Is WOPE a Pagan practice?

[Overaged]

lol, some of us dont do ALL of those things EC...

[M. T. Cross]

lol, some of us dont do ALL of those things EC...

Thats good, you don't want to be like the pagans :)

[Overaged]

Originally Posted By: Overaged

lol, some of us dont do ALL of those things EC...

Thats good, you don't want to be like the pagans

Well that's not quite true either!

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

2. Deborah and Huldah were the Spiritual Leaders of Israel/Judah and were chosen by God to rule over all the men. Even the male kings were subject to Huldah's Authority. These two Biblical examples put your false assertion on the junk heap.

I would be interested to see references from the Bible that say Deborah and Huldah were "appointed to rule over all the men."

You can find what you are looking for in:

1. Judges chapter four for Deborah.

2. 2Kings chapter twenty-two and 2Chronicles chapter thirty-four talk about Huldah.

[Overaged]

You can find what you are looking for in:

1. Judges chapter four for Deborah.

2. 2Kings chapter twenty-two and 2Chronicles chapter thirty-four talk about Huldah.

Thank you miz3; I appreciate those references. I thought that they might be what you were referring to; but I did not want to take words out of your mouth, so I thought it better to ask first.

I am not sure I understand why anyone would say that Huldah and Deborah were "appointed to rule" over anyone, men or women. I find that quite puzzling, in light of the fact that the Bible only uses the term "prophetess" when describing them. The role of "prophetess" is much different than a ruler. Prophetess and ruler are two different words, each denoting something different.

Can you tell us the exact texts in either 2 Kings 22, or 2 Chron 34 that specifically says Huldah was appointed to rule over anyone? I have just re-read both of those passages, and I don't see it. Of course; I am tired right now, so maybe I am missing the obvious? Please let me know what you think.

It looks to me like Huldah was called upon to interpet the Lord's plans regarding Israel, because Israel had found some of them were not keeping God's word as contained in "the book of the law." Huldah disclosed that God would punish those who deliberately disobeyed, and that God would "perform the words of the covenant which are written in this book." (see vs. 31).

Josiah was the King then (see vs 33), and he apparently, of his own accord started "taking down the high places" in the land, but there is just no mention of Huldah being appointed to rule" over anyone, the Bible is clear that this is not the usual role of a "prophetess." Neither a prophetess, or a prophet would usually be appointed by God "to rule" over anyone. Judging as a prophetess was clearly a different role than being a ruler.

[Overaged]

1 Kings 13:33-34; After this event Jeroboam did not turn from his evil way, but again he made priests from every class of people for the high places; whoever wished, he consecrated him, and he became one of the priests of the high places. And this thing was the sin of the house of Jeroboam, so as to exterminate and destroy it from the face of the earth. (NKJV)

God's judgment on this practice is clear. So, I seriously doubt the Jews were consecrating priests for all those centuries. Those supporting WOPE seem to steep to any means to validate their own personal beliefs. And that's ok, until they want to force those beliefs on others.

In the passage you quoted, God is not "judging" women being made priests or elders:

Vs 33 tells us "Jeroboam returned not from his evil way, but made again of the lowest of the people priests."

If we go by what you say here as to what vs 33-34 say/mean; then it means you are calling women "the lowest of the people." Obviously, that is nowhere near being true.

What these two verses are telling us is that it is not OK for anyone who wants to, to be a priest. Period.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

You can find what you are looking for in:

1. Judges chapter four for Deborah.

2. 2Kings chapter twenty-two and 2Chronicles chapter thirty-four talk about Huldah.

Thank you miz3; I appreciate those references. I thought that they might be what you were referring to; but I did not want to take words out of your mouth, so I thought it better to ask first.

I am not sure I understand why anyone would say that Huldah and Deborah were "appointed to rule" over anyone, men or women. I find that quite puzzling, in light of the fact that the Bible only uses the term "prophetess" when describing them. The role of "prophetess" is much different than a ruler. Prophetess and ruler are two different words, each denoting something different.

