Leaderboard

1.) Because Numbers 15:38 tells all the children of Israel to wear tassels with blue threads. Archaeology has discovered that in the ancient world this was a symbol of being an ordained priest. 2.) There are Psalms written in the feminine indicating that they were to have been lead by a female priest. 3.) About 200 years before Jesus there was a push in Judaism to STOP having female priests and Rabbis. And that only Men should wear the tassel with the blue thread, thus the traditions of may were changing the law of God. 4.) The topic of women's ordination was a debated topic in Jesus' day. Despite 200 years of trying to get rid of them there were still some women Rabbis with in Judaism. 5.) The culture of Jesus' day was that when a Rabbi sat to teach, his (and some cases her) ORDAINED disciples sat at his (and in some cases her) feet. About 12 who were the same sex as the Rabbi due to the 24 hour access and privileged to late night talks as they were going to sleep, then about 70. Among the conservative Rabbis in Jesus day the 70 tended to have both men and women. Among the liberal Rabbis of Jesus' day the 70 would be all men. The lay members would stand. Again if it was a conservative Rabbi it would be both men and women standing. If it was a liberal Rabbi the lay men would stand. The women had to do hospitality tasks. We find in the Bible that Martha was doing what the liberal Rabbis said a woman should do and Protested that Mary was in the position not of a layman but as an ordained Rabbinical Student. She SAT at Jesus' feet. A sign of being ordained. Jesus could have easily have said "Mary, while you don't need to do these hospitality tasks, women really should not be ordained. You are welcome to stand with the Laymen." Instead Jesus allowed her to be in the position of ordination and said that she choose good and it would not be taken away from her. Why should we say that Jesus is wrong and say that the Rabbis who opposed women's ordination was right? 6.) Besides Mary there is evidence that Jesus ordained other women among the 70. On the road to Emmaus Jesus met two disciples. One is named, indicating that it was a husband and wife. Mr. and Mrs. Cleopas. The fact that they were both disciples indicated that they were both ordained. In John 19:25 we read about Mary the wife of Clopas being at the cross. This was probably the same name as Cleopas, so the 2 disciples on the road to Emmaus were Cleopas and Mary, both ordained disciples. Not one disciple and his wife. 7.) In teams in both the culture at the time and in the Bible the leader's name would be mentioned first. If you were to read in your Bible about Aquilla and Priscilla; in all but one place when talking about them as man and wife it is Aquilla and Priscilla. However when talking about them as a ministerial team it is ALWAYS Priscilla and Aquilla. Thus the Bible says that Elder Priscilla was the head pastor with her husband Aquilla being her assistant. 8.) The letter to the Romans: Paul had not yet been to Rome. Yet he was aware of a number of women, not because he enjoyed their contribution to the pot luck after church, but because of their ministry. The terms applied to Phoebe are the words from which we get our concept of ordination. Until around 1300 AD Junia was unquestioned female. It was Catholic Priests who did not like the idea of a female apostle who around 1300 AD invented arguments to try to make her a male. 9.) The verses that we use against women's ordination were written to specific churches with specific problems. They make sense in their context. It is not that Paul was against women being ordained or that Paul was a victim of his culture etc. Paul (as indicated in Acts and Romans) supported women's ordination. But had some problems that he was addressing in Corinth and Ephesus that history has saved for us to know what he was talking about. To rip those texts out of the context and apply it to women' ordination is being unfair to the Bible. Also, those who oppose women's ordination are doing a tap-dance over the words. They say that the words don't mean what they actually say. They say that women are allowed to do everything those verses command them not to do just as long as we don't ordain them. 10.) In the first decade of the 1900s the New York Conference and Atlantic Union wanted to start ordaining women. A. G. Daniels was on a visit at the time. He agreed with them that they should start ordaining women. However he asked them to hold off for just a little bit. He pointed out to the leaders that there were uneducated people in the church who thought that women should not be ordained The church leadership did not want to hurt their faith but wanted to educate the church first. Since here there were women ready for ordination he was going to ask Mrs. White to write some articles about women in ministry that was to try to educate those uneducated members so that the church could ordain women. Mrs. White here had the chance to nip the problem in the bud. She was not afraid to tell us when we were doing something wrong. Here was her chance to correct Elder Daniels, the NY Conference and Atlantic Union and lay the issue to rest once and for all. Instead she wrote those articles that Elder Daniels promised NY and the Atlantic Union that she would write. The opponents of women's ordination need to act like lawyers looking for loopholes in these writings and explain them away as dealing with lay ministries and not ordained. However Mrs. White wrote them in a historical contexts of wanting to prepare the church to start to ordain women. 11.) Dr. Brian Strayer a church historian at Andrews has found other documents of our pioneers supporting women's ordination. The evidence looks like they felt like what Elder Daniels expressed to New York and the Atlantic Union that they felt that women's ordination was Biblical but that there were uneducated people who did not think it was and that they needed to work with these people to educate them. That they did not want to offend weaker breathern. Now people want to turn this kindness into enforcing the ignorance.

