called” (=‘understood as’) the day of worship in Scripture’ (contra. Lev 23:3; Ezek 46:1-3); (b) Isa 66:23 actually means that ‘people will be worship God for 7 days a week, during every week of every month’, when that is exegetically not at all what the Hebrew (nor LXX) grammar and syntax is saying (i.e., compared to how “durative” notions are expressed in Exod 27:21; Lev 23:32; 24:3; Num 9:21).
In fact, moreover debunking, the indeed iterative Hebrew grammar and syntax of Isa 66:23 also involve the notion of “sufficiency”, with the meaning that God’s People then will “sufficiently”, only be worshipping before God on Weekly Sabbaths and on Monthly New Moons (thus then not needing the typological Feasts Days as ‘tutoringly’ given in the Old Covenant). The Creator God knows that, just as at the beginning, there will still be ample and necessary physical work to be done in that ‘New Heaven and New Earth’ (Isa 65:17; 66:22; (2 Pet 3:13); Rev 21:1ff) Era!! So such ‘sabbatically (vs. devotionally) worshipping God every day’ claims/notions, are just smug, heretical, non-sensical, even Satanic, fantasies.
% Perfect case in point, in his next sermon [08-09-2014] (YT|mp4) on (his cotton-candy straw man version of) the Three Angels Message (Rev 14:6-11) Henderson does indeed present it from his speciously heretical, theologically-hacked, (so-called) “COG” view. Indeed he repeatedly air-headedly paints cotton candy straw men, which he actually eventually goes onto self-contradict.
-First of all, First Message: ‘phobic fear is (typically/best-ly) what leads to “reverence”’ in the same way that “since I phobically, indeed vitally so, fear a lion, I’ll surely “reverence” won’t taunt, poke it, nor attack its offspring, nor do anything else that it does not want/like.’
-Second Message: ‘“Babylon” is indeed “God’s People”’, “Sherlock”...As in history, it represents a geo-political system in which God’s own people, even His Jerusalem, physically and/or ideologically, have relocated into it, and/but instead of changing it, it allowed it to mixingly dilute, thus substantively change, them, to the point where they became perfectly assimilated in it. Hence, the “Babylon” Pagan Roman Empire was taken over by God NT Era Church and “changed” into the “confusing” Holy/Papal Roman Empire; and likewise later, the salvage Protestant Church came out of Babylon, only to assimilate themselves into American ideology and now present that Babylonian system to the world as ‘God’s Truth & Country’.
And Rev 14:8 could not actually validly apply to ‘people who were supposed to flee Jerusalem as it was going to be destroyed by Rome’ as the book of Revelation was given in the 90's AD. and Jerusalem was attacked by Rome in 70 A.D. and by then all Christians had, heeding Christ’s warning, long, permanently, fled that doomed city.
-Third Message: It never ceases to be head-shakingly comical to hear these COG hyper-sentimenatlists try to, as Henderson desperately tries for Rev 14:9-11, explain away the ‘torturously-fiery reality of Hell’. And what is even funnier, is to see them try to do so by selectively quoting from the SOP, ignoring whatever they can’t stomach. Fact is, both Henderson, and actually the SDA Beliefs book he quotes from are “sentimentalistically” deficient in comprehension. The sinners in the end cannot truly experience guilt at the simple presentation of their sins, just like a serial killer probably won’t feel guilty at seeing the unsuspected evidence from a security camera that he had committed one of these murders being played during his trial. He, as these sinners, will then feel sorry that they are caught and have no way to “justify” themselves, but in order for them to actually feel “guilty” about these sins, they would have had to have a character that is intrinsically opposed to such things... and they just don’t. God won’t, actually cannot, give them such a perfect/righteous character. Jesus however, in Gethsemane and on the Cross did (already) have such a sin-averse, moreover perfect character...hence His “greatest of sufferings”. But these sinners don’t, and that is why, as God actually revealed in vision to EGW (and strictly according to the SDA’s “Plan B” understandings/scenario), and as already fully discussed here, they will have to be (alternatively) made, and supernaturally so by God Himself, to feel/experience a mental pain that is the closest to such a mental anguishing pain for each and every one of their sins...through the torturous use of fire. ...In fact, this is all like the present situation with Jonathan Henderson. He by now has repeatedly been objectively and concretely shown many times to be completely wrong about his claims and views...but despite those evidences, he just continues along as is, thus showing that he indeed has no psyche/character of being a Truth/True teacher. Which is