SS#10 "Women of Mission"--Central Study Hour is banned this Sabbath?

[Woody]

I have seen this discussion many times. One viewpoint I have not seen is how ordination of Women would effect the evangelism in the world church. I am told by people in our fast growing areas that if women were ordained this would seriously hurt the work abroad. Is it really worth it? IF there is a chance this will damage our work overseas, isn't that reason enough to drop the issue?

Also the world church has voted against it. Do we respect the democratic process or do we just plow ahead and do what WE think is right?

Is there any element of selfishness in this movement?

The answer is ... do it where it is needed and accepted by culture and don't do it where it is not.

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

A nation that can place a man upon the moon is – superior; however, that would not argue for a general application of the term.

>>A technological advance or superiority does not translate into being better people spiritually or morally, which is the important point in our discussion about women's position in the church.<<

Note my adverbial ‘however’, which concedes that point.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:John317

>>Besides, how do we know that we Westerners have "naturally evolved" upwards?<<

Quote:jasd

The facts argue the issue.

>>The facts argue the case that we in the West have more "things," greater wealth in terms of possessions, and have made technological progress, but I would make the argument that we have not kept pace with moral or spiritual health or conformity to the will of God.<<

That may be; however, who, other than ‘we Westerners’ have more truly fulfilled the Great Commission?

[Bravus]

The assumption in the original post in the thread is based on a rumor. Is there any evidence at all available on which we can test that rumor? Any evidence at all of such a 'ban'?

[Woody]

This thread could be classified as gossip ... right Stan?

[Ray Phillips]

When dealing with this topic, often more heat then light is generated. Having studied this topic since the late 60's, being related to the first woman who was an ordained chaplin in the US Army, and having dicovered many passages that are not commonly recognized, I could write a book (which I have) on the topic.

In all kindness, there was an error of historical events in the post I am replying to. Ellen White never recieved the oil of human ordination. To claim otherwise undermines her position as a prophet of God. Allow me to illustrate.

If someone is ordained as a pastor, do they have to be ordained as a deacon in order to function as such?

And another issue. If God has called someone, is that call dependent upon humans ratifying it by also calling them?

In brief, the subject of who should be ordained is mentioned in the vast majority of the books of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. I know of no other topic that has as much space dedicated to it in God's word. Surprised? So was I when I discovered it. Why, then has it not been recognized sooner?

1. Why was not the seventh day Sabbath recognized sooner the Rachael Oaks Preston?

2. Why did those who were preaching the second coming of Jesus in the early 1800's not understand the "mistake" of the date of 1844?

3. When translators gave us a translation of the Bible from Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek to whatever language one reads it in, they handled original words in three ways.

a. They translated words from the original language to the target language.

b. They "transliterated" words from the original language to the target language.

c. They "illustrated" the concepts presented into examples of how the principle was applied in other times.

These are the reasons why this topic has not been recognized sooner.

Just one more point. The issue is NOT whether women can be ordained. The real issue is two fold.

1. Will we do things God's way or the way humans do it?

2. The issue in God's word is not the gender of who is ordained, rather their qualifications. Gender is only one point in the list.

This is only a very brief overview of a huge topic. If more information is desired, I'll be happy to share. It is all from God's word.

Happy Sabbath

Maranatha

Ray

[Ray Phillips]

Right on target! Ray

[Ray Phillips]

IT is not of the Lord to hold away from anyone what God's word says on any topic. It is those who know their arguments are faulty who engage in such tatics.

One of the most common warnings to the end time church is regarding being deceived. That being the case, we should be very careful about what "band wagon" we climb on. It might be going in the wrong direction.

This topic is part of a much larger subject. While some may only see it a part of the gender war. To view it in that light is to miss the real importance of the subject. In fact, the gender differences are only really a side-note on the subject.

The real test for all who live at any time in earth's history, much more so, at the time of the end is made clear in the NASB rendition of John 5:30

"I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me." John 5:30

As soon as one hears that the practice of ordaining women, or anyone else for that matter, is not found in the Bible (that is a statement from being uninformed), that alone should be grounds enough to not subscribe to the practice. It is an open admission that human authority has established this practice, not God, by their own admission. Should we follow God or humans?

See, the real issues that Satan will be presnting in the last days are the same ones that he presented when he rebelled in heaven. In short, the issue was worship. Satan wanted to be worshipped as the Son of God was, and when that was not forthcoming he fomented rebellion in heaven. If even 1/3 of the angels were decieved, then should that be a fair warning about staying close to the instructions found in God's word?