Bravus, re: the first red letter statement you recorded has our Lord reaffirming what was a OT policy. The Israelites were to lend to a poor person whatever that person asked of them no matter what. The way the person became poor was or how foolish the person was deemed to be was not to be called into question. Prov. 19:17 says that he who has pity on the poor is lending to the Lord

In the next life, we will have access to everything that we will need, but own nothing, or next to nothing. With Self gone, we will no longer care about what is "mine" and what is "yours". It will just be the LORD's. If someone needs to borrow something that we have, it will be lent gladly in order to benefit the borrower. Instead of loading ourselves down with stuff in this world, we could be creating a different kind of wealth that comes from sharing everything, even down to our last bread crumb. When our life in the Kingdom of Stuff is over, the record of all of the stuff that we ever owned or wanted to own will be forgotten. Only the kind and unselfish things that we did for others will be remembered because that's what the Kingdom of YHVH is all about: generosity, non-ownership of stuff, and self-sacrifice to benefit others. That would be our destiny if we consent to become servants of YHVH. We can all learn so much if we spent time studying, then practicing, the teachings of Christ. It would tend to grind off some of our rough edges: our greed, our disrespect for others, our self-centered tunnel vision that restricts our ability to act as we should.

See: http://atoday.org/younger-adventists-pave-road-ahead-on-church-gay-issues.html I find interesting the role that Union College Youth played in this.

I think journalistic sloppiness has been around for a very long time. And certainly low integrity propagandists are also nothing new. I think perhaps what is different now more than ever is the saturation level. It used to be that we were limited to maybe a newspaper, news magazine or two and no more than three TV news sources and a few local radio stations. And even then, there was a limiting factor of personal resources and time to access even those relatively few news sources. The resources necessary to produce and broadcast/distribute were a major limiting factor as well. Now any idiot with a computer can start a rant on the internet and label it news, or truth or whatever and with a push of a button it is available to potentially a worldwide audience instantly, with no editorial or peer review checks and balances. And just as easily others of similar ilk and mindset can with a quick cut and paste repeat it over and over. And for the news/info consumer there is a flood of this sort of thing to sift through for a few kernels of reliable stuff. Far too many show no less intellectual integrity (discernment/wisdom/rationality, etc.) on the consumption side either, just lapping it all up, passing it on without bothering to think, check it out or caring that they play into the hands of the propagandists.

Disturbing verse, Jeremiah 31:22 "How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? for the LORD hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man." Bible commentaries tend to explain away this text. Some say that this means that the woman will headship of her son when he is small. then when he grows up of course he takes over headship. Others apply it specifically to Mary saying that she had headship when Jesus was a boy but of course he grew up into headship. Others apply it to Israel saying that she will be the headship country over the other countries. Dr. Jim Fleming says that the text should be taken literally. He argues that in Israel/Judah that the men and women were equal. then when taken to Babylon that the equality was taken away as the Babylonians believed in and practiced male headship. Dr. Fleming argues that this text is a promise from God that when they are called out of Babylon that God would not merely restore the equality that men and women shared before the exile, but to make up for that loss in equality that God would allow women to be in a headship position. Now whether we are to take the quote as symbolic of a mother or Mary or Israel, or whether we are to take it literally; why would God use a sin as a symbol of being in the Messiah and being called out of Babylon? How would we feel if there was a verse in the Old Testament talking about the age of the Messiah as worshiping on Sunday and having a pork barbecue? Yet, whether we take the text literally or symbolically God still used women's headship as the sign of being called out of Babylon.