precisely why he manifests no care, concern, regret, shame nor contrition for how he as been misleading and deceiving people. Indeed he contributively has cultivate a worthless “experience” of “hot-air” preaching which has been averse to such substantive veracity. It thus is just not at all “in him” to begin to have such (responsible) reactions...as this is clearly being suppressedly drown by several layers of subconsciously effected pride and ego. [But, as in here [end of Section #8], ‘begin to put his paycheck in play and he’ll say whatever you want him to say’...Wind-vain-ing Charlatan!!] (And by the way, what, other than mere reverse-psychology “smoke and mirrors”, was Henderson’s clownish straw man antics of claiming that his SDA congregation/SDAs in general believe that Rev 14:10 was speaking of an eternally burning fire and tormenting!?????). Indeed given how he so is actually wantonly, indifferently, if not actually obliviously, “all over the map” with his self-dissonant, straw man, premises and claims, this sequiturly just indeed also encroaches on ‘some kind of (clinical) crazy’. And not surprising, just like those wicked in the end (Rev 20:8-9a), give him another week in a pulpit and he’ll just, necessarily pompously, resume the same derivedly “hellish”, “conveniently, (if not actually: ‘clinically helplessly’), idiotic”, false teaching.
As stated above, Jonathan Henderson is, LOL, the one who is completely “confused” about what he believes....but hey...make him a pastor-teacher, pay him, ordain him and give him a wider audience. When a Church has no basic gospel order to actually, and immediately, rein in heretical preaching and claims from its pulpit, then it indeed is just like Babylon, in fact, it is much worse....
....Update 09-03-14: And now, as typical from Henderson, (or at least if ever he actually even bothers to do so), he now has to backpedal from his “beyond the pale” “trip” to do what he should rather have instead endeavored to do before he went on his deliberate, and fundamentally spuriously ‘calculated’, ‘proof-texting, non-biblical, a-exegetical, blasphemous/slanderous Spiritually-diatribic rampage. So here, in his 08-16-14 [mp4] (last sermon at that Church before now moving on to confuse the minds of young SDAs) he attempts [at 01:13:46ff] to “clarify” what he had priorly, indeed “diabolically”, said, (above in his 07-19-14 sermon), in regards to ‘what Paul (supposedly) would have said about homosexuals and their lifestyle’ by (effectively) stating that: ‘what he really wants is to have pride parades in SDA Churches’...‘For that is what will demonstrate “love” (still contra. 1 Cor 11:6)...While you’re at this ‘sins-egalitarian-acceptance’ red-herring, why don’t you “equally” also: accept/welcome the pornstars walking into your church butt naked, -even pompously putting on their own “flamboyant show” for you; do instead make those child predators ‘feel welcome’ by letting them peruse for a prey; let the “players” do their games amongst the youth; etc....The “display/appearance of evil”, and even more its welcomed assimilation, is just as detrimental as the evil itself for a Church also does have to protect the budding generation in it and that is just not done by ‘lowering the standard’...For, basic rule-of-thumb, if/when a Church has to “lower its standard” to “befriend” sinners, then there actually is something “powerfully” wrong with that Church itself. Jesus did ‘go out’ to meet and have company with the vilest sinners of His day, but that was actually the “fishing standard” for ‘outreach’. But he certainly did not invite these people, “as if”, even at all, to join his disciples groups. When certain ones of them were convicted by his reaching out fellowship and they then came to him to learn more, they certainly, clearly now knew and understood just who they were going to meet with and conformed themselves. Even the representative of the hegemonicly reigning Roman Empire knew to humbly bow himself to Jesus. Tellingly enough, “going out” to these groups of sinners and straightly invite them to Church, which thus would potentially result in them coming “as is”, would probably not even work. Instead it is ‘Christ method alone which would have greater results’. Long before He ‘discipledly’ bade them “follow me” He had gone out to them, genuinely befriended them, and “ministered to their need”, which probably also included, whenever pertinent, their need to see the light about their sin, whether in direct addressing, and/or in the presentation of something much better. But He certainly did not got the “moronic”, and even deceptive, route of hoodwinking people by letting them think that ‘they are acceptable “as “blissfully/gayly” is”’ and then doing a switcharoo on them. In fact, most homosexual people already know that the Church does not accept their lifestyle, so