Can you tell us the exact texts in either 2 Kings 22, or 2 Chron 34 that specifically says Huldah was appointed to rule over anyone? I have just re-read both of those passages, and I don't see it. Of course; I am tired right now, so maybe I am missing the obvious? Please let me know what you think.

It looks to me like Huldah was called upon to interpet the Lord's plans regarding Israel, because Israel had found some of them were not keeping God's word as contained in "the book of the law." Huldah disclosed that God would punish those who deliberately disobeyed, and that God would "perform the words of the covenant which are written in this book." (see vs. 31).

Josiah was the King then (see vs 33), and he apparently, of his own accord started "taking down the high places" in the land, but there is just no mention of Huldah being appointed to rule" over anyone, the Bible is clear that this is not the usual role of a "prophetess." Neither a prophetess, or a prophet would usually be appointed by God "to rule" over anyone. Judging as a prophetess was clearly a different role than being a ruler.

Who appointed (called) Huldah to be a prophetess? Was it not God? God called Huldah just like He called Moses, Samuel, etc. to be God's Mouthpiece. These men and women were to be the Mouthpiece of God to the Nation (Judah/Israel). That puts such "called persons" as the Highest Authority on Earth because these ones are speaking what God the real ruler wants all His kings, His priests, His people etc. etc. to do/be. As such Huldah and the other prophets called by God indeed did rule the "roost so to speak" because their Word was the Word of God.

So you see the role of prophet/prophetess encompasses being the ruler/the priest/the spokesperson of God. It is a much higher Authority than any king and/or priest because such person was both king/priest/and more by virtue of their calling from God.

Remember Samuel was much higher in Authority than the king and/or priest because he too was God's Spokesperson. Thus, when they spoke they were speaking for the Ultimate Authority, God.

Josiah and the other "male authorities" called on Huldah because they recognized her Authority from God. If Huldah was "less than them in authority before God" they never ever would have asked Huldah in the first place. The FACT that they asked Huldah is a stark and obvious signal that she was higher in Authority in every way (be it king/priest/ruler/etc.) than any of those men, ye any in all Israel/Judah.

Surely your not saying that God's Word is less in Authority than the king/priest/ruler/etc? Since Huldah was expressing the Word of the Lord God, then in those expressions she was indeed the defacto/dejuri ruler of all Israel/Judah. Her rule would in FACT be absolute from which there is no appeal.

A king's and a priest's ruling could always be appealed directly to God, but when a prophet like Deborah/Huldah/Samuel/Moses spoke the Word of God there is no appeal.

Thus, no human can rule more absolutely than that. That was precisely the whole point of God calling prophets/prophetesses so that God had a direct line of ruler ship to all the other humans on the earth. Thus, Deborah/Huldah/Moses/Samuel/etc. You remember Jonah, well Jonah was God's Authority over the people of Nineveh (including their king).

I know from your posts here on Club Adventist that you believe in the absolute Authority of Ellen White as speaking(communicating) God's Word and that as such their is no appeal higher because these words in your view are inspired and direct from God. As such then by practice (even if not by intellectual assent)you accept Ellen Whites Authority over all other human powers (the GC, Presidents/Administrators/Pastors/etc.). As such you again by practice (even if not by intellectual assent) recognize Ellen White's Authority to actually be a ruler over said Presidents/Administrators/Pastors/etc. Thus again by practice (if not by intellectual assent) you accept her role as Prophet to include that of President/Administrator/Pastor/etc. In FACT Ellen White did direct the nuts and bolts activities of SDA Church by her testimonies to its Presidents/Administrators/Pastors/etc.

Thus, in the Bible and even in the SDA Church .org and by your own Club Adventist posts you have already recognized "women" as having been called by God to Rule over men (as in males) and that God calls such prophetess to actually rule and wield authority.

I hope this clears up your confusion. I hope this fills up the parts you missed. It is easy to do when one is tired.

[Overaged]

Josiah and the other "male authorities" called on Huldah because they recognized her Authority from God. If Huldah was "less than them in authority before God" they never ever would have asked Huldah in the first place. The FACT that they asked Huldah is a stark and obvious signal that she was higher in Authority in every way (be it king/priest/ruler/etc.) than any of those men, ye any in all Israel/Judah.