I think while we should be kind to everyone, it is hard to be best friends with someone who is practicing without attempting to change a lifestyle the Bible says never to practice. When we accept Christ, our non Christian friends sometimes do not understand.and while we may still care about them, I think either in time they will come to know God or we will have additional friends we grow closer to because we have more in common. Say my best friend is a heavy drinker and is always at the bars imbibing on weekends. When I become a Christian I am not going to want to do the things they do or hang out with people who are saying things people say in rowdy bars. I am going to be different, and either they will change too or I will find people I am closer to.

Perhaps Miriam got into trouble for speaking out so against the Lord's anointed, something David refused to do to Saul even though Saul merited the criticism more than Moses.

Everyone sincerely interested in knowing the truth of these matters, especially in regards to denominational history and the position of Ellen G. White, needs to read Appendix C of Daughters of God. You will see listed there over two dozen women who were issued licenses to preach duriong Sister White's lifetime. Ellen G. White herself participated personally in ordaining women as deacons. In 1895, Sister White wrote: "Women who are willing to consecrate some of their time to the service of the Lord should be appointed to visit the sick, look after the young, and minister to the necessities of the poor. THEY SHOULD BE SET APART TO THIS WORK BY PRAYER AND LAYING ON OF HANDS. In some cases they will need to counsel with the church officers or the minister; but if they are devoted women, maintaining a vital connection with God, they will be a power for good in the church. This is another means of strengthening and building up the church."--RH, July 9, 1895; DG 249.2 (emphasis supplied) Question: If women can be ordained by the laying on of hands for the job of deacon (there was no separate word for deaconess in the New Testament), why can't they be ordained for any other office to which Christ calls them? Question: If women can be given licenses to preach, why can't they be ordained? Ordination is not magic. Ordination does not convey any super-authority or divine power. Here is what Sister White said about the ordination of Paul and Barnabus: "Both Paul and Barnabas had already received their commission from God Himself, and THE CEREMONY OF THE LAYING ON OF HANDS ADDED NO NEW GRACE OR VIRTUAL QUALIFICATION. It was an acknowledged form of designation to an appointed office and a recognition of one's authority in that office. By it the seal of the church was set upon the work of God." Acts of the Apostles, p. 161 (emphasis supplied) The reluctance some feel about ordaining women may come from the way the Roman Catholic Church has perverted the meaning of ordination. According to Roman Catholic theology, ordination confers upon the priest a sort of semi-divine status and power, where now he has the ability to "create the Creator" in the Eucharist, by turning the wine and wafers into the literal blood and flesh of Jesus Christ. Many Protestants, and even some SDAs, retain some of this mystical misunderstanding of the nature of ordination. The time has come and is way overdue for a needful reform in the treatment of women in our church. The real submission that we need to be concerned about is submission to the headship of Christ. Acts 5:32 tells us that the Holy Spirit is given to those who obey God. Anyone who defies God's authority to call anyone He will to any office He chooses, and refuses to acknowledge this by ordaining anyone God calls, even if a woman, will pray in vain for the Holy Spirit. He cannot receive the Latter Rain, and is disqualified from having any part in the finishing of the work.

In the discussion of issues related to the role of women in pastoral care and their ordination, much has been said about church doctrines, teachings, policies and more. Dr. Calvin B. Rock published a seminal article on this in the November 28, 1991 edition of the Adventist Review, page 20. You may find that article at the following URL. http://docs.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH19911128-V168-48__C.pdf#view=fit Using a mixture of my words and those of Dr. Rock, I will summarize his thinking as follows: 1) Doctrines: These are authoritative theological beliefs that have been voted in a formal General Conference session and may only be changed by that process. Some doctrines are tests of fellowship. 2)Standards are rules that guide us in the application of doctrines. 3) Teachings have never been so voted but are generally believed. They are not tests of fellowship. Two examples are vegetarianism and membership in secret organizations. 4) Policies consist of operating rules. General Conference policy is voted at a General Conference and is expected to apply world wide. Division policy adjusts and/or modifies GC policy to apply in the specific area of the Division. Institutional policy guides schools, hospitals, etc. 5) Guidelines suggest how policies should be applied. If you look closely at this, you will note that Divisions may adjust or modify GC policy. In the same sense, so also may Unions and local Conferences, although Dr. Rock did not directly say so. As my statements above are a mixture of Dr. Rock's words and mine which was done to sum up what he said, it would be well for all to go to the actual article and read it as Dr. Rock wrote it.