why lie to them and make them think otherwise, i.e. by letting them ‘flaunt/advertise their abominable lifestyle in God’s Church. That typically is the lying tactic of the desperately weak and God-ward faithless, -and fundamentally/inherently/derivedly even, as prominent with such “Emergent/Character of God” proponents, as Henderson itches to be, God-impeachingly-second guessing; and throughout Israel’s/Churches history, as prominently seen from/with Solomon and his harem of “purposeful” foreign wives as well as the compromises of the Early-Medieval Church, has only served to choke righteousness and pervert truth. It is not at all surprising for Henderson to virtually always go the knee-jerkedly “moronic” route on such World vs. Church issues, by effectively “chucking the Bible aside”, i.e. not taking into consideration all related passages (ala. Satan (Matt 4:5-6)); and relying on his subjective, typically post-modernly humanistic, leaning.
The whole problem with the Church not being more attractive to anyone in the world, pointedly those who have deem their relativistic views to be much more determinative, is just that the Church itself is not living up to what they are called to optimally be. Then, just as you do not have to tell people to appropriately dress up and conformingly behave to attend the most formal event at the White House, you won’t have to tell any sinner what to appropriately and conformingly do when invited to attend ‘the House where the God of the Universe attends’...Indeed, even when Jesus stooped down and invited the unworthiest and lowest of peoples to an event of His, He still expected them to have fully complied and conformed themselves. (Matt 22:8-14). “Lowering the standards” to be attractive to, and welcome the World into the Church has indeed only been the choice, subtle derouting cyanidic deception of Satan. If something is not “redeemable” (see here[04:44-09:48] from Mark Driscoll), i.e. by it inherently being in opposition to God’s will, then, that “strange” thing (Exod 30:9) should just never be allowed, let alone welcomed in God’s Church/Ministry!...And it is going to take much more/better Bible/SOP study and Theological thought to truly make a Biblical decision on such issues...
...Seriously, the last thing that the upcoming generation of SDAs need is this slothfully shoddy and subjectively ambivalent “example” Bible study...But continuingly so be it in/with this Babylonianly intrinsically unordered and unruly, “Wild Wild West”, SDA Church!! -As long, then “merely” Spiritually, perceived: ‘The MOB-failed Laodicea (Rev 3:14-17) does “resettedly”, “Biblically”-clearly, = Third Series Church (Rev 2:12-17)!!!’...
...Indeed just what SDAs “rootly” need: future generations false-pastorally (=Ezek 34:17-19; EW 36.2) con-artistically-influenced to subjectively and whimsically, and of course, completely unexegetically, mal-treat the Word of God....What a, not at all presumably, ‘convenient “idiot”’[#2399 cf. Acts 4:13]....That is indeed just how the Third Prophetic Series Era of Mark of the Beast heresy and compromise (e.g. Rev 2:14-15) opposing God’s “Sword” (Rev 2:16; Heb 4:11-13) was birthed letting to the present, fully-bloomed/ripened, comprehensive state of “(actual) post-modern” GC Conflicts (Rev 19:15)!! In fact, Henderson, and his pantheon of cherished cyanidic heresies, is actually the prime/perfect (SDA), even more entrenched, recruit/candidate for the Sixth Era (e.g. Rev 16:13-14, 16; contra. 1 Cor 13:6; Rom 1:18-19ff), counter-Sixth Army (Rev 17:14; 19:19ff; 1 John 3:18), “Eighth Head” also Emergent Church deception (prophetically depicted at S06E02ff - vid trailer), which indeed is a, now full-throttled, (= Satanically supernatural) rallying attempt to re-supportingly salvage Babylon following its sudden and radical Rev 16:12 ideological and functional setback....And talk about ‘false teachers and deceivers who are walking according to their own “light”’ (Ezek 13:1-16; cf. DA 527.1), here’s a “dude”, Henderson, who (a) has a track record strewn which his indifferent misconstruing and, at best “quack-exegesis” mal-interpretations of the Greater Light of God’s Word; (b) treats, especially, the Lesser Light in the writings of EGW like his personal cafeteria, -fiatly picking and choosing whatever he prefers from it on that given day; (c) has not been given any alternative, additional, furthering SOP light from God (Amos 3:7); but he, shamelessly, is right in whatever nonsense he pops off from the pulpit...And why...’because he prefers it to be so and has buffoonly “substantiated” such whimsically wishful claims’...Please, get an “unvain” and “sober” psyche....Such loose canons surely will not escape the judgement of Ezek 34:1-22!! See more on the spurious claims and encroachingly heretical theology of Jonathan Henderson in, and from, this dedicated post.