There are at least three aspects of worship that are included.

1. The day of worship? I.e. Seventh vs. the first day of the week.

2. How we worship? This includes ever facet of the worship service. Music, dress, decorum, etc.

3. Who should lead out in worship? This included man who do not qualify as much as it does women who do not qualify.

So, any topic that deals with worship should be a topic that we need to be absolutly sure that our practices are firmly based on God's word, not a practice that is openly admitted to be only based on human directives.

In contrast to the open claim that the Bible is silent on the topic, there are the many, many passages of God's word that directly address this topic and the many which deal with the issues involved. The Bible is anything but silent.

Happy Sabbath

Maranatha

Ray

[Ray Phillips]

In response, I'll only post a quotation.

"Eve had been perfectly happy by her husband's side in her Eden home; but, like restless modern Eves, she was flattered with the hope of entering a higher sphere than that which God had assigned her. In attempting to rise above her original position, she fell far below it. A similar result will be reached by all who are unwilling to take up cheerfully their life duties in accordance with God's plan." {AH 115.2}

When we seek a position that God has not called us to, no matter who or what our gender may be, the job God has given us to do is left undone and we will be held accountable.

Happy Sabbath!

Maranatha

Ray

[Jeannieb43]

"Why was not the seventh-day Sabbath recognized sooner than Rachel Oakes Preston?"

The seventh-day Sabbath has been observed all throughout history. Bacchiochi has a book in print which traces all the sources and the entire history of seventh-day Sabbath-keeping ever since Bible times. It is quite didactic, but very thorough.

So we don't need to worry that we're off base in keeping the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath. It's been protected and preserved by some group or other, all through the generations.

[jasd]

>>...the post I am replying to. Ellen White never recieved the oil of human ordination. To claim otherwise undermines her position as a prophet of God. Allow me to illustrate.<<

Not assuming that this post was addressed to me – however, per the “oil of human ordination” ...

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Re EGW:

Certificates of Ordination re EGW exist; regardless, the prescription proffered that 'ministry' as pertains EGW is not in view - in those Certificates of Ordination.

it is not ‘oil’ per se that is in view but rather, “Certificates of Ordination” and “ministry”.

>>If someone is ordained as a pastor, do they have to be ordained as a deacon in order to function as such?<<

That dialectic constructive may obtain were it either established or accepted that that ”pastor” (read “prophet”) – were, indeed – as advanced. Anyway,

if this allusion is a veiled reference to EGW, then I remind that it was she who admonished that she was not a prophet – notwithstanding however else she may have defined herself.

[Ray Phillips]

Somehow, that is not the first time that I have heard that response. There are several points that were made, however, I will only choose to address the last one with this response.

The statement was made:

"Let me add that being right is not all it's cracked up to be. If you don't have love ... you are not worth much. I would propose that both sides of this issue are honest Christians searching and wanting to do what is right. I realize that you feel one side is just having this belief so they can sin. But I don't believe that for one second. Let's have love and tolerance for each other and each others beliefs."

First, allow me to share this inspired statement.

"The love of Christ is not a fitful feeling, but a living principle, which is to be made manifest as an abiding power in the heart. If the character and deportment of the shepherd is an exemplification of the truth he advocates, the Lord will set the seal of His approval to the work. The shepherd and the flock will become one, united by their common hope in Christ." {AA 516.1}

The concept of divine love is one that it seems like few people are well informed on. Jesus recognized that His friend, Peter, was woefully lacking in understanding on the real nature and characteristics of agape or divine love. So He went out of His way to bring him, and us, up to speed on this vital topic.

Much of the "love" that is spoken of today is the counterfeit, not the genuine. Love is a principle, a standard, a solid pillar of truth. Love goes not give in, is not tolerent, is not compromising. For one good reason, although there are many others, no human can know what we should compromise on or not? Lacking that wisdom, the trend would be to tolerate the "not,"and be intolerant on what we should not take a stand on.

See, all the variations of love that come as "standard equipment" to the human are all self-centered. As such, much compromise is necessary. However, a major characteristic of divine or agape love is that it is others centered. It does not seek it's own, but seeks the welfare of the other. As such, it must be dealt with in a very different way.

The response to this statement that is often made is:

"Banning women from being ordained is most certainly not seeking the other person's welfare!!!!"

Quite the contrary. Consider this. If I knew that a bridge that is right around a mountain corner is out. Would I be showing the greatest love by telling an unsuspecting driver to drive as fast as they want to and enjoy! or warn them to not proceed, for the results will be deadly?

