Deceiving the elect

[ClubV12]

Now if Ron Amnsn would consider the counsel of an excellent author and bible scholar on a high level, Ellen White, he would not be deluded on the question of the sacrafices. But by employing your own private interpretation, how do you know which "spirit" is speaking to you? You've lost your anchor, your a ship adrift, no different than a 1,000 other christian churches and individual attempting to interpret scripture.

This is WHY the Lord has sent the world a prophet for these last days, to help us correctly interpret scripture. Ignore that, and your literally in the same boat with Scientologists or any other off the wall group that call themselves christians.

[jasd]

>>I know what you mean jasd, the "if it were possible" concept for the elect. The key is how do you know you ARE the elect?<<

Yes, “if it were possible” is rather limiting, ain it not? I don’t think anyone knows whether they are the elect, unless Gd tells him/her.

>>Many claimed to love Jesus and He said He didn't even know them!<<

Yes, many think that hyperventilation is love.

>>By the same token that no elect will be deceived, rest assured, those who are NOT elect WILL be deceived!<<

Indeed, they are deceived already. Gd said that He made some vessels fitted... unto destruction – no ‘free will’ implied.

>>The Lord will send a strong delusion to them so they will believe they are correct when they are entirely mistaken.<<

Yes, it is possible that every one of the 30,000-plus Protesting .orgs (as well Catholics and their schismatics) cling to delusions – as singular pillars of faith.

>>Delusions WILL come to all of us at some point and they will be SO difficult to discern truth from error no amount of biblical and Spirit of Prophecy knowledge will be able to discern.<<

Mebbe, that is why St Paul suggests only, “Christ and Him crucified.”

>>Your ONLY hope to avoid deception will be the Holy Spirit.<<

Nah, every wind of doctrine is said to be from the HS. Hope lies with KISS. Christ and Him crucified.

>>There may well be a Spirit impressing you alright, which Spirit will be?<<

That’s the question. It is my thought that in the latter times there will be spirits among us both in spirit form and carnal – manifesting signs great and wonderful – exceeding even those which Jesus Christ performed.

Impressive, as Gd has said that He accompanies [new] ‘truths’ with signs and wonders...

>>So how do you KNOW which Spirit is guiding you?<<

One does his/her best and simply trusts thereafter, not knowing. Is it really for us to know?

>>We are told some folks will be "sincerely mistaken".<<

As was St Peter whilst actually living with Jesus Christ at his side. Thank Gd that He desires to save even to the uttermost...

>>We do have some guidelines in practical terms to help us know. PRINCIPLES we can apply to virtually every issue we come across.<<

Principles often take the form of sow’s ears. “We destroy the man to save the soul.” “We burn him at the stake because Writ forbids that we shed blood.” Sound familiar? It is a principle straight from Holy Writ.

>>Regardless of what you see, hear, what appears to be happening, regardless of the logic and reason IF there is even the slightest thing that conflicts with KNOWN truth or principles this new "theory" or "light" is wrong.<<

Then one can only say, “Thank Gd there are so few KNOWN truths etc.” ...’cause we’s livin’ in maximum theological chaos.

>> this new "theory" or "light" is wrong.<<

Emphasis: not always so, as Gd has concealed the matter until it is revealed. Ipso fact, NEW.

>>You don't need to put your finger on it, you don't need to know why or how to explain it. If it conflicts with known revealed truth and PRINCIPLES of truth, it is wrong.<<

I say again, “Thank Gd there are so few KNOWN truths etc.”

>>Trash talking the Pioneers, like, "Well they didn't know everything and they were wrong on this issue." Maybe they were wrong, maybe not (LIKELY NOT)! "Trash talking" is a red flag right off the bat. It's not how the Holy Spirit works, but another spirit.<< [ed.jasd]

Not a good thing to admit. SDA is the sine qua non where familiarity with “trash talking” is the subject. Note: their constant ‘noise’ re all things Catholic.

>>If your considering the bible and the bible alone, which sounds terrific, if your a Baptist, or a loner.<<

Holy Writ advocates tradition, as well. Then, there is also the historicity, good and bad, of the Apocrypha, no longer Bible... Etc.

>>How accurate are the Methodists with that "bible and bible only" thing, how's that working out for them?<<

Pretty good, one supposes. Different strokes..., y’know.

