Ron Neifert – Women’s Ordination Part 1

Posted in: | May 5, 2012 at 9:49 pm

Does the Bible support ordaining women into pastoral ministry? Ron Neifert takes a close look at Scripture to help answer the question and offers a historical background on the issue.

‹ Back to Previous Page

MAllen

the audio on Ron Neifert reading a quote from 3T page 385. the quote by EG White states “equal in ALL things” not “some things”

Yolanda

My brother, there is no question that men and women are equal. This is a fact. They just have different roles. Much like how God the Father and God the Son are equal … yet with different roles.

“In all things He brought His wishes into strict abeyance to His mission. He glorified His life by making everything in it subordinate to the will of His Father. {GW 42.2}

MAllen

My dear sister…define for me the Role God gave you by Scripture, not on a physical sense like having a baby of which role I cannot, but on a Spiritual role that requires the mind?

Angie

For those attempting to use Rom 16:7 to support wo, here is an outlook that may put that misinterpretation to rest
Pauls last phrase in Rom 16:7 says…”They were in Christ before me”. If Andranicus and Iounian(orig grk term)/Junia-s were in Christ before Apostle Paul, he was probably still persecuting Christians and according to scripture, there is a clear picture painted that the only Apostles at that time were the original 12 Apostles. No others Apostles are mentioned by name or action.

Here is a short chronology (Dates taken from my IIW Seminar Edition Bible I got from a Pastor Kenneth Cox Prophecy seminar 30 yrs ago!:)

AD 27… Christ set aside the 12 Apostles matt 10:2, Luke 6:13

AD 33… Matthias replaces Judas as an Apostle after meeting specific requirements Acts 2:15-26. Acts 6 says the number of “disciples” were increasing but none are refered to as Apostles. The original Apostles however, were called disciples.

AD 33… Saul’s conversion to Paul

AD 45-51… Paul is identified seperately from the 12 Apostles

AD 60-65: Paul calls himself Apostle of Jesus Christ 9 times

AD 60: Paul commends Andranicus and Iounian in Romans 16:7

I believe some say Barnabas was an apostle, but I don’t see that in scripture (I could be wrong)

In conclusion, if the only Apostles on the planet were the original 12 before Paul was converted in 33 AD, that means Andranicus and Iounian/Junia-s could have only been “of note” to the original 12 and not a part of them.
angie

For those attempting to use Rom 16:7 to support wo, here is an outlook that may put that misinterpretation to rest.

Pauls last phrase in Rom 16:7 says…”They were in Christ before me”. If Andranicus and Iounian(orig grk term)/Junia-s were in Christ before Apostle Paul, he was probably still persecuting Christians and according to scripture, there is a clear picture painted that the only Apostles at that time were the original 12 Apostles. No others Apostles are mentioned by name or action.
Here is a short chronology (Dates taken from my IIW Seminar Edition Bible I got from a Pastor Kenneth Cox Prophecy seminar 30 yrs ago!:)
AD 27… Christ set aside the 12 Apostles matt 10:2, Luke 6:13
AD 33… Matthias replaces Judas as an Apostle after meeting specific requirements Acts 2:15-26. Acts 6 says the number of “disciples” were increasing but none are refered to as Apostles. The original Apostles however, were called disciples.
AD 33… Saul’s conversion to Paul
AD 45-51… Paul is identified seperately from the 12 Apostles
AD 60-65: Paul calls himself Apostle of Jesus Christ 9 times
AD 60: Paul commends Andranicus and Iounian in Romans 16:7
I believe some say Barnabas was an apostle, but I don’t see that in scripture (I could be wrong)
In conclusion, if the only Apostles on the planet were the original 12 before Paul was converted in 33 AD, that means Andranicus and Iounian/Junia-s could have only been “of note” to the original 12 and not a part of them.
Gaynelle

Please let the Bible be our guide. How can a woman be the husband of one wife and that’s just one statement. Don’t let our church be divided. We. Have enough problems keeping things of the world out without this. We want people to come into our Bible believing fellowship and how can we explain women pastors?

MAllen

should all women cover their heads and KEEP silence in the church or public also??? THINK!

Juan Jeanniton

In fact, a presbyterian church pastor / elder / bishop named Rev. D. F. Bonner, in 1878 came to a conclusion far more favorable to the Seventh Day Adventist cause than the presbyterian church law ever allowed at that time!

Prevailing Presbyterian church law prohibited women from speaking out at all in ANY public promiscuous assembly, and even in the informal and social devotions meetings where both sexes are present.

Their argument:

Rev. R. Hastings Ross, Bibliotheca Sacra, Volume 27, page
744.

