Leaderboard

Should we not be in accord with the early Advent believers who still had confidence in the Spirit of Propecy?

It was a woman of those that followed him that was the first to preach the good news of a risen Savior. That story of Mary was a frequently repeated theme to affirm and defend women preaching from the pulpit in the early days of the Adve twist Church.

Yes, it is amazing to see to what lengths some will go to avoid facing up to the facts.

I love this Thread! Confounding people with the facts is always most interesting on a message board!

In the matter of EGW, as is well known, humans did not lay hands upon her and ordain her. Humans believed that God had ordained her. So, the question becomes: Is one ordained because humans decided to ordain a person, or is one ordained because humans, in recognition that God had ordained that person, issued the credentials of ordination.

Also... The excerpt from the article from Advindicate, as well as the entire article itself are a classic examples of a straw man argument. (There are truly too many defects of that article to count...) And in both cases the subterfuge totally missing the point that the credentials themselves testify to. It amazes me that anyone can declare with a straight face that "there were no ordained women in the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Ellen White's lifetime" after trying so vigorously to deny the fact of the matter that she herself was in fact recognized during her lifetime as just that! It has only been after she was dead and gone that people have taken these denials to the level they are now. ​What it brings to my mind is a favorite EGW quote of many of these same people that are opposed to WO and in denial about EGW's own credentials giving silent testimony to the fact that she was indeed recognized as being ordained. It is an oft used phrase by EGW about those who misused her words, counsel and testimony. She would say that their efforts made "of none effect" the work of the Lord through her. I have just scanned through numerous examples of her use of that expression. I am amazed at the similarities we can see in what I read in this article and other similar efforts to minimize, ignore, or explain away EGW's own words about women as pastors and that to which her own credentials issued by the General Conference testify. And so frequently they fall back to the old "the office of minster/pastor/elder is different than that of a prophet" canard in an effort to distinguish that it OK for women to be prophets but not ministers. The illogic that a call to be a minister is of so much more of a vital interest to the Church, more important really, than that of a prophet that only a special elect group can attain that high office. It really elevates the role of minister above that of a prophet. They seek to "make of none effect" EGW herself. "For Christ's sake do not confuse the minds of the people with human sophistry and skepticism, and make of none effect the work that the Lord would do. Do not, by your lack of spiritual discernment, make of this agency of God a rock of offense whereby many shall be caused to stumble and fall, 'and be snared, and be taken.'" {5T 691.2} Here is another... "Those who start up to proclaim a message on their own individual responsibility, who, while claiming to be taught and led of God, still make it their special work to tear down that which God has been for years building up, are not doing the will of God. Be it known that these men are on the side of the great deceiver. Believe them not. They are allying themselves with the enemies of God and the truth. They will deride the order of the ministry as a system of priestcraft. From such turn away, have no fellowship with their message, however much they may quote the Testimonies and seek to entrench themselves behind them. Receive them not, for God has not given them this work to do. The result of such work will be unbelief in the Testimonies, and, as far as possible, they will make of none effect the work that I have for years been doing. {TM 51.1}

And I have heard tell of increased evidence of a spirit of unity growing around this issue. It seems that the only sense of a spirit of disunity and discord is coming from the camp of those opposed to WO and women in ministry. That should tell you something.

Inspired by 'Red Tails' Red Tails, opening January 20, 2012, shares the brave story of the Tuskegee Airmen. In this film, starring Academy Award winner Cuba Gooding, Jr., Academy Award nominee Terrence Howard, an African American crew of pilots rise above racial prejudice to become heroes in World War II. Read more at http://www.beliefnet.com/Inspiration/Galleries/Five-African-American-War-Heroes.aspx#G2bJ8EPCr42abfj1.99

Just did a minor upgrade/bug fix... will see how things go..

Might be of interest to some.

"The secret of unity is found in the equality of believers in Christ." - Ellen G. White (1 SM 259)

"Democrats believed it" doesn't mean it's true: Democrats are wrong about many things. The thing about truth - and untruth - is that it is independent of who believes it.

How important is the fulfillment of this prophecy: ?