>>If your a Seventh-day Adventist you would be a FOOL not to consider the counsel of Ellen White on an issue.<<

My mother was seriously EGW. She never permitted cake. EGW had said that the milk and sugar combined to alcohol. Sometimes, it’s best we take things with a grain of salt.

>>That is a virtual gaurentee of being deceived, ignoring light you already have!<<

Have you read EGW’s “Last Will and Testament” vis-à-vis her admonitions to her church re wills and bequeathments?

>>...now the Ellen White bashers, deceived lot that they are, start harping on how Adventists place Ellen White above the bible.<<

What was EGW’s thoughts versus Biblical instruction re cheese?—it doesn’t take more than one misstep to fall.

Remember: a grain of salt.

>>Adventists place Ellen White above the bible.<<

To listen to some people’s argumentations, it not difficult to imagine that they spend more time with EGW than in their Bibles.

>>Its not true of course, they just don't get it, they can't understand the BALANCE.<<

It is somewhat difficult to find the balance in 30,000,000 written words – let alone between them and Writ. How many people actually have read those 30-million words?

Thank goodness, Holy Writ is given in only 788,000 words.

[CoAspen]

[cheddar]

My mother was seriously EGW. She never permitted cake. EGW had said that the milk and sugar combined to alcohol. Sometimes, it’s best we take things with a grain of salt.

Haha - the health message is so dumb. They should call it the un-healthy message because the people who follow it the strictest end up worse than before they started.

I eat fast food on an almost daily basis and I'm way healthier now than I ever was as a vegan. It's not what we put in that corrupts us - it's what comes out. EGW never figured that one out.

[ClubV12]

What was Ellen Whites advice on cheese?

It's wholly unfit for food. No mystery there, no balance to search for, like most of her counsel, plain, simple, easy to understand.

You either believe it, or you don't. You can either eat it, or not. It's not rocket science.

You either buy a sheep so you can sacrifice it, or you don't.

Here's the thing, if you don't believe the counsel, fine. If you try to justify the counsel and skirt the issue and make excuses for why it's OK and post scientific studies showing cheese is OK, who ya kidding? Not the prophet, her position is very clear. So, cut to the chase, call her a liar and move on with your life. Or believe it and move on with your life. Just get off the fence...

[Ron Lambert]

Ron Amnsn, you are entirely correct when you point out that Ellen G. White said we are to test her writings by the Bible, and not the other way around. Her consistent ministry was to uphold Scripture as the SOLE basis for our faith. This means that it is wrong to use her writings as a final word on the interpretation of Scripture, since that would necessarily place her writings above the Bible.

There were some people in her day who were prone to quote anything she said as proof of any topic being discussed. She was so incensed by this attitude that she rebuked it in no uncertain terms at the meeting of church leaders held in the Battle Creek College library at the 1901 General Conference. While some later uses of this statement correct the grammar, I like the way she actually said it, where she was so beside herself that she employed a double negative. She seemed to be speaking with true righteous indignation. The statement in its original form is found in the Spaulding and Magan Collection, p. 167, par. 2 (remember it is Ellen G. White saying this):

"Lay Sister White right to one side: lay her to one side. Don't you never quote my words again as long as you live, until you can obey the Bible. When you take the Bible and make that your food, and your meat, and your drink, and make that the elements of your character, when you can do that you will know better how to receive some counsel from God. But here is the Word, the precious Word, exalted before you today. And don't you give a rap any more what 'Sister White said' -- 'Sister White said this,' and 'Sister White said that,' and 'Sister White said the other thing.' But say, 'Thus saith the Lord God of Israel,' and then you do just what the Lord God of Israel does, and what He says."

We need to beware of an unwise excess of zeal that might lead us to think we are upholding and promoting the writings of Sister White, when we are doing it in such a way that actually might constitute betraying the Spirit of Prophecy with a kiss.

If we truly believe in the prophetic ministry of Ellen G. White, then the very first thing we must do is abide by her counsel concerning the Bible being the sole basis for our faith. Confusion on this point can only inevitably lead, sooner or later, to undermining the Spirit of Prophecy as seen in Sister White's testimonies, letters, articles, and books.

[ClubV12]

Ron, you do realize that quote was a DIRECT referrence to the argument the brethren were having over what was the "daily" in Daniel?

