If that is true, I am sorry to hear it. I think that all sides of this issue need to be heard, but it needs to be done (if possible) in a way that does not cause bad feelings towards each other in our church. I do not know if this is possible, but hope and pray that it is.

If you are asking the question about the AdventistForum-- how the members here feel or think about the issue-- both sides are represented. The Forum itself does not take a position as such but each person is free to express his/her viewpoint about it. We respect everyone's right to take the position they honestly and sincerely believe is the right one.

Personally I really like Doug Batchelor and I find myself in agreement with him on most questions.

I would not favor taking away people's right to listen to Doug Batchelor on the Central Study Hour.

I heard that the video of weekly Sabbath School lesson in Central Study Hour is usually pre-recorded 3 weeks in advance. So for example for this week's lesson the video was already made on the Sabbath August 16, and this first Sabbath of Sept the Central Study Hour will discuss about the lesson for the last Sabbath of the month (Sept.27).

If so, no wonder the Senior Pastors (especially the young Pastors) in their own churches have plenty of time to choose what study materials they like or don't to feed their sheeps every Sabbaths/Friday nights.

But again, what's your position about Women Ordination?

As for me personally, I believe the Bible teaches that men alone should be pastors and elders of the congregations. I believe that there are many kinds of ministries open to women, such as evangelism, women's ministries, music ministry, children's ministries, etc.

I should emphasize here that I am only speaking for myself and not as a representative of the Forum.

So, that is my own personal belief at this time as a result of Bible study, but I am open to other people's beliefs on this. I don't believe that it's an issue that involves a person's salvation. In other words, I believe that good people can come to a different conclusion from mine and still be saved in God's kingdom.

For me the essential issue is how we treat others who disagree with us. I think that this is more important to God than whether we are right doctrinally on this issue. What really worries me is when I see one side or the other of this issue mistreat those who have drawn different conclusions from themselves.

Some Adventists would see this issue from different aspect, that is as an in indicator or something like that.

Following what's the Lord says is always safe and better. That's why this group doesn't agree about a woman to become a pastor. And without judging others, the other group that agree for the women ordination and says "not a problem at all" would probably is the group that has tendencies to follow God's rules and commandments, but not all--only if they want to like eating in a bufffet restaurant. 'I do it my way' scenario.

Especially if somebody has a friend or relative...that is a woman as a pastor--mostly the person will support women ordination for the sake of their relationship.

Again, this is just a tool. An indicator as if diagnosing something, but not to judge others.

Just how could it be banned?

By the way, this is the position of the majority of the church. Asia, Africa and Latin America.

Who is THEY?

This post speaks volumes. It says 'my way is right' and 'those who don't view it MY way are NOT following the Bible and the Lord'. What words would describe this kind of belief? Arrogant? Egotistical? or just plain Ignorant? I'm not sure. I am still tryng to evaluate it. But if this was the way my church was ... I would stay away. Surely there is room for all with out saying to people that they have a certain belief so that they can 'do it their way' (instead of God's).

This post is trash in my view. It is just pointing fingers and blame. God is a God of Love. Love will win another ... not trashing those who have different views on non-salvational issues such as this. Let's show a little tolerance and love for one another.

I could easily say the same thing this person is saying. But in reverse. My point is that we as honest Christians can come up with different interpretations. But we should do so without claiming our way is God's way and anyone else that has a different view is not following God.

I am sure the person that wrote this is a wonderful person. I would probably enjoy his/her presence. But sadly there is much misinformation due to an intolerant and unloving philosophy.

PS. This topic has been well discussed. I don't see the point in doing it again. If you want to look up all the positions on this forum you can. But I don't see you as an open person. I think you just want to preach intolerance. I won't participate in that. Maybe there are others who want to.

Let me add that being right is not all it's cracked up to be. If you don't have love ... you are not worth much. I would propose that both sides of this issue are honest Christians searching and wanting to do what is right. I realize that you feel one side is just having this belief so they can sin. But I don't believe that for one second. Let's have love and tolerance for each other and each others beliefs.

I suppose that churches are within their rights to not listen to arguments that they don't want to hear, but sticking your head in the sand doesn't make the issue go away.

The question is, did they ban it because they disagree with his position, or did they ban it because they thought he would be hectoring their position?

For what it's worth, I used to be against women's ordination because I thought that there should be some precedence for it in the Bible...then someone showed me that all instances of ordination in the Bible were when God called someone...kind of like how He called EGW. We can't hold EGW in such high regard and yet scorn the idea of women's ordination, even if EGW herself was never "ordained" by the church.

However, I don't think it's something worth making into a church-splitting controversy. I will vigourously support womens ordination, but I don't think those who don't support it are misguided or sinning, I think it's a matter of opinion. I would hope they extend to me the same courtesy.

Could you expand on the above thought?

How is God's calling of a prophet-- giving him/her visions, and personally commissioning them as His messengers-- related to what the New Testament says concerning the selection of pastors and elders? It seems to me that God chooses the prophet to speak for Him to the church, whereas the church chooses the pastor or elder to speak for the church to the congregations.

If a church does not select the pastor or elder, he won't be a pastor or elder. On the other hand, if God chooses a prophet, they are a prophet whether the church accepts them or not. For instance, whether Ellen White is a prophet or not has nothing to do with how the church receives the messages. She is a prophet or not strictly on basis of God's selection. If every SDA today rejected Ellen White, it wouldn't affect the genuineness of her calling. It was the same with Elijah. We can't say that about an elder or minister or pastor.

Ordaining someone has to do with the church giving them authority to represent them. It is an agreement by the church that certain people have certain work to do and that they are authorized by the congregation to do certain things, such as preach or lead, etc. Once a minister or elder has their ordination or credential or license revoked, they do not continue in the same position in the same church. They may go elsewhere to preach or teach, but they do not continue to have authority to represent the organization or group that took away their license, etc. (I'm sure we can all think of examples of how this has worked out in recent church history.)

The prophet is different. Since he/she is not selected by the church, the church cannot take away her/his authority.

In our own history as a church, the local congregations and the conferences have a right to give orders and regulate the behavior and activities of the pastor or elder or other church officers. They select them and therefore have a right to tell them what to do. Example: Paul's instructions regarding the selection and behavior of pastors and elders,etc.

Not so the prophet of God. The church makes requests but it does not order the prophet to do anything or to say anything.

Is this in line at all with your understanding?



I completely agree with your attitude about showing courtesy for different views of this issue.

There should be no name calling from either side, nor any denigration of people who hold a particular view.

I won't say that I will vigorously oppose women's ordination. I will say only that I will vigorously study the issue and write what I believe is true.

If we have two sides who are both vigorously taking opposite viewpoints, that is when we usually run into church-splitting controversies. I don't want to see that happen.

I don't think it's simply a matter of opinion. I think the Bible is clear, but I think that we have to be willing to allow for differences of viewpoint even in those areas where the Bible is clear.