Back when I was at Andrews I would spend hours in the White estate vault reading. I read a number of letters to some pastors who quoted her a lot, but she complained that despite their massive quoting of her words that they missed her message. That they were developing their own message and using her words as proof and authority. While she did not have these people leave the church she and Willie were very unhappy with them. They and their followers came up with excuses on why they were quoting her correctly and how Mrs. White's criticisms of how they were using her were wrong. The followers of these pastors have developed their own subgroup in the church. Much of what they say is good, and I like having them around to share things that the rest of us may end up over looking. However they have a tendency to latch on part of the message and see it as the whole message and to use their part against the rest of the message. They tend to either be people who are very powerful wanting others to strictly follow them, or else are very passive wanting to be told just want to do and have chosen to follow these leaders. They tend to be passionate and thus attract people looking for a deeper experience. I love to listen to what they have to say, but with a critical ear, especially after reading the letters between them and Mrs. White and Willie White and some of the things that their followers were saying. I've noticed that a large number of those who are opposing women's ordination are the current generation of continuing the message and method of these pastors. (although I have reason to think that if these pastors were alive today they could well have been supporters of women's ordination since they were staunch Wesleyans and these people today have to latch on to a Calvinistic idea to develop their anti-ordination position.) They claim to be Mrs. White's strongest defenders, however these pastors had trouble with her views of 1888 and thereafter, Her views of inspiration were different from theirs, and they had trouble with her views on how she wanted to be used and how she did not want to be used. We tend to see Mrs. White's prophecy as to making no effect the spirit of prophecy: We have tended to see it as people not believing in her works. I have also believed that it would be things such as the Walter Rea issue where they hold one view of inspiration and because Mrs. White and the Bible does not meet their standard that they give up on them. But I am also feeling impressed that there is a third way. A way we all must be careful of. That we become like these pastors who loved to quote Mrs. White and to emphasize that she was a prophet and thus that her message came from God, but to only latch on portions of the message and miss the forest for the trees and push our versions at the expense of the whole message. An additional danger I see when it comes with "Headship" theology is that Mrs. White has told us about what she saw as important in her message. We find it in the 3 aspects of the trinity, and the law of self sacrificing love, the mutual submission of the trinity to the other members of the trinity. The three lies that Satan has developed on how God does not keep his own law but expects everyone else to keep it and if we break it then God can't be both just and merciful but has to be only one or the other. If just he will get you and punish you if merciful he has to do away with the law. If you accept headship theology you just deboned Mrs. White's system and you have a massive collection of words that you can self tailor. You have an aspect of God who does not keep God's law of self sacrificing love, self renouncing love, but who is a tyrant (granted they see him as a good tyrant) who simply demands submission to him. And the Adventist understanding of the law has just been thrown out the window.

The guilt offering described in Leviticus 4 and 5 seems to describe an offering for unintentional sin. Lev. 5:2-6: "‘If anyone becomes aware that they are guilty—if they unwittingly touch anything ceremonially unclean (whether the carcass of an unclean animal, wild or domestic, or of any unclean creature that moves along the ground) and they are unaware that they have become unclean, but then they come to realize their guilt; or if they touch human uncleanness (anything that would make them unclean) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt; or if anyone thoughtlessly takes an oath to do anything, whether good or evil (in any matter one might carelessly swear about) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt— when anyone becomes aware that they are guilty in any of these matters, they must confess in what way they have sinned. As a penalty for the sin they have committed, they must bring to the Lord a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering[a]; and the priest shall make atonement for them for their sin." Lev. 5:17-19: "If anyone sins and does what is forbidden in any of the Lord’s commands, even though they do not know it, they are guilty and will be held responsible. They are to bring to the priest as a guilt offering a ram from the flock, one without defect and of the proper value. In this way the priest will make atonement for them for the wrong they have committed unintentionally, and they will be forgiven. It is a guilt offering; they have been guilty of[e] wrongdoing against the Lord. Of course, this applies once someone realizes in hindsight that they have sinned.

​For me the important issue is that we preach the three angels' message and be united in that. I'm happy to accept what the GC decides on this issue whichever way it goes. Sometimes a spirit if humility and brotherly love is needed when there are divisions over an issue. Without unity the Holy Spirit cannot be poured out. It was the antagonistic spirit of Minneapolis that delayed the second coming. Out battle should be against Satan, not against one another. So we can uphold the righteousness of Christ and the 10 Commandments and the soon return of Jesus.

In answer to Photodude, here is current and reliable scholarship about the female apostle named Junia....

I think this can be a misleading phrase. I assume it's based on Gal. 3:13, which speaks of the curse of the law (if you have some other verse in mind, please let me know). However Galatians 3:13 is a reference to Deuteronomy 28, which speaks of the curses and blessings. If one looks at this chapter, we can see that these curses and blessings are cause and effect, not an arbitrary penalty or reward prescribed by some law. The thought is "if you act contrary to what the law says, bad things will result." When it comes to the moral law, if one acts contrary to it, death results, but not because of an arbitrary act of power on the part of God to execute those who disobey. Rather, God is the source of life, and to act contrary to the law is to act contrary to God's character of love, which is to act according to the principle of self-love, which cannot possible lead to anything but death. One cannot separate oneself from God and live. So even if the law did not exist (e.g. wasn't known about or written down), it would still be the case that those disobeyed it would die.

And none of it has anything to do with her being recognized as an ordained minister by the Church and issued credentials confirming that recognition during her lifetime.

Is there a difference (religiously speaking) between unity and uniformity? Are Catholics and Baptists as "equal" of believers in Christ as Adventists; or does this statement only pertain to the unity of SDA believers in Christ?

The paragraph quoted by Photodude, which seems to have come from advindicate is a classic example of how to string together some isolated sentences, taken out of context. The 1st quoted sentence comes from one paragraph that in context discusses an issue that seems to have arisen between EGW and Dr. Kellogg. Here is an important sentence at the beginning of that paragraph: O.K. The context includes articles in the newspapers. It involves Dr. Kellogg and the medical work of which he was the leader. The second sentence in the cited article skips an entire paragraph. The last sentence in the cited article skips two complete paragraphs and part of the third paragraph. he biggest problem is that the author of that article totally leaves out an important statement from EGW, found on page 238: The question that EGW address was not about human leadership. The cited article misrepresents what EGW actually said.