By posting this in relation to the health message and the sacrafice issues currently being discussed you have essentially done exacatly what she was trying to prevent! Taking her quotes out of context.

As it concerns cheese, Dr. Kellogg a man of some reknown when it comes to the digestive system and a knowledge of good foods studied the issue for himself. His conclusion? Same as Sister Whites, it's wholly unfit for food.

The question is: Is it a TEST? No, it's not.

"The question whether we shall eat butter, meat, or cheese, is not to be presented to anyone as a test, but we are to educate and to show the evils of the things that are objectionable."

Selected Messages, Book 3, pg 287

That doesn't change the fact it's not a healthy item for the diet, it should never be introduced to the stomach, period, according to her counsel. Believe it,,,, or not.

[ClubV12]

Lets kick it up a notch....

She continues her counsel after addressing cheese:

"Tea, coffee, tobacco, and alcohol we must present as sinful indulgences. We cannot place on the same ground, meat, eggs, butter, cheese, and such articles placed upon the table. These are not to be borne in front, as the burden of our work. The former--tea, coffee, tobacco, beer, wine, and all spiritous liquors--are not to be taken moderately, but discarded. The poisonous narcotics are not to be treated in the same way as the subject of eggs, butter, and cheese."

Selected Messages, Book 3, pg 287

Hmmmm, interesting, tea and coffee placed right next to alcohol. No need to introduce scientific studies showing coffee is good for you. I will apply the PRINCIPLE of belief in the prophets clear statement. I won't ask WHY coffee is bad, or offer studies showing it's bad, or good. I will simply believe what she says. Therefore, when someone comes around and says, "Coffee is good for you", I know there counsel is not in harmony with the prophet. I don't need to know WHY, or how come, or explain it. When you start down THAT road, your setting yourself up for DECEPTION!

[Ron Lambert]

Club V12, I did not in any way take the statement out of context. Sister White herself chose to pose her rebuke in general terms, without limiting what she said to any specific issues. I repeat, if you want to show you truly value the writings of Sister White, then obey her when she issues counsel so plain and pointed. She said "don't you never" quote a single one of her words again, until you first take the Bible and tell what it says. Saying she was only talking about cheese or some such thing is a ridiculous attempt to claim she was not saying what she really said. She was addressing the greater problem she saw in the way her writings were being used.

[ClubV12]

So Ron, what DOES the bible have to say about cheese, tea, coffee and tobacco as it relates to alcohol?

Or, are you suggesting that we throw out any and all Ellen White counsel that cannot be supported by the bible and the bible alone? Which moves us to the next step: Was the prophet inspired or not?

Back to you...

Continuing her counsel on cheese, coffee, meat, butter, etc. from the same book, next page, we have this:

"They will take the testimonies which have been given for special individuals under peculiar circumstances, and make these testimonies general and to apply in all cases, and in this way they bring discredit upon my work and the influence of the testimonies upon health reform."

Selected Messages, Book 3, pg 288

[Ron Lambert]

ClubV12, the position taken by scholars, including those connected with White Estates, is that when Sister White condemned eating cheese, she was referring to "ripened" cheese, such as blue cheese.

I personally always read the contents listing on everything I buy, and if it contains blue cheese, I pass it by. But that is my take on it, and I would never insist for anyone else that this is a matter so important that they have to come into harmony with my personal way of seeing this. Being zealous about something so trivial is a waste of zeal.

Let me bring to your attention the example given in John 8:3-11, where a woman was caught in the act of adultery, and the Pharisees brought her to Jesus for Him to judge her. Never mind that she was obviously set up; never mind that the man was not also accused. The fact is that she was guilty, and according to the law, she was supposed to be stoned to death. At the end, Jesus said to her: "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more." (v. 11) Bear in mind that JESUS IS THE LAWGIVER. He wrote the Ten Commandments with His finger on tablets of stone at Mt. Sinai. He inspired Moses to write all the additional laws that he wrote. How could the LAWGIVER say to a proven sinner, "Neither do I condemn you?" On what basis was He judging?

I submit to you that in this, Jesus was setting us an example of judging by the Gospel. We all have great need to learn to judge by the Gospel. If this is true of sins involving the violation of the Ten Commandments, then how much more must it be true that we must learn to judge by the Gospel when it comes to health reform issues such as whether we should eat cheese or not, or what kinds? Let us remember our solemn duty before Christ to judge by the Gospel whenever we seek to urge healthful living precepts upon other people.

