Leaderboard

Well, this post piqued my curiosity, so I looked up the movie reviews. One thing for sure, I won't go see this movie; it's filled with killing. But it's nice to know that some of the Southern blacks became Adventists through reading the literature supplied to them. We never know the true outreach of our evangelizing efforts.

As I have said, many times. The Biblical issue is not that of ordination. Much of our practice or ordination is not strictly Biblical and stems from culture and other such. Rather it is the role that women should have in spiritual nurture and development. Once we have decided on the role that men and women may have is spiritual nurture and development, we may set them apart by a public ceremony of the laying on of hands, which is typically called ordination. Green has said that God leads by example. Well, in Biblical times, women were given the role of a prophet, which Biblically is that of speaking in human terms the message that God wants to give to humanity. In recent times the SDA denomination has issued the credentials of an ordained minister to a woman. That woman was Ellen White. She carried such credentials for a number of years and they were re-issued a number of times as they expired. Yes, it is true that the SDA denomination never had a public ceremony in which denominational leaders laid hands upon EGW and set her apparat to be a prophet. The reason was simply that it was believed that God alone had the authority to do such. The credentials that she was issued constituted the denominations recognition that God had set her apart in that role. Denominational history clearly shows EGW as scolding denominational leaders when they failed to do what God wanted. From this standpoint, one cannot imagine that EGW would ever accept the credentials of an ordained minister, if it would violate the will of God for women to be ordained. Non-SDA clergy understand the issue being that of spiritual role. They are literally dumbfounded by a denomination that was co-founded by a woman having any issue of female ordination. What we as a denomination do to get around the issue of female ordination simple does not make a bit of sense to a logical person. 1) We give women ministerial licenses, as has just been done by the Panama Conference and has been done in the early 1900s. 2) We "commission" women to ministry in a public ceremony that includes the laying on of hands. 3) We place a female in the position of a General Conference Vice-President, but tell women that they cannot be elected as a local Conference President. All in all, much of our actual practice as it related to women in ministry constitutes legalistic nit-picking that does not make a bit of sense. NOTE: On another issue, Musicman has shared his view that SDA clergy cannot remain employed and disagree in the smallest way with denomination what is set in stone (my words) as SDA belief. What I have said here I have said publicly to a greater or lessor degree for more than 30 years and I have never be questioned on it.

I am so sorry. My condolences and prayers.

It seems to me that the biggest issue here is NOT whether the SDA church here is willing to Ordain Females, but rather some people are refusing to believe that G-d can, has, and WILL use anyone who will work for him. And those who are called by him and respond might be female. We have seen over and over and over in history that G-d will use anyone who is willing, many times in history it has been recorded as male individuals, but sometimes he uses females. We need to stop closing our minds and hearts to WHO G-d is using, and start opening our hearts and minds to the fact that He will use any method it takes to reach someone.

Here's the link. https://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ideology-harms-children

By the way Green, I had begun to wonder what had happened to you and if you had left. Glad you still hang around.

As I look at the ministry of EGW, I do not see her muting her voice and keeping silent when denominational leadership failed to follow the will of God. And you tell us that she did this in the name of peace. I cannot buy this.

I had thought that there was a video recording. On FB someone posted a video which was very bad. Have not found one as of yet that you could even understand what was being asked, etc. Anyone else find one they can post? I actually thought the comments were more interesting than the write up.

God sees fit to teach us through the examples He has given in His Word. Based on those examples, God has informed us of His particularity in choosing certain ones for certain duties. Not just anyone can do any duty, no. In Bible times, one who attempted to do the church work of another did so on pain of death….yes, death! Every time the Bible puts the "ultimate price" on doing something, it holds deep significance for us, and God intends for us to pay attention. Unfortunately, many are not paying attention in our church today. Wake up, people! Time is short! The devil walks about, seeking whom he may devour! He doesn't eat us literally, but rather via deceptions and lies. Let us not be among that number who are taken in by them. Let us, then, base our views on a plain "thus saith the LORD." It is our only safety in these times.