In all of the Biblical texts, the focus is on the 7th day, regardless of the name of that day. The 7th day dates back to creation week and we only need to go back to the time of Christ to see what day was the 7th day when Christ lived on Earth. Generally, in our day that 7th day is named Saturday, in English. So, that is the day that we believe is the day of Biblical focus. But, if due to some political change the order of the days of the week were to be changed and the 7th day of the week were to be named Friday, then that would be the Biblical day. Or, if the 7th day were to be named Sunday, than that would be the Biblical day. We should not get hung up on the actual name of the 7th day to the extent that we lose sight of the fact that the Biblical focus is on the 7th day that is traced back to creation week and the time of Christ.

________________when the expected takes place, can you see yourself being as faithful as these? …2For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night. 3While they are saying, "Peace and safety!" then destruction will come upon them suddenly like labor pains upon a woman with child, and they will not escape. 4But you, brethren, are not in darkness, that the day would overtake you like a thief;…1 Thessalonians 5 God is Love! Jesus saves!

See: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ga-court-of-appeals/1694779.html

I, of course, believe that the Bible teaches that the 7th day of the week should be dedicated to our spiritual enrichment and communion with God.

All the verses that are used to teach and support Sunday as the Lord's day should be used to support the seventh day Sabbath as the Lord's day.

Gail, I suggest that love never "fails" in the sense that man-made structures can "fail" when they come under tremendous stress. We can be sure, I would assert, that God loves with an "everlasting love", and there is nothing any of us can do to stop it. So Gail, I would say that it is both -- Divine love never ends [for anyone], purely because it does not fail, or collapse, when it comes under sustained attack. I believe that God originally loved Lucifer with an "everlasting love", and that God continues to love His enemies (even His most personal enemy,) with the same unfailing love. God is love, and He will not, cannot, deny Himself.

Here's the way the chapter ends: 13 Here is the final conclusion, now that you have heard everything: fear God, and keep his mitzvot; this is what being human is all about. 14 For God will bring to judgment everything we do, including every secret, whether good or bad. [Here is the final conclusion, now that you have heard everything: fear God, and keep his mitzvot; this is what being human is all about.]

In Christ, there are no gentiles, male or female!

In context of all that has been 'said' by Christ.......He was simply against the misuse of anything that we have. He was not against wealth, riches, etc, how could He be! If we see Him as ruler of all and creator of all then He is the Midas in reality. In my mind, it is all about the use of such and motive. Not any different than anything else.

I will always trust the Scriptures of God above any human author. Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. Revelation 21

