WO

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

oh...I see from whence your idea stems... I thought you meant that OTHER ministers (from any Protestant denomination, including SDA) referred to themselves as "messengers." It appears that Ellen White referred to *ministers* as "messengers," but I don't see where any other *pastor* referred to himself as a "messenger"...

not worth quibbling about, though... I don't think of Ellen White as a "pastor" since she did not lead a specific congregation... (just my own personal semantic preferences...) :)

[Gregory Matthews]

Woody:

As I understand you, your thesis contains a logical error:

I understand you to be saying that Pastors (A) are Messengers (. Therefore, Messengers ( are Pastors (A).

If A is B, then B is A.

Not so logically:

If Men are humans, it does not follow that humans are men, they may be women.

If pastors are messengers, it does not follow that all messengers are pastors. It does not follow that EGW intended to call all messengers pastors.

[Woody]

I understand what you are saying Gregory and Pam.

No problem.

I just quickly gave you some quotes on messengers.

The more specific quotes regarding what you want .... I have yet to find.

Having just moved and also getting a new computer ... much of my saved quotes are not accessible.

I will continue to work on it.

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

Men were created out of the dust of the earth, so they are just dirtbags.

"filthy rags" comes to mind. Although I find it somewhat sacrilegious to consider the above emanating from the Word.

"Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."

Gen 9:6 KJV

God is Love! Jesus saves!

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: jackson

Tom, when you say that God has not said He is opposed to women's ordination you raise doubts about the authority of scripture.

(My answers in blue)

No. Only doubts about your limited interpretation and perspective. One must take into consideration all the evidence and not to simply focus on selective quotes that support ones own point of view.

Originally Posted By: jackson

As Christians we accept scripture as inspired by God. When Paul writes he says it is in accordance with the will of Jesus, unless he specifically notes otherwise.

Yes, of course, even those parts that may not fit with our own POV. Have you fully considered all the inspired Scriptural evidence?

Originally Posted By: jackson

So if you are to say that God did not forbid W/O then you reject both Paul's plain statements on the matter and the authority of scripture.

No. I accept the authority of Scripture. But I reject your limited perspective and interpretation, which is not authoritative.

Originally Posted By: jackson

The fallback position for many that are proponents of W/O is that Paul's statements were just reflecting the culture of his day. But his reasoning was not based on the mores of his society, but rather on the inspired accounts of the Creation and the Fall as found in the book of Genesis.

Context is important to understanding the meaning of Scripture. I assume that if you do not thing the culture and mores of the time should be considered, then you must accept that women should also cover their heads in church and that slavery should still be regarded as OK, since Paul clearly upheld slavery and did not condemn it.

Originally Posted By: jackson

With regard to Phoebe(Phebe). It appears that she was a greater helper of the cause. A Dorcas type, or a nurturer extraordinaire. If you think she was in a leadership position over men then you force Paul to contradict himself.

No again. If there seems to be a contradiction, it is perhaps more likely due to a flawed interpretation that creates the contradiction. Starting in the OT, consider Deborah, a judge and prophet of Israel - a leader of the people, looked up to by even a general of the army. And note carefully God's original plan for co-rulership over all creation given to Adam and Eve. It took both male and female to reflect the image of God. And since you appear to accept EGW, she says clearly that they were created equal.

You need to read Romans 16:1-2 carefully and understand the original Greek. I recommend that you to read the article that was published in Ministry Magazine - https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/2013/04/phoebe-was-she-an-early-church-leader .

Paul clearly does refer to Phoebe as a church minister and leader. He also commends her to the believers in Rome as one to whom they should look for leadership. The operative Greek words Paul uses to describe Phoebe were "diakonos" and "prostatis". Diakonos is the Greek word frequently translated as "minister" in the NT and from which we derive the English word deacon, the same word for which Paul describes the qualifications for the diakonos of the church, such as husband of one wife, etc. (Perhaps the emphasis/interpretation put on that phrase by those opposed to WO may be flawed if Paul also refers to a woman as a diakonos. Contradiction, or misinterpretation?) But it is "prostatis" that is most significant in Paul's description of Phoebe's role in the NT Church. It means "one who stands before", a leader, ruler, governor, one in charge of others. In its verb form, it is consistently translated as rule, to rule over or govern. Paul even describes her as a leader to others, including himself.