I have always valued this statement by Sister White about maintaining a healthy spirit in advocating health reform. Sister White said this: "In reforms, we would better come one step short of the mark than to go one step beyond it. And if there is error at all, let it be on the side next to the people." (Counsels on Diet and Foods, p. 468)

[ClubV12]

We have already established eating cheese is not a test. Sister White never made ANY type of cheese a part of her regular diet. She did not differentiate between fresh, old, new or ripe cheese. A careful study of the issue CLEARLY shows this to be the case. Dr. Kellogg was also VERY clear on the issue, SPECIFICALLY condeming fresh cheese that was to be served at a camp meeting. He was so horrified he personally purchased the entire lot and had it thrown away.

This isn't a matter of being zealous or making a list of "must do's" it's just recognizing reality.

Justifying and excusing ones actions is the first step in deception. Look how many times coffee has been discussed on this forum. Why? The counsel is clear, plain and simple. I may still choose to drink coffee (I don't) but I'm not going to lie to myself about it. It's ranked right beside alcohol, which I could also choose to drink. But I'm not going to lie to myself about it, it aint good for you and we don't need a prophet to tell us that.

But we DO need a prophet to tell us about coffee,,,, and cheese. Do what you will with the information. Believe, or not, thats between you and the Lord.

"Some brought cheese to the meeting, and ate it; although new, it was altogether too strong for the stomach, and should never be introduced into it."

Counsels on Diet and Foods 369

The brethren suggesting SOME cheese is OK are DECEIVED on this issue.

[jasd]

>>What was Ellen Whites advice on cheese?<<

Ecchhh! Ecchhh! Ecchhh!—on top also tea; coffee; booze; peppers white, black, hot!; shell fish; spices cinnamon, cloves, etc; opiates; meats; gelatins; grease; mustard; pickles; clay, and slate pencils; ...ad infinitum. Whew!

That leaves as acceptable comestibles – genetically modified fruits, grains, and veggies. Can’t win for losing, eh? We’ll soon all be transhumans.

>>It's wholly unfit for food. No mystery there, no balance to search for, like most of her counsel, plain, simple, easy to understand.<<

That’s a truly prejudiced statement, for the fact is – the matter is debatable, depending on the perspective.

>>You either believe it, or you don't. You can either eat it, or not. It's not rocket science. <<

Indeed!—and I, happily, am never surfeited of good and great cheeses – especially Stilton, with a hot French baguette and Porto. Too die for – and to hear tell – will. As for me and my house – no phony baloney on the table...

>>You either buy a sheep so you can sacrifice it, or you don't.<<

There’s a principle here, right?

>>Here's the thing, if you don't believe the counsel, fine.<<

Exactly. However, you opened the door to this line of discussion with:

Quote:

Quote:ClubV12

If your a Seventh-day Adventist you would be a FOOL not to consider the counsel of Ellen White on an issue. That is a virtual gaurentee of being deceived, ignoring light you already have!

...now the Ellen White bashers, deceived lot that they are, start harping on how Adventists place Ellen White above the bible. Its not true of course, they just don't get it, they can't understand the BALANCE.

>>...and post scientific studies showing cheese is OK, who ya kidding?<<

So, what’s wrong with legitimate scientific studies?—and why would one be “kidding” should one post those scientific studies? Are you trying to say that science is a farce v EGW? (Remember, it was she who made the assertion re milk and sugar combining to alcohol)

>>Not the prophet, her position is very clear.<<

She vociferously denied being a prophet. Her stated position was that – she was greater than a prophet.

>>So, cut to the chase, call her a liar and move on with your life.<<

...never called her a liar. And as far as moving on with my life – it appears to be more of an issue with others than it is with me.

>>Or believe it and move on with your life. Just get off the fence...<<

Were I on a fence – I’d be there for good reason; as it is, you’ll notice, there is no fence sitting chargeable to me. My position is clear v EGW. That, however, does not detract from her admirable pastoral qualifications – and indeed, there are extant – ordination papers to that effect with her name inscribed.

How about that?—Pastor E G White!

[John317]

You have summerized Protestantism aptly ClubV12...

...If everyone is in charge than no one is in charge.

...If one under this rubric is "convicted" that have have interpreted Scripture correctly.