-Get the (not-so-‘unprecedented’) clue: ‘Irrespective of whatsoever (Nah 1:9) you professingly claim to/(actually) "believe" (cf. EW 36.2), the Supreme, Sovereign and All-Mighty God will cause or, if absolutely necessary, even (repairingly) supernaturally, make time last as long as you self-deluded self-serving/interested, selfish (also: ST, March 17, 1887 par. 6) hypocritical swines get around to doing all of your (paid) duties as they actually could, and should be done; or, if/since/when you objectively demonstrably/transparently just can’t, until you all presently so impeding God’s work are duly, one way or the other, “removed” as the fruitless,sapping cumberers of the ground that you are, -and most naturally so, if that is what will be “humanly/outwardly” deemed best for the intact salvaging of God’s presently fouled up and downtrodden cause! (Num 14:11-24) = Rev 16:12-16
[2] In fact, I would see as transpiringly warranting in the SDA Church, given the present competitively head-strong stance by the majority male leadership to not want to humble themselves and instead seek to do, and better do, collaborating work, which women are more naturally prone to do, rather than the typical male, ‘cut throat duelling to one’s death’ preference, furthermore more with males innately more inclined to consider their church work more as their due food-providing job, rather than a ministry towards God and man, and thus not inclined to do anything which would result in them losing that position, and thus being fire and unemployed, and thus, just silently going along with whatever the Church does and accepts, however unbiblical it may be, not to mention the natural “good ol’ boys club” which naturally derives from such self-preservation, -that God is indeed anointing/ordaining women, who he has actually long been preparatory working with for such a time, to fill any of such key positions, given them, as done with EGW after Foy’s and Foss’ failure, their chance at correctly seeing that God’s will be done. And so, if women can sustain and/or overcome their own, really Fall-related and male-inculcated complex of endeavoring to be subserviently acceptable to men, and thus will not have any hindrance to full declaring, advocating and working to implement, the Full Counsel of God, just as EGW herself did, including many times going “over the heads” of blind leaders, who were actually all already inferior to her topmost prophet position, then they can now work to salvage whatever/whoever can be salvaged from the now Synagogue of Satan SDA Church.
[2] In fact, I would see as transpiringly warranting in the SDA Church, given the present competitively head-strong stance by the majority male leadership to not want to humble themselves and instead seek to do, and better do, collaborating work, which women are more naturally prone to do, rather than the typical male, ‘cut throat duelling to one’s death’ preference, furthermore more with males innately more inclined to consider their church work more as their due food-providing job, rather than a ministry towards God and man, and thus not inclined to do anything which would result in them losing that position, and thus being fire and unemployed, and thus, just silently going along with whatever the Church does and accepts, however unbiblical it may be, not to mention the natural “good ol’ boys club” which naturally derives from such self-preservation, -that God is indeed anointing/ordaining women, who he has actually long been preparatory working with for such a time, to fill any of such key positions, given them, as done with EGW after Foy’s and Foss’ failure, their chance at correctly seeing that God’s will be done. And so, if women can sustain and/or overcome their own, really Fall-related and male-inculcated complex of endeavoring to be subserviently acceptable to men, and thus will not have any hindrance to full declaring, advocating and working to implement, the Full Counsel of God, just as EGW herself did, including many times going “over the heads” of blind leaders, who were actually all already inferior to her topmost prophet position, then they can now work to salvage whatever/whoever can be salvaged from the now Synagogue of Satan SDA Church.