[hch]

I am sure this WO issue has been discussed here many times. But, I am troubled.

Is there anyone who can give me Bible information stating that God is against

WO? I do not want someone beating around the bushes. I can beat around the bushes for and against WO. I would like to see specific statement. Thanks.

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

[NOTE THE DATE – the command was given over 100 years ago]

The TEN are thousands of years acknowledged to be older. Are they weakened the older they get?

God is Love! Jesus saves!

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Quote:

[NOTE THE DATE – the command was given over 100 years ago]

The TEN are thousands of years acknowledged to be older. Are they weakened the older they get?

[Woody]

lol

[Tom Wetmore]

That isn't terribly logical. First of all, the OT priesthood is over and done, replaced by the NT concept of the priesthood of all believers. ("All" is comprehensive of all believers, male and female, young and old, Jew and gentile, slave and free.) But stop and think about what you have suggested. God choses the prophets, both male and female for the highest spiritual leadership role, that of a prophet, but the church is free to choose not to recognize woman to a lower ministry role?

There are also holes in your observation about the NT church roles. In 1 Timothy 5, Paul speaks of female elders immediately after referring to the male elders using the same Greek word, "presbyteros". The context of those verses begins in chapter 4, where he speaks of the body of elders, "presbyterion" (v. 14) that had blessed by laying on of hands, or ordained Timothy. That strongly indicates that in the church at Ephesus that the body of elders included both men and women.

The qualifications for the elders/bishops are very similar to those of the "diakonos" (translated as deacons and ministers) including the frequently referenced "husband of one wife" phrase by those against WO to suggest that it is a men only role. But very significantly, Paul calls Phoebe a "diakonos" of the church at Cenchrea. How does one reconcile that with his statement elsewhere that a diakonos in the church is to be the husband of one wife? Is he contradicting himself? I think not! Perhaps it is the interpretation of that phrase "husband of one wife" that is not correct. That phrase in Greek is literally "one man woman". Elsewhere Paul uses it similarly in speaking of the qualifications for widows working in the church as "one woman man". The order of the words after the word "one" is less significant to the meaning of the phrase that seems to be a Greek idiom that simply means monogamous. That would give consistency to Phoebe being diakonos.

[Tom Wetmore]

jackson, you are aware that EGW also refers to ministers as messengers of the Lord, aren't you?

All this is quite familiar...

Much of the "explanation" of EGW's credentials came years after her death. Most of it appear to minimize and explain away the obvious. For 30+ years she was given that credential. Never once did she refuse it, nor the higher salary that came with it (ordained minister in those day were paid more than licensed minsters). Only one credential has the word crossed out. There are multiple copies from different years. That one appears to have lines through each letter in the word "ordained". There is no indication of who did that or when. Since it is only on one, it offers no real meaning. It could have been mindless doodling, or added years later by someone questioning her ordination.

To this extent you are correct, she was never ordained in the Adventist Church in accordance with Scripture since there is no clear rite of ordination in Scripture as is currently practiced in much of Christianity.

But again, as has been said many times already, If the General Conference is to be regarded as the highest Church authority on earth, if they put it in writing that she was ordained as a minister, of what meaning is it to say it wasn't so? Is it not a statement of the recognition of the General Conference of a fact? Are you suggesting that they were being untruthful? Or that they were issuing a credential that did not really mean what it said? What is ordination if it is not the recognition of the Church of a person's calling? By the very act of issuing that credential to her, year after year, the General Conference was saying that it recognized her as an ordained minister. That was the very essence of being ordained by the Church. Performing a ritual of laying hands on her head would have added nothing to the fact that God himself had ordained her. Can man veto God by refusing to acknowledge His act by some ritual?

[Tom Wetmore]

jackson, have you read the article about Phoebe yet?

[Gregory Matthews]

Jackson;

Your report on EGWs credentials presents more evidence to support the idea that the GC considered EGW to be an ordained minister than it says in opposition.

Thank you for your report.