...Then in their mind they are following the Word of God.

Isn't that better than everyone following the wrong person simply because of a groundless claim?

The truth is, God doesn't require us to follow teachings that we are convicted are contrary to the Scriptures. In fact, it would be wrong to do so.

[John317]

She vociferously denied being a prophet. Her stated position was that &#150; she was greater than a prophet.

She never said she was "greater than a prophet."

Here's what she actually said:

Quote:

Some have stumbled over the fact that I said I did not claim to be a prophet; [REFERENCE IS HERE MADE TO A DISCOURSE GIVEN AT BATTLE CREEK, OCTOBER 2, 1904, IN WHICH SHE SAID, "I DO NOT CLAIM TO BE A PROPHETESS."--COMPILERS.] and they have asked, Why is this? {1SM 31.5}

I have had no claims to make, only that I am instructed that I am the Lord's messenger; that He called me in my youth to be His messenger, to receive His word, and to give a clear and decided message in the name of the Lord Jesus. {1SM 32.1}

Early in my youth I was asked several times, Are you a prophet? I have ever responded, I am the Lord's messenger. I know that many have called me a prophet, but I have made no claim to this title. My Saviour declared me to be His messenger. "Your work," He instructed me, "is to bear My word. Strange things will arise, and in your youth I set you apart to bear the message to the erring ones, to carry the word before unbelievers, and with pen and voice to reprove from the Word actions that are not right. Exhort from the Word. I will make My Word open to you. It shall not be as a strange language. In the true eloquence of simplicity, with voice and pen, the messages that I give shall be heard from one who has never learned in the schools. My Spirit and My power shall be with you. {1SM 32.2}

"Be not afraid of man, for My shield shall protect you. It is not you that speaketh: it is the Lord that giveth the messages of warning and reproof. Never deviate from the truth under any circumstances. Give the light I shall give you. The messages for these last days shall be written in books, and shall stand immortalized, to testify against those who have once rejoiced in the light, but who have been led to give it up because of the seductive influences of evil." {1SM 32.3}

Why have I not claimed to be a prophet?--Because in these days many who boldly claim that they are prophets are a reproach to the cause of Christ; and because my work includes much more than the word "prophet" signifies. {1SM 32.4}

... To claim to be a prophetess is something that I have never done. If others call me by that name, I have no controversy with them. But my work has covered so many lines that I cannot call myself other than a messenger, sent to bear a message from the Lord to His people, and to take up work in any line that He points out. {1SM 34.5}

When I was last in Battle Creek, I said before a large congregation that I did not claim to be a prophetess. Twice I referred to this matter, intending each time to make the statement, "I do not claim to be a prophetess." If I spoke otherwise than this, let all now understand that what I had in mind to say was that I do not claim the title of prophet or prophetess. {1SM 35.1}

I understood that some were anxious to know if Mrs. White still held the same views that she did years ago when they had heard her speak in the sanitarium grove, in the Tabernacle, and at the camp meetings held in the suburbs of Battle Creek. I assured them that the message she bears today is the same that she has borne during the sixty years of her public ministry. She has the same service to do for the Master that was laid upon her in her girlhood. She receives lessons from the same Instructor. The directions given her are, "Make known to others what I have revealed to you. Write out the messages that I give you, that the people may have them." This is what she has endeavored to do. {1SM 35.2}

I have written many books, and they have been given a wide circulation. Of myself I could not have brought out the truth in these books, but the Lord has given me the help of His Holy Spirit. These books, giving the instruction that the Lord has given me during the past sixty years, contain light from heaven, and will bear the test of investigation. {1SM 35.3}

At the age of seventy-eight I am still toiling. We are all in the hands of the Lord. I trust in Him; for I know that he will never leave nor forsake those who put their trust in Him. I have committed myself to His keeping. {1SM 35.4}

"And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry" (1 Timothy 1:12).--The Review and Herald, July 26, 1906. {1SM 35.5}

The Work of a Prophet and More

During the discourse, I said that I did not claim to be a prophetess. Some were surprised at this statement, and as much is being said in regard to it, I will make an explanation. Others have called me a prophetess, but I have never assumed that title. I have not felt that it was my duty thus to designate myself. Those who boldly assume that they are prophets in this our day are often a reproach to the cause of Christ. {1SM 35.6}