The one who loves Christian women the very most is the one who will set aside popular opinion and do all they can to warn them as tactfully as they can of the bridge that it out. God gives us this warning, shouldn't we?

Happy Sabbath !

Maranatha

Ray

[Ray Phillips]

Excellent point. The part of your post I would like to address is this:

"I am told by people in our fast growing areas that if women were ordained this would seriously hurt the work abroad. Is it really worth it?"

This is also true here in the USA. Not a few times, people from other protestant churches who are drowning in the mess this practice introduces, come to the SDA church as it has been billed as a "Bible believing church." When they find women being ordained when the Bible is more then clear on the subject, they leave and become most difficult if not impossible to ever reach again.

As God's Remnant people, we do not have the luxury of indulging in this pagan practice. A practice that started shortly after the flood and has come down to us in an unbroken stream and God has opposed it every time it has appears among His people.

Happy Sabbath!

Maranatha

Ray

[John317]

I remind that it was she who admonished that she was not a prophet – notwithstanding however else she may have defined herself.

She never denied that she was a prophet. Read 1 SM 15-40. She said, "My work has included the work of a prophet but was much more than a prophet." She said several times that the reason she did not call herself a prophet was that the name was abused. She said that if others call her a prophet, she had no objection.

She reports many hundreds of visions and dreams that she said God gave her in order to give to the church and the world. She said that Jesus himself "commissioned her" and that she was a messenger of the Lord with a message for the church. She claimed that angels would wake here up and tell her to write the messages that God had given her through dreams and visions. She claimed that the Holy Spirit illuminated her mind and helped her in writing out of the visions, etc.

We may choose to say she was deceived or lying or whatever, but let's face the facts of what she said and wrote.

[jasd]

Without engaging in an intensive and/or in-depth discussion upon the issue, let me just note that simply ‘keeping’ a periodicity of a recurring Seventh-day is not Biblical.

To assume that it is, is to accept that Gd’s Seventh-day Sabbaths, as given to Moses were ‘floating’ Sabbaths; that is, they are as found demarcated down the right side of our Gregorian (or Xtian) calendar – and as they are found in the Hillel II calendar.

[Ray Phillips]

The last point first.

I have in my files copies of those ordination papers you referred to. Never in any of them does it support the idea that the oil and hands of humans were placed on her in ordination. All these were designed to convey was that she was recognized by the Adventist church as a minister of the gospel.

See, the word "ordination" means:

"to select for or appoint to an office."

This is the "archaic" meaning, not the more current usage. However, the current usages are based on that meaning.

Now the primary point I want to respond to.

"I believe Writ is very clear that the word of Gd is ever evolving as to its understanding..., and a .org, resorting to outright 'indexing', is equivalently approbative of the RCC application to the Librorum Prohibitorum."

Examples of the above evolving of the word of God would be interesting to examine. Note some examples to the contrary.

When two of the disciples of Jesus sadly traveled the road to Emmaus after His crucifixion and resurection, Jesus caught up with them. As they walked, He inquired as to the reason for their sadness. In answer to their response the Bible says:

"And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself." Luke 24:27 (ESV)

If God was evolving, then why go back to Moses?

No, the Bible says:

"For I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed." Malachi 3:6 (ESV)

If the arguments that were presented are accepted, then virtually all of the resons for worshipping on the seventh-day of the week are thrown out. Also, the reasons why the martyrs gave their life are removed. No, God never changes. Sinners must change to be like Him. He does not change to be like sinners.

Happy Sabbath!

Maranatha

Ray

[Ray Phillips]

Well said, I agree

Ray

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

I remind that it was she who admonished that she was not a prophet – notwithstanding however else she may have defined herself.

>>She never denied that she was a prophet. Read 1 SM 15-40. She said, "My work has included the work of a prophet but was much more than a prophet." She said several times that the reason she did not call herself a prophet was that the name was abused. She said that if others call her a prophet, she had no objection.<< [ed.jasd]

Yes, that is the quote I had in mind. Leslie Harding has noted on several occasions that the term prophet is utilized Biblically to identify three separate functions or callings of Gd – only one of which pertains to prophesying. I suppose there may exist, without construction, an argumentation re semantics as to what exactly she meant, as pertains ‘prophet’ in 1 SM 15-40.