Surely your not saying that God's Word is less in Authority than the king/priest/ruler/etc? Since Huldah was expressing the Word of the Lord God, then in those expressions she was indeed the defacto/dejuri ruler of all Israel/Judah. Her rule would in FACT be absolute from which there is no appeal.

A king's and a priest's ruling could always be appealed directly to God, but when a prophet like Deborah/Huldah/Samuel/Moses spoke the Word of God there is no appeal.

Thus, no human can rule more absolutely than that. That was precisely the whole point of God calling prophets/prophetesses so that God had a direct line of ruler ship to all the other humans on the earth. Thus, Deborah/Huldah/Moses/Samuel/etc. You remember Jonah, well Jonah was God's Authority over the people of Nineveh (including their king).

I know from your posts here on Club Adventist that you believe in the absolute Authority of Ellen White as speaking(communicating) God's Word and that as such their is no appeal higher because these words in your view are inspired and direct from God. As such then by practice (even if not by intellectual assent)you accept Ellen Whites Authority over all other human powers (the GC, Presidents/Administrators/Pastors/etc.). As such you again by practice (even if not by intellectual assent) recognize Ellen White's Authority to actually be a ruler over said Presidents/Administrators/Pastors/etc. Thus again by practice (if not by intellectual assent) you accept her role as Prophet to include that of President/Administrator/Pastor/etc. In FACT Ellen White did direct the nuts and bolts activities of SDA Church by her testimonies to its Presidents/Administrators/Pastors/etc.

Thus, in the Bible and even in the SDA Church .org and by your own Club Adventist posts you have already recognized "women" as having been called by God to Rule over men (as in males) and that God calls such prophetess to actually rule and wield authority.

I hope this clears up your confusion. I hope this fills up the parts you missed. It is easy to do when one is tired.

Unfortunately, [this] explanation fails the test of the Bible.

First, there is no such thing as "SDA Church.org" and [the] use of this ... derogatory terminology shows a non-biblical stance.

Second, no prophet male or female rules the country they are a prophet in. When a King or Queen asks a Doctor if they should work on a given day because of a health problem, and the Doctor says "no;" it does not follow that the doctor rules the country.

Both passages that you quoted re Huldah/Deborah make clear distinctions between prophetess and ruler. Just because a King or a Queen asks a spiritual authority a question; and they then accept that answer; it does not follow that said prophet/prophetess rules the country. Infact with Josiah; we are told he dismantled all the "high places", or began the process of, with no input from the prophetess. He apparently followed the Lord quite well without her when needed.

My posts about Ellen White here do not reflect that I see women being called by God to rule over men. ...you wont find a post by me anywhere on this forum that says that, not even if you go back 12 years. Ellen White did not, and does not rule over men, or women. That is making a ... mockery of her prophetic role - is that what you [meant]? She certainly did not ever "rule" the Church. Our church is not set up like that at all.

The OP asks the question; is WOP a pagan practice? The answer is a resounding no. The reason being is because any Godly woman who is after God's own heart, would not seek to "rule" but rather, to minister to the people, for Jesus, both in and out of the Church. Many men and women are called to the prophetic role, but I have yet to see a text that tells us that anyone, male or female, is supposed to "rule the church" or the country that they live in if they are called to be a prophet or prophetess.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

Josiah and the other "male authorities" called on Huldah because they recognized her Authority from God. If Huldah was "less than them in authority before God" they never ever would have asked Huldah in the first place. The FACT that they asked Huldah is a stark and obvious signal that she was higher in Authority in every way (be it king/priest/ruler/etc.) than any of those men, ye any in all Israel/Judah.

Surely your not saying that God's Word is less in Authority than the king/priest/ruler/etc? Since Huldah was expressing the Word of the Lord God, then in those expressions she was indeed the defacto/dejuri ruler of all Israel/Judah. Her rule would in FACT be absolute from which there is no appeal.

A king's and a priest's ruling could always be appealed directly to God, but when a prophet like Deborah/Huldah/Samuel/Moses spoke the Word of God there is no appeal.