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. ~ Paul

​Of the thousands of ordained ministers (18,000 plus or minus...) currently employed by the Adventist Church world wide, how many of them can "claim the position of leader of the denomination"? And how many of them are in a position of "authority"? Being a minister/pastor, ordained or otherwise is not about rulership and authority. Having a credential that says that one is an "ordained minister" does not confer upon that person "authority over men" nor qualify the person for a position of leadership. You are barking up the wrong tree. And so is the author of the article you cut and pasted here from Advindicate. Like I said, anything to minimize, denigrate, explain away and deny that EGW in her time was recognized by The General Conference (What was that other discussion about the authority of the GC...) as an ordained minister of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. I don't need to embellish, interpret, insinuate, speculate or give any explanation. The intent of a credential is that it speaks for itself and is self-explanatory of that to which it certifies.

If you will take the time to read the TOSC materials, I think you will find that it really is not a doctrinal issue from the perspective of either side of the debate. That fact is a major factor in the proposed action that will be before the Session this summer. Read it carefully. Not a matter of doctrine, a matter of policy and practice. Big difference. Sadly now many of those vehemently opposed are engaginging in a media fear mongering campaign within church circles to distort, obfuscate, and reframe the issue as something quite different. Repeated sensationalistic headlines and banners about an impending crisis, proclaiming that we are all at risk of various paths to doom. And that brings me to the harping about unity. Or more precisely, the fear mongering that this will bring disunity, even a split in the Church, that it is tantamount to the prophesied shaking, etc. Your observation about the 1888 experience suggests a short one year and everything was all better. I am no expert on that issue and its history, but I don't recall it was that way or that soon or that simple. I don't think that the history subsequent to that shows a genuine adoption of RBF. But to the issue under discussion, this is not going to cause disunity. This has been an issue since the very beginning of the Adventist Church. In my lifetime, all my adult life, more than 40 years now the issue has been studied, debated, discussed and steps take to implement having more women involved in pastoral ministry. In all this years, where is the evidence of fracture because of women being engaged in ministry? It is not women in pastoral ministry or ordaining them that is the catalyst for disunity. It is the hardening of the hearts of the opposition that we see trying desperately to thwart it at all cost that is fomenting a spirit of disunity, even threatening a crisis or worse if this does move forward.

John and Peter were fascinated by Judaism and interested in converting. They had read about “minyan” in shul – the daily prayer services that take place at synagogue, and wanted to participate. John and Peter showed up for the mincha – the afternoon service – around 3pm, although it was scheduled for 5pm. John turned to Peter and said, “Don’t worry dude, only ten more and we’ll have a minyan.”

about all I can say, is that I liked C.A. Murray's necktie...

There are two extremes that we can go to. One is not looking at these at all, the other is looking for prophecies in everything. The book by George McCredy Price "The Time of the End" was one of our more thoughtful and balanced books and surprisingly what it said is what we are seeing. Revelation keeps mentioning the scorching sun in the last days. But the beast is ANY organized group that replaces Christ in our lives and attempts to dictate how we should live. (In a lot of ways the beast and dragon are opposite extremes appealing to different kinds of people; One is "Live as you please for heaven is your home" "There is no right or wrong except for what's right or wrong for you" The other is telling you what to do, instead of a willingness for us as individuals to study and see that there is an ultimate truth that we are going towards, but that the Spirit leads us in applications to us personally and at our point in growth. There is a big difference between sharing and forcing.) During the dark ages and rise of Protestantism the Papacy played a huge role in the 5th head so of course the Holy Spirit would point there. But there is a problem that we have made the whole beast the papacy. Or we want to say that it has nothing to do with the papacy. The typical Adventist thinks we are going to go back into the 5th head of the Holy Roman Empire with the Pope being supreme. The papacy will as it characteristically does, side with the wrong side, but while it will play a role, we are going to move on to the 7th head not return to the 5th head.

The more I read of the early Adventist Church the more I am convinced we need to reclaim our Adventist roots on this very issue. So many have forgotten or were never instructed about our history. I have read and heard of numerous surprised reactions to much of the information about women serving in leadership and ministry in the early Adventist Church. Many, if not most, of our current membership know little or nothing of our own history. Maybe we should require a study in our history along with the baptismal indoctrination.

The specific text that refers to the women elders of Ephesus can be found is 1 Timothy 5:2 Start reading just 4 verses earlier at 4:14 which refers to the body of elders that had ordained Timothy. Paul continues with instructions for Timothy in how he should relate to these elders.

Conclusion of the author... Quote: It is difficult to complete this study without finding that Paul is referring to a woman named Junia, who, together with Andronicus (probably her hus­band), was part of the NT group of apostles. Paul recognized her as one of the apostles, a woman who was willing to suffer for the gospel she was busily spreading.