[Tom Wetmore]

Given that site's temperamental nature, maybe then it would be better to access the paper at its source on the GC Archives site for the TOSC.  Here is the direct link - http://www.adventistarchives.org/women’s-ordination-group-1-review-of-position-summary-3.pdf

[Woody]

If you look in the book " The Early Years " written by Arthur White .... check the index under Ministers called MESSENGERS. There will be a number of references there as to how it was the custom of the times to call ministers "messengers". I am still looking for another EGW book that spells it out more.

[Gregory Matthews]

Woody, I find your reference interesting.  I have checked and the pages cited in the Index are pages 190 & 227.  You raise an interesting view that I had not considered.  However, regardless of how the citation is indexed, as I read the cited pages, it seems most reasonable to me to think that on those two pages the word "messengers" applies to the common people who were proclaiming the message and not any kind of organized clergy.  Certainly I would think that the term applied to men, and women  The first page, 190, comes from the time frame of 1850 and the second, 227,  from the time frame of 1857.  At that time the SDA Church had not been organized--1863.  Yes, there were calls for identification/certification of people authorized to represent the developing group of believers.  This began in about 1851 and increased in the years leading up to 1854 and as time went on from then.  I have not yet seen the exact time when actual certificates were issued that identified the people authorized to represent this developing group of people.  But, at this moment, the most reasonable, to me, seems to be the idea that the citations from pages 190 & 227, applied to a more general group than ministers, regardless of how it is listed in the Index.

 

Anyhow, your comment is interesting.

[Woody]

I am trying to get the cobwebs out of my brain and discover where I read a more clear declaration of how ministers called themselves by the title of messenger.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Woody, I think this might be where you remember writing the various "messenger" quotes (yours is near the bottom of the 3rd page):  

[Gregory Matthews]

Woody has sent me a private message in which he has provided several quotations from EGW in which she uses the word "Messanger" in a manner that appears to be related to ministers.  He told me that he had attempted to post this in this thread and had been unable to do so.  I am posting it here for him as I believe that his quotes are of value and should be considered.

 

In the quotation from Woody, I used 'copy & paste.'  This method may change the formating.  As I read the  quotation that Woody sent me, it looked to me like in some places Woody had placed his understanding of what EGW had said and that this distinction had been lost in a chanage of formating by C & P.  Therefore, in the quotation below, I have placed what I thought to be Woody's words  between <  and > .  Then I have seperated that with a  space both above and below.  If I am wrong, Woody can correct me.

 

 

 

 

“I would be glad if some messenger could come this way. There is a great interest to hear preaching. Several persons have told me that they would do something toward paying the expenses of a minister to come here.” {September 6, 1864 UrSe, ARSH 119.19}

 

“This shows that God is working through the literature, and many are becoming interested. All that is necessary is to make the connection. There are those whom the Lord by his Spirit has interested, and God desires that the minister, the living messenger, labor in harmony with the colporteur. Thus many will awaken to thankfulness for the light and the blessings the Lord has given them.”  {April 18, 1901 N/A, GCB 327.10}

 

“And I will give you pastors according to my heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding. Mal.ii,7. For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts.”  {July 3, 1856 UrSe, ARSH 79.3}

 

<“The ordination was conducted in the following manner, as appears from the minutes of the association.>  

 

"The day being set apart as a fast day, we immediately proceeded to ordain him, and the hands of every ordained minister were laid upon him. Public prayer was made by John Waller, Elijah Craig and John Williams. John Waller gave a public charge and the whole association gave him the right hand of fellowship."

 

<The work assigned to this apostle was to pervade the churches for the purpose of performing, or at least superintending the work of ordination, and to set in order the things that were wanting, and he was to report the success of his mission at the next association. And for the discipline of this high officer the following law was enacted; viz., >

 

"If our messenger, or apostle shall transgress in any manner, he shall be liable to dealing in any church where the transgression was committed; and the said church is instructed to call helps from two or three neighboring churches, and if by them found a transgressor, a general conference of all the churches shall be called to restore or excommunicate him."    {August 25, 1859 UrSe, ARSH 106.4}

 

“The messenger stands between the living and the dead. He is mouth for God, the ambassador for Christ. He beseeches the people in Christ's stead. O, his awfully solemn and responsible position? He is to watch for souls as one that must give account. What an account the jesting, trifling minister will have to give. Wherein he fails to have his words and deportment in harmony with his solemn message, and his responsible position and work, so far he mars the holy work of God. Does the messenger indulge in odd and jesting expressions in the sacred desk, or in the social circle? his followers will catch such a spirit sooner than any other. And those who have not so much self-command as their leader, will excel him in mixing foolish waggery with their religion.”   {December 17, 1861 JWe, ARSH 20.4}

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

The ordination was conducted in the following manner, as appears from the minutes of the association.