Thus, no human can rule more absolutely than that. That was precisely the whole point of God calling prophets/prophetesses so that God had a direct line of ruler ship to all the other humans on the earth. Thus, Deborah/Huldah/Moses/Samuel/etc. You remember Jonah, well Jonah was God's Authority over the people of Nineveh (including their king).

I know from your posts here on Club Adventist that you believe in the absolute Authority of Ellen White as speaking(communicating) God's Word and that as such their is no appeal higher because these words in your view are inspired and direct from God. As such then by practice (even if not by intellectual assent)you accept Ellen Whites Authority over all other human powers (the GC, Presidents/Administrators/Pastors/etc.). As such you again by practice (even if not by intellectual assent) recognize Ellen White's Authority to actually be a ruler over said Presidents/Administrators/Pastors/etc. Thus again by practice (if not by intellectual assent) you accept her role as Prophet to include that of President/Administrator/Pastor/etc. In FACT Ellen White did direct the nuts and bolts activities of SDA Church by her testimonies to its Presidents/Administrators/Pastors/etc.

Thus, in the Bible and even in the SDA Church .org and by your own Club Adventist posts you have already recognized "women" as having been called by God to Rule over men (as in males) and that God calls such prophetess to actually rule and wield authority.

I hope this clears up your confusion. I hope this fills up the parts you missed. It is easy to do when one is tired.

Unfortunately, [this] explanation fails the test of the Bible.

First, there is no such thing as "SDA Church.org" and [the] use of this ... derogatory terminology shows a non-biblical stance.

Second, no prophet male or female rules the country they are a prophet in. When a King or Queen asks a Doctor if they should work on a given day because of a health problem, and the Doctor says "no;" it does not follow that the doctor rules the country.

Both passages that you quoted re Huldah/Deborah make clear distinctions between prophetess and ruler. Just because a King or a Queen asks a spiritual authority a question; and they then accept that answer; it does not follow that said prophet/prophetess rules the country. Infact with Josiah; we are told he dismantled all the "high places", or began the process of, with no input from the prophetess. He apparently followed the Lord quite well without her when needed.

My posts about Ellen White here do not reflect that I see women being called by God to rule over men. ...you wont find a post by me anywhere on this forum that says that, not even if you go back 12 years. Ellen White did not, and does not rule over men, or women. That is making a ... mockery of her prophetic role - is that what you [meant]? She certainly did not ever "rule" the Church. Our church is not set up like that at all.

The OP asks the question; is WOP a pagan practice? The answer is a resounding no. The reason being is because any Godly woman who is after God's own heart, would not seek to "rule" but rather, to minister to the people, for Jesus, both in and out of the Church. Many men and women are called to the prophetic role, but I have yet to see a text that tells us that anyone, male or female, is supposed to "rule the church" or the country that they live in if they are called to be a prophet or prophetess.

1. I beg your pardon but there is such a thing as the SDA Church .org. The Seventh-day Adventist Church is an organized religious corporation as such it is a .org. My terminology makes it clear as to the actual entity I am referring to as opposed other SDA terms and/or orgs. The SDA Church .org indeed is often called the "organization".

[it is] erroneous [to] think I use this term as a "derogatory" but that is not why I use it. The term itself is not "derogatory" unless [it is in the mind of the reader].

[One] should be proud of [their] Advent Heritage and [be] proud to be part of the SDA Church .org. Is this not true? [is the reaction from being] ashamed of the SDA Church .org in any way shape or form? If so why?

If I am not mistaken the SDA Church .org became an .org back in 1863?

2. ...how does my use of term "SDA Church .org make my stance nonBiblical? That makes no sense at all. My use of the term SDA Church .org has absolutely nothing but nothing to do with what the Bible actually says. ...

3. [The] analogy of the Doctor is misplaced and wrong. A doctor is never ever the voice of God as is a prophet (unless the doctor like Luke has been called by God to be a prophet in addition to their medical duties).

The Prophet is the Voice of God. The Prophet is not "dispensing" their own knowledge like a doctor. The Prophet is Speaking the Will of God for God's People. As such the Prophet is indeed ruling all of God's People.