‘Admitting that the prohibitions under consideration are still in full force, it is said that they apply to the more public meetings of the church, and not to social prayer-meetings. We think they apply to all the meetings of the church, and to all mixed assemblies of men and women. Our reasons are these: (1) The context. Does the context describe a religious assembly to which the prohibition was applied? If so, then the prohibition applies to all similar meetings; for, unless it be applied to the kind of meetings described, we have no right to apply it to any meeting whatever. If we can determine the kind of meeting referred to in the context, the extent of the prohibition is found. In 1 Cor. xiv. 26-38, a Christian assembly is described, from which we learn: (a) That men and women and probably unbelievers were present, (b) That the control of the meeting seemed to be in the hands of the membership, and not in the hands of a pastor, no elder or bishop being mentioned, (c) That many, even all males, might take an active part in carrying on the meeting, (d) That women only were forbidden to speak, or prophesy, or teach in
it. The meeting here described has no likeness of manner to our church services on the Lord’s Day, but is, instead, an exact representation of a modern prayer and conference meeting, save that miraculous gifts have ceased, and that our social meetings are more formal than the ones here described. It was to such informal, social meetings that Paul referred when he said, “It is a shame for women to speak”; and we contend that it is to such-like meetings that the command of silence now applies.

(2) The circumstances of the early churches. They had no church edifices. They met where they could; in private houses, as well as in more public places. Some of these churches must have been very small. Their meetings resembled our social meetings in private houses in size as in the order of worship. Now these small churches, meeting in private houses, and frequently without a pastor, observed the rule of silence enjoined upon women in their assemblies, as fully as did the larger churches meeting in
more public places; for Paul referring to them, says to the Corinthians:
“as in all churches of the saints, let your women keep silence in the churches.”‘ Reverend Bonner argued in 1878 that:

http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA201&dq=Rev.%20Bonner%201878%20the%20ecclesiastical%20work%20and%20position%20of%20woman&ei=vDTqTZX7NYyctwe0_smSDQ&ct=result&id=8ZslAAAAYAAJ&output=text:

‘And then, note here another fact: Some limitation must be put upon the apostle’s language if any teaching by women in any kind of church service, social or formal, is to be permitted. Some limitation must be put upon it if the practices of even the most conservative of modern churches are to be justified. There can be found no place for a woman in the exercises of the Sabbath school or prayer-meeting without it. We have already seen that the word “churches” here, if it denotes any one kind of meetings as distinguished from others, denotes the informal and social, and not the formal and public, meetings of the congregation. But no one pleads for such a prohibition. And yet under the prevailing interpretation any liberty is unwarranted, any permission unauthorized.’

But in the interpretation that Bonner gave, the right for women to participate in the exercises of Sabbath School and the prayer meeting are not only upheld and established and vindicated; but also it proves that only the authoritative speaking (i.e speaking by virtue of one’s ecclesiastical authority) and authoritative teaching (i.e teaching by virtue of one’s ecclesiastical authority) is the ONLY thing to which the REASON of the prohibition truly applies by good and necessary inference of the REASONS adduced for the precepts.

Therefore my conclusion is that I must vote absolutely positively definitely NO on women’s ordination to pastor / elder / bishop / leaders officers or delegates of General Conference, because to ordain women to such church offices are contrary to the Male “Headship” law.

And as a corollary, I have discovered an irrefutable proof that one of the Anglican Church’s 39 Articles of Religion is contrary not only to the Word of God; but also contrary to the Law and Light of Nature and Reason, on this very point, concerning the Male Headship Law and the analogy between the Church and the Family, and the inherent properties they have IN COMMON which explain why Male “Headship” at home must carry over into the Church.

I am not ignorant of the fact that the subtle wits of carnal men, never hesitating to interfere with the sole jurisdiction of Christ as Head of
the Church, have yet two more vain loopholes.

Objection 4_1.3.1: The women who have held the supreme jurisdiction have merely been nominal rulers, while it is men alone who have REALLY administered the jurisdiction in her name, and then only according to the final discretion of Parliament.

Objection 4_1.3.2: A queen may choose for herself a husband and transfer to him the title so that he may hold the jurisdiction _jure uxoris_.

Answer. The supreme jurisdiction of the King in all causes ecclesiastical, as well as civil, is analogous to the role of a father of a family. In the earliest times, every father of a family had supreme jurisdiction in all causes ecclesiastical and spiritual in his own house — but only insofar as the Law of God allowed; and with the understanding that the nature of his jurisdiction was _jus dicere, non jus dare_. The nature of his jurisdiction in sacris was only executive, didactic, disciplinary, ministerial and ceremonial. He had no natural right to change or abrogate or override God’s standing divine office of worship — only apply the Divine natural law or whatever divine positive institutions God may see fit to reveal to him. Even Ellen G White agrees that this form of family jurisdiction tended to perpetuate the knowledge of God according to the dictates of natural and revealed religion.

The Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of a Constitutional Monarch in a Christian State with a National Church is of a Patriarchal nature: it is analogous to the role of a father in a family.

Thus to allow a WOMAN to bear even the mere nominal title of Supreme Governor of the Church of England in all Causes Ecclesiastical would be
analogous to granting to a woman, or any mother, the mere nominal title of _father_ in a human family. It is all the more analogous to granting a woman the mere nominal title of spiritual _father_ in God’s Household. We already agreed upon the fact that a woman, as capable and gifted as she may be, can never be called a “father” in a family. Such a nominal title, honorary as it may be, as held by the MOTHER of a family, or by any WOMAN in any church, is contrary to the very IDEA of what defines a FATHER as a FATHER rather than a MOTHER —- by definition a MALE parent is a FATHER and a
FEMALE parent is a MOTHER. It is therefore contrary not only to God’s laws, it is contrary also to the nature, reason, and fitness of things!

For this reason, it is repugnant to the natural and revealed divine laws and principles governing the essence of family relations for any reigning queen to be invested even with the mere nominal title of supreme governor of the Church of England, or any church anywhere in the Universe.

So firstly, I answer in the style of John Knox, who wrote
his FIRST BLAST OF THE TRUMPET against the MONSTROUS regiment of WOMEN!

Rebuttal 4_1.3.1: Out of a corrupted fountain, it is impossible to derive any wholesome water. But we already proved that the mere nominal title of woman as spiritual FATHER {which is part of the very essence of Supreme Governor in all causes Ecclesiastical} of the Anglican Church of England is a corrupted and polluted fountain, because it is not legitimate according to the laws of Nature and Nature’s God {because it is contrary to the very idea of what defines a FATHER as a FATHER – it goes against the fundamental principles which govern the relations of men and women in a family by virtue of the family relation}. And therefore no officer appointed to this sort of jurisdiction by virtue of her title can have any lawful jurisdiction before the Higher Law to administer her supreme ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the name of her royal majesty, even if the final discretion about the policies he is to follow and govern the church according to, is firmly vested in Parliament, because even with this point of parliamentary law operating as a limitation on the actual de facto practical exercise of her prerogatives, the title borne by
her by virtue of her royal prerogative and dignity is still analogous to
vesting in her a title of spiritual/ecclesiastical FATHERHOOD when her only
proper title is that of ecclesiastical MOTHERHOOD. In fact, even Parliament itself could not have derived the jurisdictions in ecclesiastical matters it has today from any source except the supreme headship of Henry VIII over the Anglican Church. Therefore, it follows that all those who bear by her title, and office or authority to administer her supreme ecclesiastical jurisdiction, whether by her final discretion and pleasure or by the final discretion and pleasure of Parliament, are unlawful and illegitimate officers before God and the Higher law of Nature. In fact, Parliament and _her Cabinet of Ministers_, by undertaking to administer the supreme jurisdiction in her name, and twisting her name and title to suit the private interests and purposes and
pleasures of the members of Parliament, is only showing its complicity in an act analogous to giving a woman a title of father in God’s household. This very complicity is an act of aiding and abetting the violation of God’s Natural Laws, and is therefore a violation of the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.

Rebuttal 4_1.3.2: it is a fundamental ancient path and landmark of justice that no man {or woman} has the prerogative to give to others what does not justly appertain to himself {or herself}. The queen has no right under God, neither by the spirit of the Gospel, nor by the fundamental principles governing the relations between the sexes in family matters, to exercise the supreme jurisdiction or headship in any causes ecclesiastical. It cannot be
hers to have, therefore the actual _de facto_ administration of it cannot be hers to give to any one, or any officer, or any _Cestqui Que trust_, or any other trust, or even to her husband to hold in her name. And also, it follows that she cannot even bequeath it to her son or give it away as a dowry. She cannot even give it away to charity. She can only give it back to the one
that it rightfully belongs to — to GOD and GOD alone!

But the 37th article of the 39 Articles of Religion of the Church of England gives the Queen of England precisely that title! Therefore the 37th article of the 39 Articles of Religion is contrary to the Revealed Law of God and the Laws of Nature and Reason on this very point concerning the Male “Headship” Law!

If Ellen G White had been born in England or Scotland or Wales or Ireland in 1515 and founded the Seventh Day Adventist Church in England, she would have most likely been persecuted, yea sent to the GALLOWS or BURNED at the STAKE, by Henry VIII, or Edward IV for being a Nonconformist Dissenter, or by Queen Mary Tudor / Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots for being a Protestant heretic, or by Queen Elizabeth I for being a Nonconformist Dissenter!

God was infinitely wise and discreet to providentially select her to be born an early 19th century Yankee anti-slavery Wesleyan Methodist Arminian abolitionist in New England!
Juan Jeanniton

Dear Serena,

How do you KNOW for SURE that Eve’s motive was PRECISELY to gain an ascendancy for her sex over the male sex? If that was her motive, then it would have been explicitly written in the Bible.