I know but it can also simply mean "detestable things": ◄ 8251. shiqquts ► abominable idols (1), abomination (4), abominations (5), detestable (1), detestable idol (3), detestable idols (2), detestable things (10), detested things (1), filth (1). I also checked the duTillet Hebrew version of Matthew to see if another word was used but I'm afraid that the word study won't sway my other evidence. Time will do the trick though. In Matthew, where the Master Teacher referred to, "abomination" is from the Greek: ◄ 946. bdelugma ► Short Definition: an abominable thing, an accursed thing Definition: an abominable thing, an accursed thing. 946 bdélygma (from 948 /bdelýssō, derived from bdēō, "to reek with stench") – properly, what emits a foul odor and hence is disgustingly abhorrent (abominable, detestable); (figuratively) moral horror as a stench to God (like when people refuse to hear and obey His voice). I just can't see: "And they shall set up the abomination that makes desolate from Daniel 11. Having anything to do with: "telling them to make an image for the beast that was wounded by the sword and yet lived. In my view, the "image" for the beast will be a carbon copy duplicate of the beast that Napoleon's General Berthier put out of commission in 1798. This is not going to be a statue or figurine of the Antichrist. This will be another composite of a church/state power that will be enabled to persecute God's people just like in the Fox Book days. But whatever the exact detail of this thing is, I don't see it as being the AoD. The AoD happens first, then there will be great tribulation, then the first beast rises and then the second beast tells them to make an image for the beast that was wounded by the sword and yet lived. Daniel 11 doesn't say anything about a holy place, does it? I think that's because after the curtain was rent that place wasn't holy anymore. If Samie's view is correct, we may have many years to go. If Dave's view is correct, we may not have the remainder of this year before something happens. At this point I'm not sure we're going to be able to understand the AofD. It might have been put there for God's Glorification that we will marvel over when we get inside New Jerusalem and (let the reader understand). And the land vomited out it's inhabitants (became desolate). You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. And you shall not lie with any animal and so make yourself unclean with it, neither shall any woman give herself to an animal to lie with it: it is perversion. “Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things, for by all these the nations I am driving out before you have become unclean, and the land became unclean, so that I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. But you shall keep my statutes and my rules and do none of these abominations, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you (for the people of the land, who were before you, did all of these abominations, so that the land became unclean), lest the land vomit you out when you make it unclean, as it vomited out the nation that was before you. For everyone who does any of these abominations, the persons who do them shall be cut off from among their people. So keep my charge never to practice any of these abominable customs that were practiced before you, and never to make yourselves unclean by them: I am the Lord your God.”

Hollywood is releasing a film this week (Free State of Jones) that is about a SDA man and his social experiment. See: http://atoday.org/movie-free-state-jones-tells-story-behind-adventist-family.html Set during the Civil War, Free State of Jones tells the story of defiant Southern farmer, Newt Knight, and his extraordinary armed rebellion against the Confederacy. Banding together with other small farmers and local slaves, Knight launched an uprising that led Jones County, Mississippi to secede from the Confederacy, creating a Free State of Jones. Knight continued his struggle into Reconstruction, distinguishing him as a compelling, if controversial, figure of defiance long beyond the War.

But this was not the way it was supposed to be. Barak was supposed to have confidence in the Lord and not just look at Deborah as a charm. Idealy Barak was himself was supposed to lead, not Deborah.

I am so glad you brought up this point. This is what the whole discussion SHOULD be, however that is not what the discussion has become. When I was at the Seminary one of the professors, Elder Holmes, wrote a book called "The Tip of the Iceberg" which saw the ordination of women as a view of the liberal theologians and that if we ordained women then all kinds of liberal theology would flood the church. The arguments for women's ordination at that time was that the liberal scholars believed that Paul was against women leadership, but with their not seeing the Bible as really inspired we should not be slaves to his prejudice. That he was living in a culture were women were second class citizens, and this cultural bias was reflected in his writings. We are in a different culture and thus we should free ourselves from those cultural biases. And yes, the argument started out whether or not the Bible is authoritive over us. The conservative scholars saying "Yes" and the liberal scholars saying "No". Both groups believed that these texts were against women in ministry and one group says "It is the Bible so we must follow" the other saying "So what if it is the Bible, we don't have to follow." If this was the current issue I would be very strongly anti-ordination. However over the years the CONSERVATIVE scholars have made discoveries, both Adventists and non-Adventists. These discoveries raised the question "Are we correctly interpreting these texts". As this was discovered Adventists found that James White and others of our pioneers were arguing against the popular interpretation back in the 1800s. Was James and the others liberals who did not submit to the authority of the Bible? If he was one then I am one. About within the past few years the New York Conference of Seventh-day Adventists had a historian from Andrews review their documents and history. It was discovered that in the first decade of the 20th century conferences had decided to ordain women and New York was going to ordain one and she was approved by the Atlantic Union. We would have except that Elder A. G. Daniels asked them to "Wait" just a little bit. That he agreed that women should be ordained but pointed out that there were a number of members who thought that the ordination of women was not Biblical and that they needed to be educated to know that it was indeed Biblical and that he did not want to confuse them until they were educated. May I ask why you want the church to remain in ignorance on this topic? Soon after this Mrs. White wrote some more articles about women in ministry. Was Mrs. White a liberal theologian? Right now an argument is that why did Mrs. White write about women in ministry when Elder Daniels promised the conferences and unions that he was going to encourage education among the members for the expressed purpose to ordain women. Why didn't she write letters to Elder Daniels and the conference and union Presidents and tell them they were wrong and nib it in the bud? (sadly it got overshadowed with the fight over Fundamentalism and the events leading to the 1919 Bible conference and 1923 Bible conference and fell by the wayside. We are now returning to where we were then.) Now the critics of women's ordination look at this information and say "Elder Daniels did not always tell Mrs. White what was going on. We don't see any documentation of him contacting her about it. Thus it is safe to assume that Mrs. White was ignorant about what the conferences wanted to do, and that she just had bad timing in writing those articles about women in ministry because of her ignorance on what was going on. Had she known she would not have written those things but instead write against women in ministry."