This concept of the Authority of the Prophet is well grounded in the Bible... Study what God said to Israel concerning such things through the Prophet Moses and God's other Prophets.

Unlike a doctor the Prophet speaks the direct will of God to God's People be they kings, presidents, administrators, priests (pastors), doctors, blacksmiths, etc. etc. etc. As such that Word carries with it the full Authority of God from which there is NO APPEAL.

The example of a Prophet at work that shows that Prophets when speaking the Word of God rule the roost even over kings, presidents, administrators, pastors (priests), etc. etc. etc. is the Life and Times of Samuel even as a little boy. Even as a little boy Samuel held power over the male priest Eli. There are many many more instances in the Life and Times of Samuel where He exercised God's Authority over all the Nation. You should read it, it is a fabulous story. It also lays down many many of the Principles of Prophetic Authority as the highest Authority among humans on earth. Yes, this is Biblical because Samuel is found in the Bible and these Principles of Prophetic Authority are there in plain sight.

What did Jesus Christ, Himself, say about how Israel disobeyed the Prophets and that was disobedience to God. This is why they were punished by God because they did not listen to the Prophet and submit to the Prophet's Commands, the Voice of God.

I am surprised that a learned [and] devout member of the SDA Church .org is not familiar with the Prophetic Concept as found in the Bible and also in the claimed life of your Prophet, Ellen White.

I am sorry that you cannot see this concept. I hope someday that God will make this concept known to you and that this Truth is embedded in the Bible in many many places be they male or female Voices of God.

4. Speaking of your comments on Ellen White, are you [saying] that she was not the Voice of God? Are you saying that her words whether spoken and/or written do not carry the "inspiration" and power as the Voice of God?

Does this mean that the Presidents, administrators, pastors (priests) could take it or leave it in regard to Ellen White's testimonies and God would be OK with that, because when Ellen White wrote/spoke her testimony was not mandatory but was only "optional" and subject to the authority of the rulers of the SDA Church .org? Is this what you are asserting?

Again, ... I find [such a] position surprising and totally against what I hear others on the SDA Church .org asserting. They assert the Prophet Principle I have cited in my other points above, which is that when Ellen White spoke she ruled the roost over all the SDA Church .org. I call that Authority over men in the SDA Church .org.

... [isn't it] making a "mockery" of Ellen White and her Prophetic Gift [to] minimize her role in the SDA Church .org?

[is what you have posted] in line with SDA Church .org theology on this issue?

[doug yowell]

Is WOPE a pagan practice?

WOPE means Women Ordained as Pastors or Elders.

That's a relief. for a second I thought you were trying to dis Italians.

[doug yowell]

Again, ... I find [such a] position surprising and totally against what I hear others on the SDA Church .org asserting. They assert the Prophet Principle I have cited in my other points above, which is that when Ellen White spoke she ruled the roost over all the SDA Church .org. I call that Authority over men in the SDA Church .org.

... [isn't it] making a "mockery" of Ellen White and her Prophetic Gift [to] minimize her role in the SDA Church .org?

Is the office of prophet and it's legitimate place within the body of Christ what's at stake and not WOPE? The Scriptures are clear and consistent in defining the difference between the offices of prophet and; pastor/teacher,king,priest,apostle,evangelist,administrator,ect... "Others" and yourself are hoping to play on SDA ignorance in order to establish this "historical authority"/prophetic principle notion. I don't think it's OA who's misrepresenting her role and authority as prophet.

[Overaged]

Is WOPE a pagan practice?

I believe the practice of female priests and elders originated among the pagan religions. In Acts 19:22-36 we see how the Ephesians honored and revered the false god of Diana, a female god, even if just for money.

In the book of Isaiah, God is explaining to the Israelites what it will be like to be ruled over by pagans, and in chapter 3 verse 12 God compares being ruled over by women as part of being ruled over by pagans.

And in 1 Kings 12:31, the Bible says "He made shrines on the high places, and made priests from every class of people, who were not of the sons of Levi." (NKJV)

I believe the Bible is clear that WOPE would be a pagan practice in these last days.