My work includes much more than this name signifies. I regard myself as a messenger, entrusted by the Lord with messages for His people.--Letter 55, 1905. {1SM 36.1}

I am now instructed that I am not to be hindered in my work by those who engage in suppositions regarding its nature, whose minds are struggling with so many intricate problems connected with the supposed work of a prophet. My commission embraces the work of a prophet, but it does not end there. It embraces much more than the minds of those who have been sowing the seeds of unbelief can comprehend.--Letter 244, 1906. (Addressed to elders of Battle Creek church.) {1SM 36.2}

[John317]

My position is clear v EGW. That, however, does not detract from her admirable pastoral qualifications and indeed, there are extant ordination papers to that effect with her name inscribed.

How about that? Pastor E G White!

How could she have been a good pastor if she said God gave her visions and dreams which He did not give her? And how could she be a good pastor if she deliberately said so many other things about herself that were not true?

There was never given any ordination papers which say she was a pastor.

She was given a ministerial credential years after she had been serving God as His prophet. She received her first vision in December of 1844, and she was given her first ministerial credential along with her husband in the 1860s. The first time she was given the credential in her own name was several years after her husband died.

She never did the work of an SDA minister, baptizing, marrying, or organizing churches. The credential was given to her in order for her to receive reimbursement from the conferences for traveling to churches. The credential was also given to her because she needed to be able to show her reason for traveling as a lone woman. In those days, women who were traveling alone in the larger cities were often taken in by the police on suspicion of being a prostitute. The SDA church did not have a credential for "prophet" or "messenger of God."

Ministerial credentials were given to quite a few women in those days who never worked as a minister of a church but they worked in other capacities related to the gospel, such as teacher, Bible instructor, evangelist, etc. So there was a rather wide range of purposes for giving people ministerial credentials.

Ellen White was never referred to as pastor, elder, or any other name except "Mrs. White" or "Sister White." She never sought to hold an office, nor did she consider herself as a "leader" or "officer" in the church. She simply considered herself a "messenger of God."

[ClubV12]

Which is worse:

Someone who openly disparages the Lords messenger, questions her inspirational gift, her status as a prophet?

OR

Someone who seemingly supports her work, acknowledges she is the Lords messenger then makes of little effect her Testimonies by posting quotes out of context or trying to interpret her writings so they can justify their own behaviour that is at odds with her direct counsel?

I prefer the first group myself. I can barely wrap my head around someone who's been in the Seventh-day Adventist church for years, decades or grew up in the church who STILL questions, distorts and misinterprets her work.

It just aint that complicated and it doesn't take that long to figure out.

Who do you think your fooling? Nobody around you, unless they are as deceived on the issue as you are. Misery loves company. But WHY,,, and this is the part that gets me, that is SO hard to understand,,, WHY lie to YOURSELF??? After multiple years in the church and you STILL don't get it, thats exactly what your doing!

If you like cheese, eat it, eat plenty of it. But don't lie about it. The prophet says it's not good for you. I don't know why it's not, don't care. The prophet said it, I believe it, thats all it takes. You either believe her counsel, or you don't. But stop with the lame excuses and justification about it.

[Dr. Rich]

LOL, yes, very funny indeed. Reminds me of making a choice for the president of the USA--Ha Ha Ha.

[jasd]

Quote:

...because my work includes much more than the word "prophet" signifies.

Quote:

My commission embraces the work of a prophet, but it does not end there. It embraces much more...

Okay, is this better? “The word ‘prophet’ signifies less than what she claimed that she was called to do.”

Quasi-erratum.

Quote:

Quote:jasd

Her stated position was that – she was greater than a prophet.

I am obliged to query, “How does my clause measurably, significantly, or effectively differ from hers?”

[jasd]

Quote:

Quote:jasd

My position is clear v EGW. That, however, does not detract from her admirable pastoral qualifications and indeed, there are extant ordination papers to that effect with her name inscribed.

How about that? Pastor E G White!

>>How could she have been a good pastor if she said God gave her visions and dreams which He did not give her? And how could she be a good pastor if she deliberately said so many other things about herself that were not true?<<

Ahhh, very good questions. Perhaps, one sees why I take such a gimlet eye to self-ascription.