Many of you complementarians have routinely and dogmatically and OFFICIALLY taught that PART AND PARCEL of the motive behind Eve becoming the FIRST TRANSGRESSOR in Genesis 3:1 – 6, and acting as the primary agent of the transgressor, and with her husband as an accessory after the fact, was a desire to gain independence from the male sex, or a desire for a higher sphere of publicity and promiscuity (i.e. not sexual promiscuity, but the fact that a venue has both males and females in it), or anything more distinctively masculine than the sphere that God had originally created the female sex for. But based on a straightfoward reading of the text that most accurately describes the scene of the crime, I do not find any thing in that passage that even remotely suggests that this desire for a sphere for women as opposed to men, more distinctively masculine, or more distinctively public, formal, or less domestic, than the sphere that God had originally created the female sex for, was part and parcel of the motives that impelled her to take the fruit of the tree of knowledge and eat it. If it had been the intent of Him who alone has the sole exclusive right and prerogative to divinely inspire the Scripture to allude to this, perhaps He would have said in Genesis 3:3/6:

“And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil, AND THE DESIRE OF THY HUSBAND SHALL BE UNTO THEE, AND THOU SHALT RULE OVER HIM. And when the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, and that it [was] pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make [one] wise, AND CAUSE THE WOMAN TO HAVE DOMINION OVER THE MAN, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.”

But He didn’t say that! Instead we read: “And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, and that it [was] pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make [one] wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.”

What say you about this? Do you believe based on a straightforward reading of the text, that PART AND PARCEL of the motive behind Eve becoming the FIRST TRANSGRESSOR in Genesis 3:1 – 6, and acting as the primary agent of the transgressor, and with her husband as an accessory after the fact, was a desire to gain independence from the male sex, or a desire for a higher sphere of publicity and promiscuity (i.e. not sexual promiscuity, but the fact that a venue has both males and females in it), or anything more distinctively masculine than the sphere that God had originally created the female sex for? What evidence have you for your position?
MAllen

My brother… since you bases is on the ROLEs then let us discuss the Bible on Roles. First of all i must say the order in which you submit your info and scriptures seems right except when you really look at the teaching of the Bible (KJV) you will see the flaw in your comments. No intentions of been offensive. A famous singer once said that “the truth is an offense, BUT not a sin”.

Please READ Gen 5:1-2 and what does it say? GOD CALLED “THEIR NAME” ADAM..Not Adam and Eve. BOTH were named ADAM read verse 2….Why was this? You stated clearly that Adam had called her ‘woman’ for she was taken from man, but did he call her Eve then…why not?

Check your Bible and you will see that she was not called Eve until after her fall nor was it pronounced that her desire shall be after her husband until then. Was this God’s intent or a result of sin? If it was not God’s intent, then did God change His mind from His orginal purpose?

Does not the Bible say that God is a never changing God..that I change not”? This alone will change your direction as to whom God gave to have power over the earth or if God (Alohim) created the male to be above the female.

Then Read Rom 1-17-26 and pay close attention to verse 20. God(s) the Unity of heaven wrong when it was said that “In the image of God, created he THEM”? Who’s image was the female created in and it was both male AND FEMALE, what image was the female in the Godhead created the female?

If this is a reflection according to Rom 1:20 then the question is, Is the Holy Spirit equal with God the Father….clearly the Bible says “the THREE are one” How is this explained.

My brother please read the info below and address the Bible, accordingly with prayers as I will pray for you as well for us to all have an open Spirit of investigation “to see if these things WERE so” as the Bareans, NOT “to see if these things WERE NOT so”. It is all about the open mind approach:)