WOPE means Women Ordained as Pastors or Elders.

* * *

I am presuming here, by this OP that Alchemy is thinking that the Adventist Church is guilty of a "pagan" practice, by ordaining, or wanting to ordain women elders and pastors? Maybe we could get some clarifications on that by the OP, or others?

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

Again, ... I find [such a] position surprising and totally against what I hear others on the SDA Church .org asserting. They assert the Prophet Principle I have cited in my other points above, which is that when Ellen White spoke she ruled the roost over all the SDA Church .org. I call that Authority over men in the SDA Church .org.

... [isn't it] making a "mockery" of Ellen White and her Prophetic Gift [to] minimize her role in the SDA Church .org?

Is the office of prophet and it's legitimate place within the body of Christ what's at stake and not WOPE? The Scriptures are clear and consistent in defining the difference between the offices of prophet and; pastor/teacher,king,priest,apostle,evangelist,administrator,ect... "Others" and yourself are hoping to play on SDA ignorance in order to establish this "historical authority"/prophetic principle notion. I don't think it's OA who's misrepresenting her role and authority as prophet.

The Prophet as the Voice of God with all the Authority that God's Voice carries is a Spiritual Leader.

Pastors, Presidents, Administrators, local Elders, etc. etc. within the SDA Church .org are also according to SDA Church .org to be spiritual leaders of God's People.

Those opposed to women as ordained pastors and/or local elders cite:

1. The authority of men over women.

Thus, the rebuttal by using Deborah, Huldah, and Ellen White all of whom were chosen by God to have Authority over men.

2. men as the "only" Spiritual Leaders of God's People.

Again Deborah, Huldah, and Ellen White were all Spiritual Leaders of Israel just as much as any priest, king, administrator, pastor is. Samuel, Elijah, Elisha, and Moses were also Spiritual Leaders as God's Prophets and Judges. As Spiritual Leaders these same women also held God's Authority over all of God's People. The Bible clearly says so.

The whole point of WOPE is demonstrate that women should not:

a. have authority over men.

b. be Spiritual Leaders of God's People.

I am using Deborah, Huldah, and Ellen White to rebut such anti-women theories as being nonBiblical.

Apparently [some] believe that women should not be ordained as pastors/administrators/presidents within the SDA Church .org.

* * *

According to the Bible the "Office of Prophet" encompasses the offices of "pastor/teacher,king,priest,apostle,evangelist,administrator, etc.". A true Prophet of God like Moses, Samuel, Deborah, Huldah, Ellen White, Elijah, Joshua, etc. etc. did all those things in their "Office" as Prophet.

[doug yowell]

According to the Bible the "Office of Prophet" encompasses the offices of "pastor/teacher,king,priest,apostle,evangelist,administrator, etc.". A true Prophet of God like Moses, Samuel, Deborah, Huldah, Ellen White, Elijah, Joshua, etc. etc. did all those things in their "Office" as Prophet.

Ellen White was a king?? According to Eph.4 and Acts 1 the Apostles were listed as unique and first among the offices. [The scenario above] is closer to the teaching of papal succession where the office carries the authority no matter who occupies it.

[Overaged]

Ellen White was a king?? According to Eph.4 and Acts 1 the Apostles were listed as unique and first among the offices. [The scenario above] is closer to the teaching of papal succession where the office carries the authority no matter who occupies it.

[BobRyan]

Surely your not saying that God's Word is less in Authority than the king/priest/ruler/etc? Since Huldah was expressing the Word of the Lord God, then in those expressions she was indeed the defacto/dejuri ruler of all Israel/Judah. Her rule would in FACT be absolute from which there is no appeal.

A king's and a priest's ruling could always be appealed directly to God, but when a prophet like Deborah/Huldah/Samuel/Moses spoke the Word of God there is no appeal.

Thus, no human can rule more absolutely than that. That was precisely the whole point of God calling prophets/prophetesses so that God had a direct line of ruler ship to all the other humans on the earth. Thus, Deborah/Huldah/Moses/Samuel/etc. You remember Jonah, well Jonah was God's Authority over the people of Nineveh (including their king).