You utilize semantics. Pastor is simply – shepherd. One may have an abominable character and still be a very good shepherd. The proof, aside from the subject of ‘dreams and visions’, that she had the qualifications to shepherd, lies with the fact that she, indeed, did a credible job shepherding those who followed her.

>>There was never given any ordination papers which say she was a pastor.<<

Those papers with her name inscribed were identical to ordination papers other ministers received. Are you saying that those ‘other ministers were, in fact, never credentialed?

>>She was given a ministerial credential...<<

First, the article ‘a’ is incorrect. There are several ordination papers with her name inscribed. That said, I’ll stipulate that my memory may not be what it once was... However, I believe I remember this issue correctly.

>>...years after she had been serving God as His prophet.<<

Ahh, semantics, again. The argument that she was awarded a ministerial credential to simply acknowledge an Honoris Causa – does not detract from the fact that those ordination papers exist.

Did she not eschew worldly recognition?

>>She received her first vision in December of 1844, and she was given her first ministerial credential along with her husband in the 1860s. The first time she was given the credential in her own name was several years after her husband died.<<

That’s a good footnote.

>>She never did the work of an SDA minister, baptizing, marrying, or organizing churches.<<

Okay, an SDA minister, eh?—fact remains that a minister is not necessarily obliged to baptize, marry, or incorporate bodies. Did Jesus Christ?—yet, He was the greatest Pastor of all...

>>The credential was given to her in order for her to receive reimbursement from the conferences for traveling to churches.<<

John317... [/smiling] Honoris Causa?—or claim chits?

>>The credential was also given to her because she needed to be able to show her reason for traveling as a lone woman.<<

So, her credentials were provided to function as an honoris causa, a claim chit, and a get out of jail pass... What else? And here I thought that ordination papers were just that – Ordination Papers.

>>In those days, women who were traveling alone in the larger cities were often taken in by the police on suspicion of being a prostitute.<<

She was not blessed with the gifts of a Mata Hari. It was unlikely that anyone, police included, would have thought her a hooker...

>>The SDA church did not have a credential for "prophet" or "messenger of God."<<

Unfortunate, as they are portrayed as quite an inventive lot.

>>Ministerial credentials were given to quite a few women in those days who never worked as a minister of a church but they worked in other capacities related to the gospel, such as teacher, Bible instructor, evangelist, etc. So there was a rather wide range of purposes for giving people ministerial credentials.<<

If I may... (correct me should I err) I believe that “quite a few women” were not given ministerial credentials, but were, rather, given ministerial licenses.

>>Ellen White was never referred to as pastor, elder, or any other name except "Mrs. White" or "Sister White." She never sought to hold an office, nor did she consider herself as a "leader" or "officer" in the church. She simply considered herself a "messenger of God."<<

However, one who was singularly elevated, as in Arch. Archmessenger?

EGW was a woman deserving much respect for her many accomplishments; however, re the question of her niche role... What ought one to say?

[Overaged]

To much hate on this forum, to many anti-Adventists allowed to run their mouth with to little control. Something needs to be done, or I'm outta here...

[phkrause]

"She followed Paul and the rest of us, shouting, “These men are servants of the Most High God, who are telling you the way to be saved.”

"She kept doing this for many days until Paul became annoyed, turned to her and said to the spirit, "I command you in the name of Jesus the Messiah to come out of her!" And it came out that very moment." Acts 16: 17-18

As patient as Paul was, he knew when to draw the line. To much hate on this forum, to many anti-Adventists allowed to run their mouth with to little control. Something needs to be done, or I'm outta here...

Club I think all should be able to have there say. I know that sometimes it gets really boring to hear the same attacks with no substanse(sp). But if you remember how a few were taking over for a while? Were are they now? Gone as predicted. They had an agenda and when that agenda failed they left. So don't get to grumpy these shall also pass.

[ClubV12]

Personal attacks are not the "same old tired arguments".

[jasd]

“Look!—look at your boy ma, he gives as good as he gets. What a Palooka!”

jasd 12:12 Do not be given to anger as wast Saul, for I required of him his throne, giving it to my servant David.

jasd 12:12 Neither thinkest thou thineself greater than your brethren, as did the Nicolaitians, which thing I hate.

jasd 12:12 For is it not written that I desire man to be humble and of a contrite spirit?—a sweet savour unto the LORD.

Peace bruddas, an’ hey, wahines too.

[John317]

Love that picture and the Bible verse, Overaged.