Reply sent on next post
MAllen

A Reply From MAllen

Can someone please go to Gen. 5:1-2 and tell me what it means in regards to the name God gave who we know today as Eve? Please read.
“1 ¶ This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.”
As anyone every wondered why God called THEIR name ADAM not Adam and Eve?
Did God call their names Adam and Eve or did he call them the SAME name? Why did God do this? Here is another question. How many of you HONESTLY did not know this verse was in the Bible? Ask yourself this other question. IF you MISSED this, what else have you missed?
We pride ourselves as SDA about how we know the Bible and for some all I see is OPINIONS and no THUS SAITH THE LORD. Thank you for those who have taken the road of caution.A few person argues that we are following the world and my question is. ARE YOU SURE that the Devil has not turned turned our minds to calling evil good and GOOD EVIL?
think about it before you all react by emotions as facts of the Scripture.
When “God (Elohiem) said let “US” create man (Mankind) in OUR images and in OUR likeness”, WHO’S LIKENESS was “Eve” created in?? Was HER LIKENESS and IMAGE after the man?
Keeping this in mind with Gn 5:1-2. Lets go to Romans 1:17-Romans 2:4 READ IT CAREFULLY.
["17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.]The question here is, what “righteousness” of God is been revealed?
[18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;] What truth is here that “unrighteous and ungodly men” are holding that they are not practicing?
[19 ¶ Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.] What truth know about “God” are they holding back from us?
[20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:] Here God in His mercy gives us the means to find out the answer. All we have to do is look at the VISIBLE created things and we will understand the INVISIBLE things of heaven,,,INCLUDING the ETERNAL POWER and GODHEAD. So what visible things created that give us this truth….surely not the corruption of creation after the flood but the perfect one before. So lets take a look at Gen 5:2 again. Is this the explanation of the Godhead that men has held in unrighteousness? The truth of the woman in the image of the Eloheim?
[23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.] What is the GLORY of God the FATHER? What is the GLORY of any man?
[25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.] What TRUTH of GOD (Eloheim) did they TURN into a LIE? The truth of GENDER. This is why the Father gave them up to lust for their OWN KIND. so why do we remove the female to make it a ALL MALE GODHEAD and then try to practice the same as the Catholic Church. see the follow verses.[26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.]
This is not who God (Eloheim) is.The creation showed us this in Gen 5:2 and Romans tell us how to find about the TRUTH of the Godhead and how man has corrupted it. LOOK at the ROMAN CHURCH who we are trying to follow in its practices about women. We then brag that we allow our pastors to marry BUT is this all to it? They have held down women and as a result their priest have done EXACTLY what the Bible is telling us..do we need to read the news paper about the rampant homosexual practices in the Roman church? YET we are blind to the other point and that is, if that is against what God told us about His GODHEAD then are we doing the same as not to acknowledge the “GLORY” of God and her GENDER…look at the CREATION and argue the POINT not on irrational emotions as a man BUT on the Scripture. Any Hebrew Bible expert will tell you that ALL Hebrew things has a male or female gender associated to it.
The HOLY SPIRIT has ONLY a female gender. Before you jump up, in opposition. We all agree that the Devil only counterfeits the TRUTH of GOD? YES. Good. He is not the originator of anything, so he waits until God does something and then counterfeits it. Let let me ask you this question. If we believe the bible and the Spirit of Prophecy that the Roam Church is the Devils religious government on earth, WHO is Mary, whom they PRAY to counterfeiting? They believe the Father, they believe the son, and they have a counterfeit for the mother calling her the Mother of God (Jesus). Would the devil counterfeit an man with a woman or would they substitute the Holy Spirit with Mary? Is this not changing the TRUTH of GOD into a lie? Is it not also changing the truth into a lie by presenting an ALL MALE position? Like one brother said CAN WE BE HONEST AND SAY the BIBLE USES ONLY MEN IN GODS WORK…let us all pray before we fight My brothers and sister, Romans said God has given you the visible so you can understand the invisible so THAT NONE IS WITHOUT EXCUSE for understanding this truth about the GODHEAD. this mean that their should be no confusion and ALL should be “CLEARLY SEEN”. Read it again for yourself.
[20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:]
This is why we have so much problems with the ordinating of WOMEN. It is because we have LOST the truth of the TWO ADAMS both male and female..EQUAL in the commission to subdue the earth, GIVEN to BOTH, NOT Adam over “Eve”
So we follow the lies given by the Roman church in regards to our attitude towards women and their position and disregard the intention of what God MEANT when he said He was to RESTORE ALL THINGS. Last time I checked the Bible, He wanted to RESTORE the EQUALITY given in the Garden as well. The RIGHTFUL PLACE OF THE WOMAN.

1 ¶ Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?

May the GODHEAD have MERCY upon us as these hours gets darker
MAllen

I hope this does not come across the wrong way and please forgive me if it does, BUT It seems no one seems to have the courage to reply to my posting using the Scriptures to support their reasoning. Is there any who has the mind of God to come and “REASON”. not “DEBATE” the information above or are we to pass it by and act like sticking ones head in the sand will make go away.
MAllen

Peter, can you clarify yourself and make clear the Bible or SOP reference to your comment? I am curious as to what you are saying according to the WORD of God and not as one OWN opinion? Regards.
MAllen

Brother David,

I feel it needed to comment on number 4 of your reply. As you are a man that held a position and was convicted by heart to change that old to a correct one on the role of women in the church, you might find the info below to consider with prayer. You might consider your views as to who God is and the term “God” and what it means. Consider with prayer.
This is a sad situation, because all I see in the arguments of the ones against the ordination of women…just opinions. I BEG ALL to look up the word “opinion” in the dictionary and one would NEVER, as a child of God, use the word again.
Please go to Gen. 5:1-2 in the KJV and tell me what it meant in regards to the name God gave the person we know today as Eve? Please read.
“1 ¶ This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.”
As anyone every wondered why God called THEIR name ADAM not Adam and Eve?
Did God call their names Adam and Eve or did He just called them BOTH the SAME name which was ADAM? Why did God do this? Here is another question. How many HONESTLY did not know this verse was in the Bible? Ask yourself this other question. IF we MISSED this, what else have we missed?