>>She reports many hundreds of visions and dreams that she said God gave her in order to give to the church and the world. She said that Jesus himself "commissioned her" and that she was a messenger of the Lord with a message for the church. She claimed that angels would wake here up and tell her to write the messages that God had given her through dreams and visions. She claimed that the Holy Spirit illuminated her mind and helped her in writing out of the visions, etc.<<

>>We may choose to say she was deceived or lying or whatever, but let's face the facts of what she said and wrote.<<

My mother was a true believer in EGW. I prefer, given what I consider questionable practices and passages, to consider her pastoral. Hey! as in Pastor, yes?

[Ray Phillips]

Before long, I will be posting more of the information I have compiled on my web site: http:www.basicsoftheword.com/ for any who are interested.

However, for here, I want to underline answer.

"As for me personally, I believe the Bible teaches that men alone should be pastors and elders of the congregations. I believe that there are many kinds of ministries open to women, such as evangelism, women's ministries, music ministry, children's ministries, etc."

And we agree. Now some support for that from God's word. Many years ago I did some exhaustive study of the prophetic books of Daniel and Revelation. As I have reviewed that work from time to time, I find that I barely touched the surface. However, one rule of interpreting symbols is to go back to the first place where a symbol is introduced and see just what one finds there.

One day I was reading the message to the church at Thyratira, as recorded in Revelation 2. Here is the passage.

"'But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray, so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols.

21 'And I gave her time to repent; and she does not want to repent of her immorality.

22 'Behold, I will cast her upon a bed of sickness, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of her deeds.

23 'And I will kill her children with pestilence; and all the churches will know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts; and I will give to each one of you according to your deeds." REV 2:20-23

Note the points made here by the "faithful and true witness," Jesus, are these.

1. Tyratyra tolerated the symbolic Jezebel.

2. Jezebel called herself a prophetess.

3. Jezebel was leading God's "bond servants" astray.

4. The result was that they commit spiritual adultery.

5. Jezebel has been given time to repent, but has not.

6. God says that all who follow her, He will destroy.

I can only speak for myself. However, if God says that He will destroy people for some practice, then it is a good idea to pay attention.

So, when I saw this, I turned back to the first place where Jezebel is mentioned. That text is:

"And Ahab the son of Omri did evil in the sight of the Lord more than all who were before him.

"And it came about, as though it had been a trivial thing for him to walk in the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, that he married Jezebel the daughter of Ethbaal king of the Sidonians, and went to serve Baal and worshiped him."1KI 16:30,31

This is the first reference to Jezebel in the Bible that I found. Here a few points are made.

1. Ahab did evil in the sight of the Lord, more then all before him.

2. He considered just walking in the sin of Jeroboam as a light thing.

3. He married Jezebel to raise that sin even forther, above all who went before.

(NOTE: Consider that Ethbaal, her father, was the personification of Baal and his wife, or daughter was the personification of Ashteroth, his female consort. Jezebel brought this mind set with her when she came to be the spiritual head of Israel.)

The next thing that caught my attention was the phrase: "The sin of Jeroboam." Just what was/is that sin? The Bible is not ambigious on that either.

"After this event Jeroboam did not return from his evil way, but again he made priests of the high places from among all the people; any who would, he ordained, to be priests of the high places.

"And this event became sin to the house of Jeroboam, even to blot it out and destroy it from off the face of the earth." 1KI 13:33, 34

How much more plain can it be? God consideres the practice of ordaining anyone who will accept ordination, who are not qualified, as a sin and He is very plain that this sin is one He will destroy people for engaging in. That is what the Bible says, not Ray.

Often people respond with a statment something like: "WELL, OUR WOMEN ARE NOT JEZEBEL!!!!"

I find it hard to surpress a laugh when this happens. See, in biblical times, children were named according to the characteristics they exhibited. Or, in some cases, as with Abram/Abraham, their names were changed when their characteristics changed. Imagine the shock that I had when I looked up the meaning of Jezebel. It means "chaste." Or a "Chaste woman." So, "our women are not Jezebel?" Whoops, there is a little problem with that disclaimer, for sure.

This is enough for here except to state that most if not all of the kings of Israel, then Judah, all were credited with walking in the sin of Jeroboam. Oh, I must add one more fact.

God tells us why He sent the Ten Tribes of Israel into oblivion and Judah into Babylonian captivity. Here it is.