As a fundamental matter of fact, it actually is the entire system of SDA defaultly/mainly choosing pastors which needs to be revamped and corrected. I.e. if a person feels a calling to become a pastor, the Church has, as it elsewhere similarly does, actually made their god of Mammon be the determiner if this is really true. And so many indeed called individuals are prevented from fulfilling this calling, merely by them not having, or being able to obtain, the finances to get the beneficial College/University-level of Theological education/preparation for this task (cf. GW 92.1-93.1). Fact is not everyone who God calls to the ministry may have the same go-getter personality as others who find a way to overcome or circumvent these financial obstacles, and thus not become discouraged and either not pursue it at all or drop out part way. From a personal experience, as alluded to in here, given my own personality, I was all gun-ho about doing all, and even extra Biblical-research works during my days of studying and stay ad Andrews University, but it was another ministerial classmate of mine who convinced me to also be engaging in prison ministry work (on Sabbaths, in the late-afternoons/early evening, and then addedly me later in the earlier-afternoon at another prison), but he was forced to drop out of school when he just did not have, nor could obtain the mortgage-like funds.....God does not need only ‘cholericly bombastic Peters and Luthers’ in/for His work, but also, for ministering comprehensive reasons, also melancholic John the Beloved and Melanchthons. (-which John was actually complimentarily ‘converted’ to from his prior “son of thunder” days)...Not to mention also sanguines and phlegmatic, All these God-created and distributed chief temperaments and/or any (weighted) combination thereof have, or should have, involved, their various resolve, each anchored/calibrated/controlled by a concrete truth, all to the best of how they were gifted to be...
Indeed, in this area of Church Ministry, at their optimal/very best:
-the melancholic (=analytical and quiet) is best suited to do the underlying scholarly research and work
-the choleric (ambitious and leader-like) would be setting, pushing, implementing and expanding the agenda
-the sanguine (pleasure-seeking and sociable) would best communicate, interest and rally audience to this resulting work
-and the phlegmatic (relaxed and peaceful) would be acting to thoughtfully peacefully resolve any internal or external issue of difference that may occur during this work.
But all of these temperaments are originally established on a “concrete” foundation of Truth.
As an part-example I have the personal observance view that God e.g. sovereignly called and appointed someone like Doug Batchelor given that he naturally had/has (or perhaps was Spiritually enhancingly/accentuatingly was given since he does say that he actually is naturally more of a hermit (as his prior chosen “caveman” days do testify to)) an optimal personality to become a TV/Radio media minister in/for the SDA Church....who indeed, given how Batchelor is, as he also relates [18:07-18:37; 20:35-24:12ff] actually quite popular, liked, appreciated in general audiences and non-SDA Christian (Broadcasting) circles, has thus produced much fruit.... but such a person/temperament not fully or ever “anchored/calibrated/controlled” by concrete truth...can actually backfire and be/become a detriment...and that irreparably so by people who then would not want to again be ‘“pleasurably” fooled/hoodwinked’....(Personally, I myself cannot stand a comedian whose act is merely based on whimsical slapstick compared to a comedic act which involve intelligent, truth-derived substance..[and the recently tragically-late Robin Williams had a seriously/factually, at least to me, -and evidently, as well as many others, mind-bogglingly intriguing way of effortlessly combining the two...although I would not go to the extent of deeming that he was/became (supernaturally) possessed...Just a natural gifting not (knowledgeably, devotedly/expressedly/deliberately) used for the glory of God (albeit Rom 2:14-16)...Indeed imagine the influence that a captivating talent like Williams could exert if he was (fruit-inspectionly speaking) converted, and convinced of Biblical Truth...E.g., imagine him presenting a, concrete-truth derived comedic act on various stories in the Bible!])