We pride ourselves as SDA about how we know the Bible and for some all I see is OPINIONS and no THUS SAITH THE LORD. I thank the Spirit of God for moving you to consider your former position and guiding you to your new truth. Thank you for those who have taken the road of caution and not a blind view of what they do not know.
A few people have argued that we are following the world and my question is, ARE WE SURE that the Devil has not turned turned our minds to calling evil good and GOOD EVIL? Please think about it before we react. Isn’t this common for us to do not by will but by lack of information to make a right decision.
When “God (Elohiem) said let “US” make man (Mankind) in OUR image, AFTER OUR likeness and let THEM have dominion over…”, WHO’S LIKENESS was “Eve” created in?? Was HER LIKENESS and IMAGE after the man?
Let us Keep this in mind with Gn 5:1-2 and Lets go to Romans 1:17-Romans 2:4 READ IT CAREFULLY.
["17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.]The question here is, what “righteousness” of God is been revealed?
[18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;] What truth is here that “unrighteous and ungodly men” are holding that they are not practicing?
[19 ¶ Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.] What truth know about “God” are they holding back from us?
[20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:]
Here God in His mercy gives us the means to find out the answer. All we have to do is look at the VISIBLE created things and we will understand the INVISIBLE things of heaven,,,INCLUDING the ETERNAL POWER and GODHEAD. So what visible things created that give us this truth….surely not the corruption of creation after the flood but the perfect one before. So lets take a look at Gen 5:2 again. Is this the explanation of the Godhead that men has held in unrighteousness? The truth of the woman in the image of Eloheim?

[23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.] What is the GLORY of God the FATHER? What is the GLORY of any man?

[25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.] What TRUTH of GOD (Eloheim) did they TURN into a LIE? The truth of GENDER. This is why the Father gave them up to lust for their OWN KIND. so why do we remove the female to make it a ALL MALE GODHEAD and then try to practice the same as the Catholic Church. see the follow verses.[26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature :27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.]
This is not who God (Eloheim) is.The creation showed us this in Gen 5:2 and Romans tell us how to find about the TRUTH of the Godhead and how man has corrupted it. LOOK at the ROMAN CHURCH who we are trying to follow in its practices about women. We then brag that we allow our pastors to marry BUT is this all to it? They have held down women and as a result their priest have done EXACTLY what the Bible is telling us..do we need to read the news paper about the rampant homosexual practices in the Roman church? YET we are blind to the other point and that is, if that is against what God told us about His GODHEAD then are we doing the same as not to acknowledge the “GLORY” of God and her GENDER…look at the CREATION and argue the POINT not on irrational emotions as a man BUT on the Scripture. Any Hebrew Bible expert will tell you that ALL Hebrew things has a male or female gender associated to it.

The HOLY SPIRIT has ONLY a female gender in ALL Hebrew translation. Before one jumps up, in opposition, let us consider this.
We all can agree that the Devil only counterfeits the TRUTH of GOD? YES. Good. He is not the originator of anything, so he waits until God does something and then counterfeits it. Let let me ask you this question. If we believe the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy that the Roman Church is the Devils religious government on earth, then ask yourself this question….WHO does Mary represent, whom the Catholics also PRAY to, is counterfeiting?
They believe the Father, they believe the son, and they have a counterfeit for the mother calling her the Mother of God (Jesus).
Would the devil counterfeit an male with a female or a female with a male? Would they substitute the Holy Spirit with Mary, a female if the Holy Spirit was a male?
Is this not changing the TRUTH of GOD into a lie? Is it not also changing the truth into a lie by presenting an ALL MALE position? Like one brother said CAN WE BE HONEST AND SAY the BIBLE USES ONLY MEN IN GODS WORK…let us all pray, study and consider before we fight.
Romans said God has given us the VISIBLE things so you can understand the INVISIBLE THINGS, ESPECIALLY (EVEN) the ETERNAL POWER (Holy Spirit) and (also) GODHEAD, so THAT NONE IS WITHOUT EXCUSE for understanding this truth.
This mean that their should be no confusion and ALL should be “CLEARLY SEEN”. Read it again for yourself.
[20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are CLEARLY seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are WITHOUT excuse:]