"Now this came about, because the sons of Israel had sinned against the Lord their God, who had brought them up from the land of Egypt from under the hand of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and they had feared other gods and walked in the customs of the nations whom the Lord had driven out before the sons of Israel, and in the customs of the kings of Israel which they had introduced."2KI 17:7,8

"And they served idols, concerning which the Lord had said to them, "You shall not do this thing."2KI 17:12

"Also Judah did not keep the commandments of the Lord their God, but walked in the customs which Israel had introduced." 2KI 17:19

"When He had torn Israel from the house of David, they made Jeroboam the son of Nebat king. Then Jeroboam drove Israel away from following the Lord, and made them commit a great sin.

"And the sons of Israel walked in all the sins of Jeroboam which he did; they did not depart from them, until the Lord removed Israel from His sight, as He spoke through all His servants the prophets. So Israel was carried away into exile from their own land to Assyria until this day.2 Kings 17:21-23

There is more, but enough for now.

Happy Sabbath!

Maranatha

Ray

[Ray Phillips]

Redwood

This post demanded a response. I do believe you will see why after I present it. First, your statement.

"This post speaks volumes. It says 'my way is right' and 'those who don't view it MY way are NOT following the Bible and the Lord'. What words would describe this kind of belief? Arrogant? Egotistical? or just plain Ignorant? I'm not sure. I am still tryng to evaluate it. But if this was the way my church was ... I would stay away. Surely there is room for all with out saying to people that they have a certain belief so that they can 'do it their way' (instead of God's)."

OK, it sounds reasonable, or is it? It all hinges on the definition of the phrase: "my way." Let's look at some options.

1. "My Way" is just what I have gathered from out of the blue.

2. "My Way" is a reflection of popular thinking.

3. "My Way" is a regurgitation of what the church presents.

4. "My Way" is a presentation of what God's word says.

If "My Way" is defined as either numbers 1, 2 or 3. Then we would be in agreement. But, what if "my way" is in fact just a reflection of what is presented in God's word? i.e. #4.

Example. If "My way" is to worship God on the seventh day of the week. Is that Arrogant? Egotistical? or just plain Ignorant? etc.? Is "my way" then indeed arrogant, egotistical or ignorant?

The same is true with the issue of "ordaining anyone who will." In fact, the arrogant, egotistical and ignorant way is in fact the one that men have initiated in oppositon to what God has said.

The important thing is not whether it is "my way," but is it "God's way" too.

Happy Sabbath!

Maranatha

Ray

[Ray Phillips]

May I be so bold as to suggest that there is a flaw in that argment? Let's look at it again. Would we agree with it if it was used against a positon we held?

"For what it's worth, I used to be against women's ordination because I thought that there should be some precedence for it in the Bible...then someone showed me that all instances of ordination in the Bible were when God called someone...kind of like how He called EGW. We can't hold EGW in such high regard and yet scorn the idea of women's ordination, even if EGW herself was never "ordained" by the church."

As a historical background, I was a defender of "Women's rights" back in the late 60's and early 70's. It was only when I found that the positions being advocated were in direct opposition to God's plain statements in His word that I found that to be true to my allegiance to God, I could no longer support a pagan practice in the name of being a Christian.

Now, to the popular argument that you advanced, i.e. that in regards to ordination of those who God called. There are several problems here.

1. God is free to call anyone at any time of any gender or social or moral measure. That is God's authority that supercedes ours. God does not have to give an accounting to anyone, especially sinful humans.

2. The issue is not what/who God can ordain. The issue is who can humans ordain? God does not have to answer to you, me or even the GC President. He is supreme and does not need to consult with any human before He acts.

3. The issue is that humans have no, zero, nada, nothing that will give them any authority at all to ordain anyone except those who meet the qualifications found in the Bible. Since God has not given anyone the right to ordain anyone other then those who meet the specifications found in the Bible, that does not include women or men who do not met those qualifications.

Happy Sabbath!

Maranatha

Ray

[Ray Phillips]

First, there is a "theology of ordination." It just takes some time do dig it out as not many have attempted to do so. But, that is beyound the perview of this setting.

You said:

"I do believe that God has called women to work for him as well as men. Whether this ministry is within a church in one of these roles or in other ways - I think that we should not be discouraging them. It can be discouraging enough as it is with Satan's attacks that they don't need to feel undermined by their church. I have seen women verbally and loudly abused within a worship setting for simply being up the front. I'm not asking us to all find agreeance, but for care in how we approach it"

We agree that God calls women to work for Him. That is a no brainer. However, God has not given humans the authority to determine what that role is, seperate from the instructions found in the Bible.

As I see the discussion, it is whether women can fill the role that the Bible has assigned to the qualified male. The answer should be quite obvious, why is it even being debated?

