‹  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?

    • George Tasker

      Adam’s dominion over woman was established at the moment that God brought her to him and he named her. The biblical principal is that “He who names has authority over that which is named”. Jesus demonstrated this on the sea of Galilee by telling the storm to put a sock in it.

      • Yvonne Urtop

        BS, Tasker. You are a chauvinist.

        • George Tasker

          If you say so Your Honour.

      • Peter Aarne

        It is nice to see your view is not prevailing.

        • George Tasker

          Elijah’s point of view was not prevailing in his day and he won in the end so why should I care if my point of view is not prevailing against the combined “wisdom” of the church. What I care about is whether or not my arguments agree with what God would have us believe. That is what counts to me.

          Are you truly interested in following what the bible teaches or are you just going along with the crowd?

          I’m be interested in seeing what your feelings on the matter will be after the GC Session in 2015.

  • David

    Gonna give me the dictionary, sweetheart? Or shall I rip your throat out? Stuck in Lodi, again.

  • David

    Ron, seems you have done very well in the church. I want the dictionary that you and Garrito and Schockton stole from me back in Lodi. Long memory. If it is not forthcoming soon I will hunt you down and kill you.

  • David

    Damn! I was born and raised SDA. Didn’t like it much. Too restrictive. Cut the fringes off the Sabbath and all that shit. Then I went off to Lodi. Met a good friend, Ron Neifert, I thought. Wasn’t such a good friend after all. He got a perverse kick out of picking on weak kids. Loved it dearly. An aunt of mine gave me an autographed dictionary. Ron, and his gang, stole it while they were fucking with my mind. And now you let the prick fuss with yours ’cause he’s Brother Ron. My kid brother died a year back and I doubt he worried much about Ron. He did attend PUC for awhile untill someone stole his calculator from the chapel. Went down to Calistoga one time and all the little no good molly coddled little pricks could do was laugh at my hat.

    • George Tasker

      You sound like one of those people who, because you find out that Pythagoras was a kiddy fiddler, would refuse to believe in the Pythagorean rule of right angled triangles.