This is why we have so much problems with the ordinating of WOMEN. It is because we have LOST the truth of the TWO ADAMS both male and female..EQUAL in the commission to subdue the earth, GIVEN to BOTH, NOT Adam over “Eve”
We follow the lies given by the Roman church in regards to our attitude towards women and their position and disregard the intention of what God MEANT when he said He was to RESTORE ALL THINGS.
Last time I checked the Bible, He wanted to RESTORE the EQUALITY given in the Garden as well as the commission to subdue the earth. The RIGHTFUL PLACE OF THE WOMAN.
1 ¶ Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?
May the GODHEAD have MERCY upon us in these dark hour
MAllen

You are somewhat on the right tract
but there are some things you lack in this understanding of the Nature of
Christ and the Godhead with what Romans 1 is speaking about. As I can see where
you are coming from, there some holes sin you assessment and thus I may try and
fill it, for you to ponder as reasoning and not to debate. We are always to
look for a clearer answer even if our own may sound reasonable, it may not be
correct. Thus we look for an answer that would make more sense according to
Scripture.

Let us start off by addressing the
idea of God is both male and female. That we cannot find anywhere in Scripture
or the SOP (Spirit Of Prophecy).

When Romans said in verse 20 “For the invisible things of him from
the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that
are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without
excuse:”, what was Paul talking about?

Let us consider creation and consider this order of things so we may have a
better understanding about the “eternal power (Holy Spirit) and Godhead
(Family of heaven).

1. Adam existed on the
earth and none other with him.

1. God the Father
existed in the universe and none other with Him.

2. A female was
brought forth from Adam not created of the dust but from the side (rib) of
Adam, of his own kind thus equal to Adam, bone for bone, flesh for flesh and
they were BOTH named “Adam”. (Gen 5:1-2)

2. God the Father
brought forth from Himself a Female from the existence of Himself (please let
us not even try and define that), of His own kind, equal to the Father Spirit
for Spirit and they were both called “God” or Elohiem. Please look
this us in the Hebrew and you will see this word carries the plural or both
male and female gender, thus we understand when the Bible said, “let US
make man…”

3. Both Adams were given the command to “subdue” the earth and they
were to do this by bringing forth fruit of THEIR OWN KIND, thus they brought
forth a Male child.

3. Both Gods (Father
(male) and Holy Spirit (Female) brought forth an offspring of THEIR OWN KIND.
If you have any arguments about the gender of the Holy Spirit, please look up
the word Holy Spirit in the Hebrew and you will see that is ALL cases it is
rendered as “female” without exception. You can also speak to any
Hebrew rabbi and ask them about this. What you must understand is that the
Hebrew language only speaks in male or female on everything like you would see
in languages like Aramaic, French, and Spanish etc…The Greek is the language
that uses a neutral gender of which we have used for too long and too many
times for the Bible interpretations instead of the Hebrew which is “the
MOST SACRED tongue in the world.” according to the SOP. (Fundamental of
Christian Education Ch. 11 pg. 97

Now we need to look at what Paul meant when he said “so that none is
without EXCUSE” (Rom1:20).

Look at
nature…CREATION. What does the Bible said about creation? What is the main
thing Eloheim stated? Well there are three major things that were stated during
the entire process of creation.

i) All things were
brought forth “After its OWN KIND”, plants and animals and man

ii) “all things
had MALE and FEMALE… created he them”

iii) God saw that
“it was GOOD”

When Paul said that we are to look at these things in creation we would understand
the Holy Spirit (Eternal Power) and the Family of Heaven (Godhead), let us see
how this possible by addressing the three main points of creation.

i) Own Kind -Spirit of
Spirit “Both called God” and “Both called Adam” Gen 5:2)

ii) Male and Female -
From Man was brought forth “Woman” because she (Female) was brought
forth from the man (Male) (Gen 2:21-23). She came from Adam (Male) and NOT from
the dust of the ground of which God brought forth all the animals including man
(Male).

Read Gen 2:24 ‘They
shall be ONE flesh” the same as THEY (Eloheim) shall be ONE Spirit both
male and female together YET two spate and distinct persons (See EG White in Evangelism pg.
615). Since God (Father-Male) is a Spirit (John 4:24), He must bring forth FROM
Himself of His OWN KIND a Female GOD in the Spirit the same as in creation when
Adam brought forth of his OWN KIND and female Man, thus the term MANKIND.

This is what Romans is
talking about, and that ALL through the creation these are the THREE distinct
features repeated. A dog needs a male and female, a cat needs male and female,
a fish needs male and female and all plants needs male and female to pollinate.
If nature has MALE and FEMALE and this is what we are to look at to understand
the GODHEAD, that the BIBLE says;

“For the invisible
things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things
that are made, even his eternal
power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse…”

If it is CLEARLY SEEN from the THINGS THAT ARE MADE, then WHAT EXCUSE do we have to come up with
fanciful ideas of what the GODHEAD is and how it came about?? The Bible say
that no one have has an EXCUSE…so what is all the confusion about? Is God a
liar (Numbers 23:19; Titus 1:2) and thus this is why some are so confused??