Because he believed that Deborah had a direct line to God. Barak believed that God would not let his prophet be killed, so he thought that if she was with him, then his army would be "safe" (victorious). God could also give directions to his army through Deborah.

Barak refused to go into the battle without Deborah.

I would say the majority here are middle of the road, based on 'my' interpretation of such.

Hmmmmm...it seems to me, as I read this, that it is more about a persons dislike for female equality. Since God declared all humans equal......maybe He didn't mean that? I seem to remember something about 'backbiters' in the NT and what Gods thought were about doing that. Did EGW mean this or did EGW say that.....I thought the subject was about what God says and means.

Did Deborah lead the army or did Barak?

Really? Some don't vote for OTHER reasons...they're not just drifting through life with no sense of others or community, stumbling blindly along, etc, etc, etc... Life life fully: Walk a mile in someone else's shoes before judging them. Keep in mind there are 16+ million children in America alone whose families struggle to even keep shoes on their feet in the first place. When people are more worried about where they are going to get their next meal, they really couldn't give a flip as to whether or not they're going to vote. /out

Rossw: I consider myself to be a "middle of the road" SDA. I think that this is supported for the following reasons: 1) I am considered to be conservative by some who know me. 2) I am considered to be liberal by others who know me. 3) In my personal life, I am generally more conservative in what I practice than in what I say. IOW I tend to support in others more than I do.

Writing yesterday, Musicman said the following about Sammie. The problem with what he said is that every sentence in the quote below is false, at least in part. To start out, as is well known by people who post here, Sammie is NOT a SDA pastor. He is not employed by the SDA Church. I am uncertain as to what Musicman meant in his reference to the 28 fundamental beliefs. If his point of reference was all that is contained by the book of that name, the statement is deceptive as it should be remembered that the book allows a wide range of belief as opposed to one set formulation of that belief. If his reference is to the officially voted statement of belief Adventist pastors would be expected to maintain their teaching within a range of boundaries. And they would be allowed some variance in belief. The idea that pastors filter their beliefs through the formulated 28 is again false. Musicman simply seems to have a limited knowledge of SDA pastors and their ministry and beliefs. Yes, there is some truth in the idea that if a pastor goes against the 28 his/her employment may be called into question as there are boundaries. But, to say that will happen if the pastor goes against the 28 "in any way" is simply not true. In reading his posts, I get the idea that Musicman has formulated many of his ideas from personal experiences that he has had and from those of other family members who were SDA. I cannot deny his experience. But, it is inappropriate for one to take individual experiences and generalize them to apply them to the denomination as a whole today. I know a former SDA Woman who experienced spiritual abuse more than 50 years ago. I know another who experienced sexual abuse. Their experiences cannot be denied. What happened to them was real. But, it would not be fair to take their experiences and generalize them to the entire denomination today. All in all, the statement that Musicman made below reflects a bias and a lack of openness.

I'll admit I'm not those most Biblically literate person. I do read and study as a hobby on the side from my full time job and learn what I can. What I am able to do is examine the evidence provided by others and determine if it supports the position. Greg, thank you for helping me show Kevin comparing Jesus to other Rabbi is problematic. I didn't need to know everything about them to make a point.

I'm sorry Greg but none of those verses present Priscilla as an "ordained" female priestess. My wife is well versed in Scriptures but if just because we had a home church does not make her necessarily the headship leader of the church or an ordained priestess. Of course I'm not a theologian but to me those verses can, at most, only prove Priscilla was an effective Bible worker.

Kevin, I'm a interested in the evidence you've received or are still to receive. In Acts 18 there is nothing tying Priscilla to any official capacity in the church. Only that they came from Rome and were tent makers. If there is any other Biblical references to her I've missed I'm sure members here will let us know. There seems no Biblical reason to assume Jael was a priestess either. Right now your connection is only because these women are in Scripture they must be priestesses. I don't see that connection at this time but of course I'd like to see the scolastic evidence.

A few things I would take into consideration with the new evidence is if Israel had female priests in appostacy? Israel did many things in disobedience such as divorce etc. Is this evidence available to all? What kind of evidence is it? Is it Biblical evidence or is it an extra-biblical source? If it's extra-biblical should it be used if there are discrepancies with Scripture?

Please remember, all. There were no female priests of Israel interceding for sins. Women do have their spiritual place but were never in leadership.

NIV84 | ‎Is 64:6 All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away.

My guess would be californium (Cf) - as a 'transuranic' element it has to be made by humans using alchemy a particle accelerator.

Amen, amen, and again - AMEN!!! I would further suggest that people here quit responding to existing threads about gays.