...But for the practically-“evolutionistic”, versus restingly-sabbatical, SDA Church, that development was blasphemously all according to God’s ordained order for such things. They are indeed ‘worshipping before an actually vacated throne that Satan is now ‘appearedly’ (=in an ‘angel of light apparition’ {=EW 263-266-269) standing beside, conducting them.’ (EW 56.1)...At the very least, the SDA Church should be endeavoring to do what Francis Chan famously foundingly did for/with His Eternity Bible College, which is to not make finances either be an obstacle, not later “mortgaging” weight on people wanting to enter the ministry. Indeed the decision of even entering the ministry should be an orderly one, right from the bindingly, or at least greatly influentially, green-lighting of the local Church board where the prospective student is a member, right through that local Church, or Church District, then subsidizing, or fully funding that student education. Only in cases where the students does not complete their ministry, and that by themselves giving up, and/or being subsequently justly fired by the hiring pertinent Conference, would that expenditure of the local Church or Church District be fully due...but of course, such responsible and substantive Spiritual Gospel Order things are certainly not acceptable in a Church which much prefer to be variously “ordered” and ruled by any variously self-profiting Capitalistic policies and methods....Talk about indeed: ‘them shooting themselves in their (already dysfunctional) feet’. (cf. Rev 3:9b)
-Relatedly, given what Stephen Bohr and also Daniel Mesa, repeatedly claim, the Ordaining of Women to any Gospel Work position is surfacely not what would affect the view of other Christians towards SDAs as being ‘people of the Bible’ (which is really a self-assuaging vacuous flattery, -or else they would have already joined them), it is rather wether or not that decision is what the Bible actually teaches. So do rather focus on making that decision most objectively Biblically clear, and not, as involved here, merely seeking to preserve appearances and fall for the self-serving flattery of people....Such a counsel, as many others, need not even have been said..but so is the encountered asinine, “grown up children”, level of Spiritually-void, reasoning that pervasively “reigns supreme” in the SDA Church....
[3] God would have much better wanted David to himself, at the very least, sincerely consult God to see, if applicable, what he had done, pointedly in regards to Uriah, was not sinful (and in fact capitally so, as it certainly was not any form of justified self-defense which then justifies the breaking of any correspondingly preserving Law (e.g. 1 Sam 16:1-2ff)), (David clearly knew that his related adultery with Bathsheba itself was capitally sinful), but instead David used that granted candid probation of God to bury any conscience-convicting promptings that the Holy Spirit was surely giving him, to the point where that evidently went, perhaps completely, surely increasingly, silent, for close to a year, until Nathan’s commissioned visitation. I rather see that if David had of himself repented during that probationary time, God would then not only have also forgiven him, but would have had justification for preventing and offsetting the consequences of his sin. E.g., if David had instead voluntarily confessed his sin, even if not publicly (cf. Psa 51:4a =since Uriah himself was since dead, and the other “victim”, Bathsheba, was evidently a willing, and even contributing co-conspirator, e.g., by keeping this affair secret, even from Uriah), and repented, then that itself would have offset the shame which he caused to God and (nationally and internationally) to Israel. Indeed that example of voluntary and candid confession would have not served to justify the future bold sinning that David relatedly experienced in own his household.
[4] And this is relatedly also where the WBSC idea long proposed to them would have here, or really, a long while ago, been beneficial to them, because: (1) they would have had that standing and functionally well-resourced entity to have this issue exhaustively hashed out, and (2) unlike the present TOSC constituency, which, on top of being imbalancedly/unfairly stacked with NAD people, with the evident aim there being to gather the “very best” people in the SDA Church, it, as a Study Committee which is actually inferior to the coming General Conference voting gathering, actually should instead have aimed to assembled the best people suited to hammer out the inherently Theological and scholarly issues involved in this decision. (And as many examples can show, that certainly is not e.g. someone who has been a great evangelist because they can be either obliviously and/or indifferent to mastering the fundamental Theological and scholarly issues.) And in an actually systemically non-dysfunctional Church, which the subserviently capitalistic SDA-SS Church surely is not, this ‘best scholarly representation’ would easily also be fully and equally representative the make up of the Global Church, thus intertwinely also injecting and fully addressing into the studying discussions whatever localized concern, misunderstanding or contribution that is pertinent to the issue at hand.