Crucial to this whole discussion is a right appreciation of what ordination by the laying on of hands really means. Ellen G. White wrote: “Both Paul and Barnabas had already received their commission from God Himself, and THE CEREMONY OF THE LAYING ON OF HANDS ADDED NO NEW GRACE OR VIRTUAL QUALIFICATION. It was an acknowledged form of designation to an appointed office and a recognition of one's authority in that office. By it the seal of the church was set upon the work of God.” Acts of the Apostles, p. 161 (emphasis supplied) Thus ordination is a DUTY and OBLIGATION of the Church, which it OWES to God in obedience to His leading. Therefore, refusing to ordain anyone whom God has called to any office of HIS choosing, is direct disobedience to God and defiance of His authority. And as Acts 5:32 states, the Holy Spirit is only given to those who obey God. Therefore it is a valid conclusion that no one who opposes women’s ordination can ever receive the Latter Rain outpouring of the Holy Spirit. They will not be a part of finishing the work. They will be counted among the five foolish virgins of Jesus’ parable, for they have not been walking with the Holy Spirit by allowing Him to convict them of all their sins—including their disregard of Galatians 3:28—and therefore do not have the ‘extra oil with their lamps.’ They will be among those who are ‘shaken out’ when the time of ‘the Shaking’ comes. Sinners will always try to contend that their cherished sins are unimportant. But is our position on women's ordination really unimportant? I have also noticed that among those who oppose women's ordination in our church, there is an accompanying covert movement to dismiss the Spirit of Prophecy as something to be disregarded. Most of them quote Sister White very seldom if at all when they discuss this subject. Although some still freely quote her on other subjects, this may change as the movement expands and manifests its true spirit more fully. Why do opponents of women's ordination avoid the Spirit of Prophecy? It is because there are statements like these, which are impossible for them to deal with: “It is the accompaniment of the Holy Spirit of God that prepares workers, both men and women, to become pastors to the flock of God.” (6T p. 322; RH January 15, 1901) “There are women who should labor in the gospel ministry. In many respects they would do more good than the ministers who neglect to visit the flock of God.”—Evangelism 472; Manuscript 43a, 1898.

I have many more questions than answers when it comes to Adventist education. I do believe it should be a priority for our denomination. I don't like boarding schools. Our boarding school has mostly international students here to learn English as a second language (ESL). I don't know the financial end of that but I know the intent is for the international ESL students help the school financially. One would think that as more and more of our elementary schools add the high school grades and become day schools the need for boarding schools would diminish. That would be a good thing as far as I am concerned. Many of the industrial jobs probably have been moved overseas making it more difficult. Healthcare, automotive maintenance and construction are industries that can't be shipped overseas but harder for school to build and use students. The furniture factories and daires are not what they once were for us. I did work at the dairy at Andrews when I attended there. I don't know what the church is doing in the area of homeschooling and virtural schooling. I have seen Christian, online schools that are affordable and have certified teachers. That is something that a church could set up even if there were only handful of students. That is an option that I am looking at if the school does close down.

Phoebe is indeed compelling! But equally compelling is how as a married couple it's Aquilla and Priscilla however as a ministerial team it is Priscilla and Aquilla. And even more compelling is understanding the debate in first century Judaism about the ordination of women and Jesus allowing Mary to sit at his feet and what this implied in it's culture. Now most of those who oppose women's ordination tend to also be influenced by views represented by a fair number of our pastors in the past but especially Elders Washburn and Wilkinson. These and others of this camp received some sharp letters from Mrs. White and Willie White on how they liked to use massive quotes Mrs. White, she and Willie saw them as not understanding her message but used her words to spread their message. While I don't know how Washburn responded, I know that several from the camp tended to see Mrs. White as having apostatized and getting her messages from Willie or W. W. Prescott rather than from God and that they needed to pick and use the messages from the time she was faithful and got messages from God. Wilkinson would compare Willie with the sons of Samuel (which by the way appears to have been more politically exaggeration than fact on their spiritual life as they lived among the northern tribes and their father was a great leader in the Moses Priesthood, but they aligned themselves to the south and the Aaronite priesthood). This was from the faction who argued against Jones and Wagner. Of course as the years went by their followers pushed the blame farther into our history and have made saints of All of Mrs. White, Jones, Wagner, Willie and Prescott saying that they were actually believing what this version believes. Now according to Dr. Maxwell, when Wilkinson saw that his views caused his children to not only want nothing to do with the church but wanted nothing to do with God, he recanted near his death. However his views are very popular among a number of Adventists. And while they like Mrs. White, they only like her filtered through those like Washburn and Wilkinson rather than her directly.

Bumping this thread up about Phoebe...

It is interesting that our Adventist Church founders were aware of this understanding about Phoebe having republished an article about this in the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald (now the Adventist Review). The Editor, Uriah Smith at the time as I recall, noted that it gave support for the sisters in ministry in the Adventist Church. The article proposed the idea that those two verses about Phoebe suggest that Paul had appointed her to be the leader of the Church in Rome, the first bishop of Rome, actually using the word first "pope" of Rome. ( Understand that the article was republished from another source and not authored by an Adventist.) The whole of those two verses really do support the idea that Paul was introducing Phoebe to the believers in Rome to be their pastor. He gives her a very strong recommendation to them of her qualifications, a highly regarded saintly woman that had been the diakonos and prostatis in Cenchrea. He specifically directs the believers in Rome to follow her directions, hardly what one would say of a mere servant sent to them. For me, Phoebe stands as the most compelling Bibical evidence for the ordination of women.