I know from your posts here on Club Adventist that you believe in the absolute Authority of Ellen White as speaking(communicating) God's Word and that as such their is no appeal higher because these words in your view are inspired and direct from God. As such then by practice (even if not by intellectual assent)you accept Ellen Whites Authority over all other human powers (the GC, Presidents/Administrators/Pastors/etc.). As such you again by practice (even if not by intellectual assent) recognize Ellen White's Authority to actually be a ruler over said Presidents/Administrators/Pastors/etc. Thus again by practice (if not by intellectual assent) you accept her role as Prophet to include that of President/Administrator/Pastor/etc. In FACT Ellen White did direct the nuts and bolts activities of SDA Church by her testimonies to its Presidents/Administrators/Pastors/etc.

Thus, in the Bible and even in the SDA Church .org and by your own Club Adventist posts you have already recognized "women" as having been called by God to Rule over men (as in males) and that God calls such prophetess to actually rule and wield authority.

In the actual Bible - we have examples of prophets (Daniel, Jonah) and prophetesses (Anna in the Temple) that minister in a context where they are not kind and where the king/ruler is not necessarily inclined to hear them - nor can they set their own laws and commands for the people.

In your above you argue that because God gives a message to a prophet - then anything the prophet says on their own - while having breakfast etc must also be as a king no matter if it is from God or just their own morning thoughts and ideas.

That is not a teaching we find in the Bible.

Nathan served as a true prophet of God and David although King and Bible writer seeks out Nathan as prophet to ask not what Nathan thinks - but what God thinks.

When Nathan's response is merely "what Nathan thinks" in a matter where the king asks for "what says the Lord on this matter" - God later corrects Nathan and Nathan has to go to David and state the matter as it came from God.

But one of the points you are making that sticks is the fact that God can choose a man or a woman as his prophet and that once He has made His choice those who accept them as a prophet are obligated to listen to what they say when they claim it has come from God. That much of your text is true.

In Ellen White's case - after the death of her husband there was a rift between Ellen White and church leadership - which is why she was sent to Australia.

in Christ,

Bob

[Tom Wetmore]

Moderator Note:

This topic is now reopened for business.

The personal attacks and comments with an inappropriately combative or personally confrontational tone have been edited out in order to preserve this topic for further discussion.

Please refrain from personal attacks on one another, keep the tone civil and stick to the topic.

Global Moderator

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

Surely your not saying that God's Word is less in Authority than the king/priest/ruler/etc? Since Huldah was expressing the Word of the Lord God, then in those expressions she was indeed the defacto/dejuri ruler of all Israel/Judah. Her rule would in FACT be absolute from which there is no appeal.

A king's and a priest's ruling could always be appealed directly to God, but when a prophet like Deborah/Huldah/Samuel/Moses spoke the Word of God there is no appeal.

Thus, no human can rule more absolutely than that. That was precisely the whole point of God calling prophets/prophetesses so that God had a direct line of ruler ship to all the other humans on the earth. Thus, Deborah/Huldah/Moses/Samuel/etc. You remember Jonah, well Jonah was God's Authority over the people of Nineveh (including their king).

I know from your posts here on Club Adventist that you believe in the absolute Authority of Ellen White as speaking(communicating) God's Word and that as such their is no appeal higher because these words in your view are inspired and direct from God. As such then by practice (even if not by intellectual assent)you accept Ellen Whites Authority over all other human powers (the GC, Presidents/Administrators/Pastors/etc.). As such you again by practice (even if not by intellectual assent) recognize Ellen White's Authority to actually be a ruler over said Presidents/Administrators/Pastors/etc. Thus again by practice (if not by intellectual assent) you accept her role as Prophet to include that of President/Administrator/Pastor/etc. In FACT Ellen White did direct the nuts and bolts activities of SDA Church by her testimonies to its Presidents/Administrators/Pastors/etc.

Thus, in the Bible and even in the SDA Church .org and by your own Club Adventist posts you have already recognized "women" as having been called by God to Rule over men (as in males) and that God calls such prophetess to actually rule and wield authority.