And directly related and implicated with this concretely “deeper/better scholarship” WBSC issue, is the pervasive, “blissfully” (through novice ignorance), and/or indifferently, smug stance of SDAs that: ‘such work would not actually do anything to/against the truth (i.e., what they presently understand to be truth’. And mixed in with this is also their, ironically, but tellingly, enough, “theologically flawed” comprehension that “time is running out” so they won’t have time to do such exhaustive studies. And so they instead go and charge against the fortresses, of especially Babylon, with their substandard armaments and are just shocked when they cannot make a sustainable dent in its defenses.
Most pertinently enough, in my experience, as related in detail in here, I myself, though having been born and grown up in the SDA Church, and taking it most seriously, only became ‘(effectively) converted excited’, (as Doug Batchelor commonly emphasizes from his experience -see e.g., protractedly in here[...17:25-20:34; cf. GW92 228.2-3]) when I became most factually/informedly knowledgeable, and thus most consciously aware, of what the Church actually believed and, to an extent, just why upon me attending Mark Finley’s Net ‘96 presentations. As a case in point, I priorly was so honestly/seriously aware that ‘my Church was right and had the truth’, that even before I myself knew why, and in fact, upon me having started to discover this in the first presentations of Net ‘96, that I then, ‘inspiredly’, scurriedly endeavored to get my non-SDA friends to attend the remaining meetings, especially the one on the 70Weeks/2300 days. And they probably noticed then that I myself was learning, just as much as they were, or could have. But then, and this is where the line is drawn, when I subsequently sought to straightly present what I had learned during Net 96, straightly using their materials, the countering claims and arguments from my Christian friends just stopped me. I then realized that I needed more deeper studies to overcome these obstacles. And then when I later was impellingly impressed to seek to expanded my evangelization to, as expressed in my very first sermon, ‘all/other brothers and sisters in other Christian Denominations who are honestly ignoring the Truth (however oxymoronic that characterizing pairing deliberately was), I then quickly realized that, pointedly in relation to the supposed-to-be most easily, and clearly, provable 70 Weeks, even if we, effectively (subjectively) circularly, thought/“knew” that ‘we had the truth’...we just could not concretely, objectively prove and demonstrate this. And it is my ensuing studying out for the “objectively concrete” proofs of the 70 Weeks, which has made, and still is making, evident to me that there is so much more that can, and should, be done in order to have that “objectively concrete”, and thus most convicting, truth. (Matt 13:44 -see here).
And from this is my point, and ongoing fundamental issue against the smugly complacent SDA Church, clearly unlike me, and in the light of my actual pointed ministry commission, they clearly do not have the binding burden to fully penetrate doubly thick-walled Babylon in order to rescue “God’s People” out of it who are actually jointly Theologically/Doctrinally and also Practically (=Socio-Economically) trapped in it by those very walls which SDAs cannot overcome. My Theologically/Scholarly and Practically deeper WBSC-type studies on this issue, as sampled throughout this blog, have always been aimed to achieved that necessary extent of penetration. (And at the present time, there just is so much that a lone person, vs. the required 400, can do towards that end).Still the sampling demonstration in this blog, is not only basically sufficient, it also has come to be “in order”, prophetically. The fact of the matter is that SDAs who smugly think that such work will not be beneficial to, or also consequential to, the Truth, have just never really sought to reach, pointedly here, people/Christians trapped in Babylon. Indeed SDA “store-fronting”, and “elementary” (Isa 28:7-13) evangelistic efforts, frankly commonly impress the factually unaware (cf. e.g. here[29:50; cf. 09:53]), as I myself actually effectively was before Net ‘96, but Christians who are “aware” of the many deficiencies and proving holes in SDA claims, are just not impressed, (-which is relatedly mainly why ca. 1200 per day later leave the Church!). So setting the Truth on a level where it is then objectively incontrovertible to such people is definitely also the, including evangelistic, work of the Church. But it just has not been, with them being content of merely picking the “low/near hanging fruit” (GW92 328.2-331.1). In fact, while certain work has been done by SDAs to adaptingly and logically penetrate reach the Western atheistic/postmodern mind, they remain so smug in regards to their teachings that their corresponding, even relatively best, work towards other (established) Christians is comparatively not as comprehensive/deep/conclusive, let alone exhaustive. Indeed the common “deeper proofs” that SDA can give are typically just Bible-version dependent, “surface” furtherings.