You are right, Tom--in Romans 16:2 Paul also describes Phoebe as a "succourer." The Greek word there, as you said, is prostatis. Thayers Bible Dictionary says for prostatis: 1) a woman set over others 2) a female guardian, protectress, patroness, caring for the affairs of others and aiding them with her resources So she was in charge!

EGW is an inconvenient fact for those opposed to WO. Ron, in addition to the designation by Paul of Phoebe as diakonos, he also identifies her as prostatis. That Greek word quite clearly means one who is a leader. In its masculine form it is consistently used to identify those who rule or govern. And in its verb form it consistently means to rule or govern. Paul even goes so far as to say he regarded her as a leader of himself. I would also note that Phoebe, a woman as a deacon would have had met the qualifications outlined by Paul. Tha included the criteria much trumpeted by those opposed to WO - "husband of one wife". This throws serious doubt on that clause as being a gender specifc phrase. A better interpretation of the Greek "one woman man" is that it was an idiom that simply meant monogamy.

I would have to enter an emphatic caveat to the idea of seeking unity by following majority rule in the denomination. Truth is not a democracy, and the Church as the Body of Christ is not a democracy. The ONLY unity that is worth anything is unity based on following Christ, the Head of the church. Submitting to the majority of the denomination in place of following the will of Christ communicated through the Holy Spirit, amounts to creature-worship, in the hour when humanity is called to worship the Creator. Even the Church is part of the creature. If we accord to the Church greater authority than Christ, then we are in danger of receiving the Mark of the Beast, because creature-worship is the worship of the beast. I have noticed a disturbing tendency in those who are part of the Anti-Women's Ordination Movement in Adventism: the tendency to dismiss the Spirit of Prophecy as irrelevant. Many of the people who speak against women's ordination deliberately distance themselves from the writings of Ellen G. White, saying things like "I want to go by the Word of God." While I agree that the Bible is above Ellen G. White, I still must note that those who speak against women's ordination only set aside the Spirit of Prophecy when they are talking about women's ordination; most of them still freely quote from her when they are speaking about any other subject. This movement to dismiss the Spirit of Prophecy seems to have begun with the 1973-1978 class action lawsuit of Silver Vs. Pacific Press, inwhich the church leadership and their attorneys spent five years arguing in court that they should not have to obey the 1964 Civil Rights Act because they were a church. During this court case, the church leadership avoided saying anything about Ellen G. White's writings, because in fact she said a number of things that directly contradicted their position. The fact is that Sister White wrote that women in all denominational institutions should be paid the same as men for doing the same work, and this inspired, divine instruction was ignored and disobeyed for over 100 years. Now we see that those who are opposed to women's ordination are also trying to get people to set aside Sister White's writings. Why? Because she said things like the following: “There are women who should labor in the gospel ministry. In many respects they would do more good than the ministers who neglect to visit the flock of God. Husband and wife may unite in this work, and when it is possible, they should. The way is open for consecrated women. But the enemy would be pleased to have the women whom God could use to help hundreds, binding up their time and strength on one helpless little mortal, that requires constant care and attention.” (Daughters of God, p. 202; 5MR 325, 326 I would leave to their own fate anyone who would quibble about whether a person called by God to the gospel ministry should not be ordained merely because that person is a woman. Notice that Sister White does not say that all women, or even many women, should labor in the gospel ministry. She does not say it is wrong for all women, or even most women, to have their time taken up by child-rearing. But she plainly tells us that there are some women who can and should be free to labor in the gospel ministry, unencumbered by children. God can use such women. It is only the enemy who is pleased to see such women denied the office and work God Himself has qualified them for. It is no wonder that those trying to hold on to the conservative tradition of denying ordination to women, wish to avoid having to deal with such clear and explicit statements by the woman they OTHERWISE accept as a divinely-inspired prophet. Some of those who try to maintain that the Bible does not support the ordaining of women would do well to look at Romans 16:1, where Paul said: "I commend to you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant of the church in Cenchrea...." That is how it is translated in the KJV and NKJV. But if you check the original Greek, you will find that the word translated "servant" is not doulos, but rather is diakonos. Diakonos is the Greek word from which we get the English word, "deacon." The NRSV is honest about this, and translates it correctly: "I commend to you our sister Phoe'be, a deacon of the church at Cen'chreae...." Paul uses doulos or oiketes to refer to common servants or slaves. He only uses diakonos when referring to the ordained officer of a church, either a deacon or a minister. In Ephesians 3:7 Paul refers to himself as a "minister according to the gift of the grace of God." The word there translated as minister is diakonos. So whether Phoebe was a deacon (there was no separate Greek word for deaconess) or a minister, Acts 6 tells us that deacons were ordained by the laying on of hands in the New Testament Church, so Phoebe was ordained, and Paul commended her. Some people seize upon those Bible texts where the masculine is used to refer to deacons or other church officers, such as 1 Tim. 3:11. But there are other texts like James 1:5-8, which says "he" and "him" and "that man," yet nobody doubts that it applies to women too. In 1 Testimonies 577, 578, Ellen G. White related a very disturbing dream, which appears to be a prophetic dream that one day, some church leaders would march on her house like a Catholic procession, and declare her and her works "proscribed." Many of us in the past thought it would be liberals in our church who would fulfill this prophecy. But it now appears that it is conservatives who are fulfilling this prophecy. The Anti-Women's Ordination Movment in Adventism is nurturing a covert anti-Spirit of Prophecy movement, because in truth, opposing the ordination of women is not compatible with the Spirit of Prophecy. And in addition, all efforts to support opposition to women's ordination by the Bible is based on poor scholarship and wresting of Scripture. I do not write these things to accuse anyone. I am trying to warn everyone of what they really might become ensared with if they go along with the Anti-Women's Ordination Movement.