 

The day being set apart as a fast day, we immediately proceeded to ordain him, and the hands of every ordained minister were laid upon him. Public prayer was made by John Waller, Elijah Craig and John Williams. John Waller gave a public charge and the whole association gave him the right hand of fellowship.

 

The work assigned to this apostle was to pervade the churches for the purpose of performing, or at least superintending the work of ordination, and to set in order the things that were wanting, and he was to report the success of his mission at the next association. And for the discipline of this high officer the following law was enacted; viz.,

 

If our messenger, or apostle shall transgress in any manner, he shall be liable to dealing in any church where the transgression was committed; and the said church is instructed to call helps from two or three neighboring churches, and if by them found a transgressor, a general conference of all the churches shall be called to restore or excommunicate him. 

 

the above was not written by Ellen White, nor by any Adventist..... I recognized the names that were listed and did a bit of research...

 

It is a quote from the volume published in 1813, A General History of the Baptist Denomination, Chapter 5 (General history of all the separate Baptists in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, from the time of their settlement at Sandy Creek, North Carolina, 1755, to the division of their extensive connexion, in 1770).

 

 

The 1774 Baptist Association was debating whether the offices of Ephesians 4, namely Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, and Teachers, were still to be in use.  After a pro/con debate, the vote was taken that all offices were to be maintained.  Samuel Harris was voted to become the [one and only] "Apostle," and was also referred to as the "messenger"....  Shortly thereafter, others in southern Virginia, beyond the James River, decided they also wanted a regional "Apostles," and appointed John Waller and Elijah Craig (who had both been rejected in the original Apostle vote).  

 

In 1775, "these Apostles made their first reports in rather discouraging terms, and no others were ever appointed. They finally concluded, that the office of Apostles, like that of Prophets, was peculiar to the Apostolick age, and ceased with the cessation of that inspiration and those miraculous gifts, by which these characters were peculiarly distinguished."

 

Here's the entire quote.  It's rather interesting.  from pages 49-50 of the 1813 above-cited volume..

 

We are now about to relate an affair which took place in this body, which

will probably produce mixed emotions in the mind of the reader. The

following query, viz. “Are all the offices of Apostles, Prophets,

Evangelists, Pastors, and Teachers, mentioned in Ephe-sians, 4th chapter,

and 11th verse, now in use? ” had been introduced at a previous session of

the Association, when, after spending two days in debating upon it, they

agreed to defer their decision on the subject, until their next session.

During the recess of the Association, as well as when it was assembled,

this novel subject was discussed by many, with no little warmth and

interest. It appears to have been first agitated by Jeremiah Walker, who

labored hard, both in publick and private, to defend and propagate his

sentiments. He even wrote a piece upon the subject, entitled, Free

Thoughts, etc. in which he ingeniously maintained that Apostles, together

with all the other offices enumerated in Ephesians, etc. were still to be

maintained in the church. Reuben Ford took an active part against Walker,

and wrote a pamphlet in opposition to his scheme. Both of these men

were followed by large and respectable parties, and both of their

pamphlets were read before the Association in 1774, when the query was

again introduced, and the debates upon it resumed. But the majority

favoring Walker’s speculations, an almost unanimous vote was obtained to

carry them into practical operation. Having thus resolved, they, in the first

place, proceeded to choose one from among them, to officiate in the

dignified character of an Apostle. Walker had been suspected of vain and

ambitious views in pleading so hard for the establishment of this office;