Applicational veiling set aside here: It, as variously presented in other related blog posts, indeed is no surprise that “naturally” (1 Cor 2:6-16; 2 Cor 3:7-18), Spiritually (Isa 28:7-13; 1SM 108-111) blinded (Isa 29:9-16) SDAs have ‘greatly feared’ (LDE 209.3-210.1) this contra-Babylon Fourth Angel work (=John 10:16 here also = Luke 21:20-24|Rev 11:2 here), done mainly through publishing (cf. LDE 214.2), of which ‘internet publishing through “blogging”’ certainly, even functionally optimally, qualifies, which really is pointedly the Latter Rain Loud Cry of the Third, Gospel-Sabbatical, thus Fullest-Law, Sealing, MOB-warning, Angel which actually “Shakes” the SDA Church, and thus ‘separates (whatever) “Wheat”it may have from its Tares’ (EW 118.1; cf. 88.3; Ezek 9:1-4; 5T 81.1), -causing the fastening ‘bundling of tares (1MR 362.2) in order for them to be ‘hell-like-ly’, confessing tormentedly (=Rev 11:10; 14:10-11; 19:19-20); whirlwindly (16MR 30.1) taken away and consumed’ (=Rev 11:13-14; Matt 13:39-43; Isa 6:8-13)... now typologically, applicably for then ending of the pre-Jubilee Millennial Era (=“age”) (=Ezek 9:5-11; 3T 267.1-2; 18MR 236.2; 8MR 183.5; 16MR 30.1-2ff)!!
[5] Corroboratingly enough, EGW states in PP 45.3 that ‘Adam and Eve’s robe of light was the same that angels wear’. Well since angels are “spirits” (=for their widely-travelling “ministering” duties -Heb 1:14) but can bodily incarnate themselves (to have tangible effectuations), then that would be the robe they wear when they want to visibly and/or tangibly manifest themselves, and conversely, that would explain why they are invisible when they are not wearing it. But as Biblical examples do indeed reveal that a person may be able to see an angel while another, right next to them, may not, then there still, as for Adam and Eve, is involved a process of “God opening the eyes of the person”, so that they can see that robe of light, and thus (also) that angel. Perhaps when Redeemed Man’s brain will be allowed/capable of growing to full development and usage, then will their mind be Naturally opened so that they can always see those (surrounding) angels, instead of depending upon/requiring a Super-Natural momentarily unlocking permittance by God.
[5] Corroboratingly enough, EGW states in PP 45.3 that ‘Adam and Eve’s robe of light was the same that angels wear’. Well since angels are “spirits” (=for their widely-travelling “ministering” duties -Heb 1:14) but can bodily incarnate themselves (to have tangible effectuations), then that would be the robe they wear when they want to visibly and/or tangibly manifest themselves, and conversely, that would explain why they are invisible when they are not wearing it. But as Biblical examples do indeed reveal that a person may be able to see an angel while another, right next to them, may not, then there still, as for Adam and Eve, is involved a process of “God opening the eyes of the person”, so that they can see that robe of light, and thus (also) that angel. Perhaps when Redeemed Man’s brain will be allowed/capable of growing to full development and usage, then will their mind be Naturally opened so that they can always see those (surrounding) angels, instead of depending upon/requiring a Super-Natural momentarily unlocking permittance by God.
No comments:
Post a Comment
This blog aims to be factual and, at the very least, implicitly documented. Therefore if applicable, any comment which contains unsubstantiated/unsupportable ideas will not be allowed to be published on this blog. Therefore make the effort to be Biblical, truthful and factual.
-It typically takes 1-2 days for an accepted submitted comment to be posted and/or responded to.
[If you leave an "anonymous" comment and, if applicable, would like to know why it may not have been published, resend the comment via email (see profile) to receive the response.]