I have been in this church since 1955 and left because I wanted the street life. I have always believed that this was the Church who have the message. However, we truly overlooked it and hung on to false traditions. This is the first person I have read who is speaking what the topic is about! We have never really said that what Hiram Edison saw was in Revelation 4 and 5 which is the judgment and six is the sealing of all the saints and the white horse as they all are of the earth. Adam and Eve was sealed first. I never understood why on earth we thought the church was ever perfect and YAHSHUA was the rider of this horse. It does not fit HIS PROFILE at all, YAHSHUA is the second ADAM folks. I am a Biblical Historian and when I return from Israel I started changing, I left again due disappointment with myself but finally I saw the light never to leave again. This is the last Church and is not the remnant of the woman seed, the 144,000 and the great multitude is. We have been bought and we don't even realize we are people with traditions and doctrines and most are from the Catholic who we have constantly preach about. However we have obey them to, we don't want to be different and we don't study as well. All we do different is go to church on the Sabbath and most don't keep it anymore as well. Here is what we have taken from the Catholic: There Calendar not ELOHIM Gen 1:14 The word feast which means to over indulge at unholy days not ELOHIM Trinity adopted from the Greeks have to do with homeostasis Christmas, Easters, Halloween, new years, Valentines day not ELOHIM Christ/Christo, Jesus-hail Zeus, God etymology sends it back to the word demonic Cross were worship through out pagan history and this word is not what stau-ros means 28 Fundamental beliefs is a creed Please check all of what I have given out before you attack me! Is not all about love is being obedience and it is walking a narrow path. I have brought this to my conference and I'm still in the church and they know that I'm right! Happy Sabbath and be bless!

The article's summation... Quote: A careful reading of Romans 16:1, 2, thus, offers us a new glance at this remarkable woman who appears to be a close associate of Paul in spread­ing the gospel of Christ; who served as a leader of her house church in Cenchreae; who, despite all the dangers associated with travel on Roman roads, accepted the task of carrying the mes­sage of salvation to the Roman church; and who was recognized by Paul and others as a Christian leader in her own right.