Comments on Nelson's promo on ordination

Here some comments on Dwight Nelson's sermon: Of Perfume and Tears and Grumpy Old Men delivered at Pioneer Memorial Church on January 21, 2012.

George Tasker, making some bull’s eye comments
I've been watching Dwight Nelson's sermon. He spends the first 17 minutes banging on about how Jesus treated Mary and then tries to make out that the way he treated Mary would be the same as he would respond to men preventing women from being ordained. He doesn't explain why women don't make up the number of twelve apostles.
He then goes on to talk about how we cannot accept that the fact that a bishop is to be husband of one wife as proof that the bishop has to be male. He uses the example of how we don’t take the story of Luke 9:3 literally as the basis for arguing that we should not be taking Titus 1:7 literally.
I find this troublesome because it means that we get to pick and choose what we take literally in the bible and what we do not. It seems to me that the hermeneutic being used here is “if it is politically unpopular then find an interpretation that will make it acceptable to the goyim”. This kind of hermeneutic is the kind I’m sure Desmond Ford would love as he no longer accepts a literal six days for the creation period of Genesis 1. I recently had a church minister here in Australia tell me that we no longer follow the biblical directive under what conditions divorce is permissible therefore we need not follow biblical directives regarding the gender of those we wish to ordain as elders and deacons.
He then goes on to say that Jesus instruction in Luke could not possibly apply now because it is 2000 years later which is his way of saying that culture/time/etc trump the bible. In other words we should be going to our “Seventh Day Adventists Believe” fundamental beliefs book and rip the first belief out of it because obviously we no longer accept the primacy of the authority of the scriptures.
I recall reading the book “God’s Smuggler” where brother Andrew relates how in their training to share the gospel they were loaned one dollar to get started and go out and do their gospel ministry and at the end they were to return that one dollar back to the teachers who loaned it to them. Luke 9:3 was the basis for this thinking. They went out and followed this instruction. They came back with their one dollar at the end. That verse worked back in the days of the Apostles. It worked in the twentieth century. Sorry Dwight but you are wrong, wrong, wrong. All your degrees have not helped you get it right? It’s a shame that we have to look outside our church for evidence of the truth of this passage as obviously ministers of your ilk have not had the relationship with God to be able to put this one to the test.
Next you proceed to mock the passage in 1Tim 3 where he speaks of being married to one wife. He conveniently ignores that the way it is written means that it is intended to be interpreted “up to one wife”. If marriage was supposed to be prerequisite then Paul would have written “a husband of a wife” but he doesn’t do that.
Next he refers to the ruling of his children as if that were also some kind of compulsory requirement but if that were so then St Paul would have written something like “must have children” but he doesn’t which indicates clearly that the reference to children would be one of those ones that would be contingent on the candidate having children. He goes on to talk about how Genesis 3 when Adam rules over his wife does not apply to all women or men. The only problem with this is that Adam established his dominion over the woman when he gave her the name “woman” in Genesis 2.
His interpretation of 1 Tim 2:11,12 falls flat based on the fact that his interpretation of Gen 3 is wrong.
He then refers to EGW as a reason why we should accept women being ordained today. He ignores the fact that God chose two men before putting her on the block and also ignores the fact that she was never ordained as stated in her biographical information form of 1909. If anything she affirmed the authority of men as her children observed that when James was in the meeting with her she would never speak until he had first spoken at the podium.
In addition she never baptised, married or conducted a funeral for anyone to the best of my historical knowledge.
She also was said to have never say anything prohibiting woman from being ordained. True but when the matter was brought up for the vote in 1881 and died in committee EGW had nothing to say about that either.
He then appeals to the calling of the HS as if that will somehow trump what the bible clearly says. If this be true then God is admitting that he was wrong in the way He treated women in the past which makes His claims about His nature a lie.
He speaks of this ordination prohibition as if it is a wall. He does not explain what it is that a woman can do once ordained that she could not do before being ordained. Having seen all this I don’t believe he has made a compelling case at all for the correctness of his position.
Sorry Dwight up until I saw this sermon I had no argument. On this issue you are my enemy.

Then Lizzy Swane presents a so called ordination certificate of Ellen White.

Lizzy trusts her source, but has apparently not noticed the difference in script where it says ordained minister, to be found nowhere else on the so called certificate? This is clearly a forgery and a copy and paste job. Sad that people who say that they believe in God and Truth should go to that length to get their human opinions through. Fact is that there is no Biblical basis for ordination of women.
That ordination of men is an all Roman Catholic practice, there is no Biblical reference. But then they have an odd manner of reading the Bible. See what happened in the OT when men - and woman Meriam! - challenged the authority of the priesthood, Korah, Dathan and Abiram, Uzziah, Jerobeam. It's out of Grace that the Lord recorded these situations for us, that we should not make the same mistake. Maybe the ceremony of setting men apart for the duty differed from the practice today, but it was a special act indeed.
Dwight can have all possible scholarly degrees, on the matter of Bible truth only the Bible counts. If we allow picking and striking out, we can close the Church.
What women would rather have unwarranted, highly debatable blessing, bringing lots of people in the Kingdom, but hear the Master say, “You did it for your own glory, not for Me.”
Ordination does not prevent women to do gospel ministry! Ordination gives status and power, so this is in fact a controversy over power and fighting Lucifer’s fight.

And as for Daniel Jankewietz … he flaws too!
Fact is that to lay hands on someone one has to raise them first. The blessing comes from the Lord, administered by the authority of the church. That was so in Moses’s and Paul’s time alike.
Fact is that Jesus was kind to women, but then He was kind to children, blinds, lepers, crippled, framed, bewitched. Should we then ordain children too. There is no respect when it comes to salvation. But while we are here God has appointed a specific order of things and we do well to adhere to that.
Maybe we should simply give ministers a certificate and sing some hymns in a special service; but women don’t get the same certificate as men. Simple as that!