God has forbidden anyone who does not meet the standards He has established to be the shepherds of His flock, from being ordained. Any who seek to set His plan aside are fighting against God, not with any other human.

Happy Sabbath!

Maranatha

Ray

[Ray Phillips]

You wrote:

"The answer is ... do it where it is needed and accepted by culture and don't do it where it is not."

Therefore, keep the seventh day of the week where it is socially acceptable, worship on Friday where that is the accepted day of worship and on the first day where that is socially acceptable. HMMM It seems like there is a problem there, somewhere. At what point has society been elevated to the point of determining truth and doctrine?

Happy Sabbath!

Maranatha

Ray

[Ray Phillips]

In fact the Sabbath was recognized before Rachel Oaks Preston. I only used that point in hisory because it is one that is commonly given as the time when Sabbath was introduced and became formally accepted into the church. In fact, the Seventh-day Sabbath has never totally dissapeared. The reason for using that event is that it was then that the history of the Sabbath became a dividing point in the Adventist church.

Likewise, Martin Luther is seen as the one who introduced "righteousness by faith." Yet, other reformers had presented this long before Luther and it was not until Jones and Waggoner that Adventist started to open up to its beauty. Sorry if I communicated something different.

Happy Sabbath!

Maranatha

Ray

[John317]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

I remind that it was she who admonished that she was not a prophet – notwithstanding however else she may have defined herself.

>>She never denied that she was a prophet. Read 1 SM 15-40. She said, "My work has included the work of a prophet but was much more than a prophet." She said several times that the reason she did not call herself a prophet was that the name was abused. She said that if others call her a prophet, she had no objection.<< [ed.jasd]

Yes, that is the quote I had in mind. Leslie Harding has noted on several occasions that the term prophet is utilized Biblically to identify three separate functions or callings of Gd – only one of which pertains to prophesying. I suppose there may exist, without construction, an argumentation re semantics as to what exactly she meant, as pertains ‘prophet’ in 1 SM 15-40.

Do you study and believe the writings of Leslie Hardinge? He certainly believed in the Sabbath, the non-immortality of the soul, and in the prophetic gift of Ellen White, as well as in the Investigative Judgment. I read his books often and heard him preach when he was pastor of the church in Glendale, CA.

What he said about the prophecy does not affect the prophetic gift of Ellen White.

If you believe it does, please quote him and show how you believe it does relate to our understanding of Ellen White's work.

All you have to do is read what she says in hundreds of different places. Did God reveal things to her in dreams and visions? Did God send angels of God to wake her up at night and did their light fill the room? Did she say that her work included that of a prophet? Did she use language in a way that left any doubt as to her meaning? Please study 1 SM 15-40 and let me know.

Quote:

My mother was a true believer in EGW. I prefer, given what I consider questionable practices and passages, to consider her pastoral. Hey! as in Pastor, yes?

Well, we cannot and should not believe something ONLY because of what our mother's believe, but on the other hand, we should not reject something just because our mother's believed it, and I know a lot of people who have done that.

Sounds like you are looking for a way to lessen her authority and keep from having to take what she wrote seriously.

When you say you "consider her pastoral," is that view in harmony with what she says about herself or her position or work? Does she give you reason to believe that this is the way she believed she should be viewed?

Again, I would urge you to study 1 SM 15-40 or 45.

[John317]

In fact the Sabbath was recognized before Rachel Oaks Preston. I only used that point in hisory because it is one that is commonly given as the time when Sabbath was introduced and became formally accepted into the church. In fact, the Seventh-day Sabbath has never totally dissapeared. The reason for using that event is that it was then that the history of the Sabbath became a dividing point in the Adventist church.

I believe that the Sabbath was being re-discovered about 1800-1850 in fulfillment of the prophecy of Daniel 8, particularly Daniel 8:14. The little horn of Daniel 7 and 8 had thrown truth to the ground and had attempted to change the times and the law. I see the Adventist movement as a response to God's call to rediscover the truths that the little horn power had trampled and tried to hide. That rediscovery of full Bible truth is ongoing and continues to this day.

Quote:

Likewise, Martin Luther is seen as the one who introduced "righteousness by faith." Yet, other reformers had presented this long before Luther and it was not until Jones and Waggoner that Adventist started to open up to its beauty. Sorry if I communicated something different.

Happy Sabbath!

Maranatha :)Ray

Do you see the Waggoner and Jones message as identical to Luther's view of justification by faith?