The command to both
ADAMS according to Gen 1:28, was to “…Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish
the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over
the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”

This command was to
have off-springs, which requires a MALE and a FEMALE. Is this in order with
that of heaven?? YES. This is how the “SON” was brought forth and became the
ONLY BEGOTTEN of God (Eloheim) which is PLURAL, not singular. This CLEARLY SEEN
that NONE is without EXCUSE. This is not a fanciful speculation for one must
have a better explanation according to the Bible and SOP to say thus, or they
must take the BEST explanation given by the examples of the Scriptures. There
are NO CLEARER explanations of the GODHEAD when studying the Hebrew translation
of the words used in the KJV Bible and the old English Versions with the Hebrew
dictionary.

By the way the major issue in the
1888 message by AT Jones and Waggoner, at the Minneapolis was the bringing
forth of the Son and how he came into existence, written by the above mentioned
two, of which EG White said was Divinely inspired.

What was Paul saying about taking
the truth of God and turning into a lie? Why does it ‘seems” all of a sudden,
he moves from talking about the Godhead and then starts talking about
homosexuality? It is very simple. The truth that was made into a lie, was that
of the family of heaven consisting of a male, female and off-springs. Turning the
things of heaven in a ALL MALE family, this showing how we have moved from the
truth and as a result will end up practicing the “abomination” that God hates.

What is this truth of God turned
into a lie? See Romans 1:26 “…for even their women did change the
natural use into that which is against
nature:

27
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men
working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of
their error which was meet.

“Lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with
mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with
mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be
upon them.

What are we saying about the NATURAL or NATURE
or CREATION…have we turned it into a lie by make it a PERVESION and ABOMINATION
by proposing that it is an ALL MALE GODHEAD creating off-springs? God forbid I
should, BUT that is exactly what is been done.

A great sin also is to give the idea
that God is the same as all the other HEATEN gods and that is to be ALL MALE
and FEMALE in ONE. That is also a LIE.

By the way the Catholic Church knows
of this truth and this is why they Hold May is the position they do, they Just “Hold
the TRUTH in UNRIGHTEOUSNESS”, and yet we go the other route and make and all
Male Godhead, thou the TRUTH is “CLEARLY SEENS. NONE have any EXCUSE” to be
blind to these facts in CREATION.

Pray for CLEAR understand when you
read this with prayer and consider carefully why all these problems for women
has been piled up over the centuries? It is because we have lost the respect
that the GOD (Eloheim) of heaven meant with respect to the FEMALE GOD (Holy
Spirit) and the EQUAL ROLE She plays with the FATHER.
Will Fults

The Holy Spirit is never referred to as female. Jesus said “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, HE will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.” (John 14:26) Your statements are in error and contradict the teachings of Jesus.
Juan Jeanniton

Unfortunately, a straightforward reading of Genesis 3:1 – 7 describing how and why Eve came to eat of the true of the fruit of knowledge of Good and Evil does not CONSTRAIN us to conclude that her motive was PRECISELY to gain a higher sphere of publicity, promiscuity, formality, officiality, or authority for woman relative to the sphere of man! Her “sincere” motive was the prospect that by eating of this tree, mankind could attain to a higher sphere of wisdom than the prevailing terms and provisions of the Divine Law and of the Natural Law already allowed to them! This is the ADDITIONAL aggravating factor, besides the fact that God had already EXPLICITLY forbidden by positive and arbitrary institution, anyone to eat of that tree for any cause at all!

The very idea that mankind could attain to a higher sphere of wisdom than the prevailing terms and provisions of the Divine Law and of the Natural Law already allowed to them shows a lack of faith and trust in Divine providence. It impugns and reflects so POORLY on the FINISHED and COMPLETE and PERFECT work of God’s creation!

For if there is a higher phere of wisdom than the prevailing terms and provisions of the Divine Law and of the Natural Law already allowed to them that can improve mankind for the better, then the provisions of the Divine Law and of the Natural Law are imperfect: for by definition of perfection, if any particular thing is PERFECT, then changes in that particular thing could not ever change things for the better! (This is also one of the reasons why God is immutable: and the reason why from the fact that God is perfect, one can prove that God never changes!) So if something can change for the better, then the prevailing state of that thing before the change was IMPERFECT! But Genesis affirms UNAMBIGUOUSLY that the prevailing terms and provisions of the Creation were perfect, and that it had not previously lost any of its perfection up to the point at which this crime occurred!

Had Eve’s motive been precisely to gain a higher sphere of publicity, promiscuity, formality, officiality, or authority for woman relative to the sphere of man, the Bible would have EXPLICITLY indicated this in that very chapter and verse, but it has not!