but whatever were his desires and expectations, the venerable Samuel

Harris, who was now about 50 years of age, was, by the unanimous voice

of the Association, elected an Apostle. He acccepted the appointment, and

was immediately ordained to the Apostolic function. His ordination, as

appears by their Minutes, was conducted in the following manner: “The

day being set apart as a fast day, we immediately proceeded to ordain him,

and the hands of every ordained minister were laid upon him.2

 Publick

prayer was made by John Waller, Elijah Craig, and John Williams. John

Waller gave a publick charge, and the whole Association gave him the right

hand of fellowship.” The work assigned to this Apostle, was to pervade0

the churches, for the purpose of performing, or at least of superintending

the work of ordination, and to set in order the things that were wanting;

and he was ordered to report the success of his mission, at the next

Association. And for the discipline of this high officer, the following law

was enacted, viz. “If our Messenger, or Apostle, shall trangress in any

manner, he shall be liable to dealing in any church where the transgression

was committed; and the said church is instructed to call helps from two or

three neighboring churches; and if by them found a transgressor, a general

conference of the churches shall be called, to restore, or excommunicate

him.” At this time there was a temporary division of this extensive

Association, and James-river was the dividing line. The scene which we

have been describing, was acted on that part which lay south of this river;

but the northern section, in imitation of their southern brethren, not long

after, in the same year, appointed for their Apostles, John Wal ler and

Elijah Craig. Thus Virginia, whose ecclesiastical affairs were formerly

governed by Bishops, now beheld within her bounds, three Baptist

Apostles! But these Apostles made their first reports in rather

discouraging terms, and no others were ever appointed. They finally

concluded, that the office of Apostles, like that of Prophets, was peculiar

to the Apostolick age, and ceased with the cessation of that inspiration

and those miraculous gifts, by which these characters were peculiarly

distinguished.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Pam, you more and more show your value to this forum.

[Kevin H]

Jackson, a useful study would be to see what Mrs. White and her son Willie said about what visions did and did not do for her. W. W. Prescott started advocating her visions the way you are doing and Stephen Haskell learned from him. When Mrs. White learned what Prescott was teaching she invited him to come and join her staff and was shocked to learn how inspiration actually worked. Elder Canright also held that view and was invited to learn how inspiration worked. After Prescott got over his shock he became an advocate for her understanding of inspiration. Canright on the other hand continued to hold to his views of inspiration and left the church and joined the most extremist fundamentalist religion of the time and wrote books attacking the church. Sadly looking at his arguments the only reason he had problems was because Mrs. White did not fit his understanding of inspiration. If he did not hold such a ridged view he could have stayed.

 

Haskell kept trying to talk Mrs. White into giving up her understanding of how inspiration works and to accept what Prescott first taught him until Mrs. White changed Prescott to her understanding. They had interesting correspondence. As well as what Mrs. White wrote about the "Reform Dress" and the disastrous "Testimony Number 11" (about the health care that Kellogg used for an unwise expanding of Battle Creek) and similar points.  

 

There was the important 1919 Bible conference and the disastrous 1923 General Conference.  

[Woody]

Gregory and Pam. Thanks for your interest in my research.

I found these quotes in the Ellen White Research Disc. under "Words of the Adventist Pioneers"

Full Text Search.

You can do the same.

I have no idea what those references mean. Have not seen them before. But perhaps our Adventist Pioneers used them in some way?

But the quotes are listed under "Words of the Adventist Pioneers"

I had to double check to make sure my memory was correct.

 

Wish I knew what I am doing wrong on this software that prevents me from Copy and Paste.

[Woody]

Upon further research .... you will find that most of my quotes above are referenced ARSH which stands for "Adventist Review and Sabbath Herald". Quite Adventist,!!

 

Also - I made no personal comments. All the above are quotes as found in the EGW software.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Upon further research .... you will find that most of my quotes above are referenced ARSH which stands for "Adventist Review and Sabbath Herald". Quite Adventist,!!

 

Also - I made no personal comments. All the above are quotes as found in the EGW software.

 

probably would be helpful to post quoted material in context... not sure if the ""EGW software" has the entire context, as I do not own it.  But the large quote I found was from 1813, and referenced an incident which happened in 1774 and 1775.  Quite a distance in time from the purported 1859 quote from Ellen White -- and it puts the quote in perspective, rather than ending before the "rest of the story" is known..