In the actual Bible - we have examples of prophets (Daniel, Jonah) and prophetesses (Anna in the Temple) that minister in a context where they are not kind and where the king/ruler is not necessarily inclined to hear them - nor can they set their own laws and commands for the people.

In your above you argue that because God gives a message to a prophet - then anything the prophet says on their own - while having breakfast etc must also be as a king no matter if it is from God or just their own morning thoughts and ideas.

That is not a teaching we find in the Bible.

Nathan served as a true prophet of God and David although King and Bible writer seeks out Nathan as prophet to ask not what Nathan thinks - but what God thinks.

When Nathan's response is merely "what Nathan thinks" in a matter where the king asks for "what says the Lord on this matter" - God later corrects Nathan and Nathan has to go to David and state the matter as it came from God.

But one of the points you are making that sticks is the fact that God can choose a man or a woman as his prophet and that once He has made His choice those who accept them as a prophet are obligated to listen to what they say when they claim it has come from God. That much of your text is true.

In Ellen White's case - after the death of her husband there was a rift between Ellen White and church leadership - which is why she was sent to Australia.

in Christ,

Bob

1. The red highlight above is there for your refreshment of what you said. What I am saying concerning a Prophet and/or any other person "called as a Spiritual Leader of God's People" (regardless of title) is not what you wrote. What you have in red above is not what I have been saying. It is a gross miss-characterization of what I have actually written. Please reread if you need to. What I have said is that when such Leaders' are speaking God's Message there is no Authority anywhere that is greater.

You will find that I never ever said anything about them speaking during breakfast. That is your gross misstatement which should have been obvious to you.

Please characterize what I write carefully and truthfully. As a Godly person this should be your first priority as a professed SDA Christian.

2. In the texts that I cite both Deborah and Huldah are given Authority by God to rule/lead God's People from the king/general on down to do and know what God's Will is. Thus, Deborah/Huldah were in Authority over both men and women of all positions within the company of God's People.

That is all women today are asking. If God calls them to the Gospel Ministry they like their male counterparts should be ordained and able to serve God's People in the same leadership positions available to those males. This concept is indeed Biblical. It is also made true by the lives of such women as Deborah and Huldah.

There is nothing but nothing about "breakfast" in this Biblical Concept of Leadership. So why are you trying to misstate what I have been saying?

[Overaged]

2. In the texts that I cite both Deborah and Huldah are given Authority by God to rule/lead God's People from the king/general on down to do and know what God's Will is. Thus, Deborah/Huldah were in Authority over both men and women of all positions within the company of God's People.

The Bible does not say that these two women were "given authority to rule." However, it does say they were given a message from God, and just like you or I, if God gives us a message; it is our responsibility to disclose it; but this disclosing does not make us ruler. The Bible accounts of both these ladies show clearly that the Kings, and others involved indeed, made their own decisions on whether or not to listen to the message. It has never been the function of a prophet to "rule over other people."

[Overaged]

4. Speaking of your comments on Ellen White, are you [saying] that she was not the Voice of God? Are you saying that her words whether spoken and/or written do not carry the "inspiration" and power as the Voice of God?

You ask a fair question on this point. perhaps I could try clarifying how I see this.

First; I agree, that a prophet does have a degree of "authority;" but as to the nature of that authority, I do not see it as such that they can "rule over other people." All that a prophet can do is to give the message they have been given.

[whatisthis]

Old Testament scholars and linguists argue that there was women's ordination in Judiasm routinely until about 100 years before Christ, then it was a hot potato topic with the conservatives ordaining women and liberals opposing the ordiantion of women, and that we find Jesus ordaining women.

Interesting. I want to announce the side I'm on. None.

I can tell you my Daddy's side, lol. My Daddy thought that WOPE was the most important and needed innovation that that we have faced as a church in this century so far, and that ordaining women would not only open new vistas but is needed for the finishing of the work. (I used to argue weakly in the other direction, possibly not because of any great meekness on my part, but because arguing with Daddy was my style.)

However, I have discovered in the past that many "prizes" (such as ordination could ostensibly be for women,) turn out to be manipulative devices designed to take, not give liberty in Jesus. So I tend to look at lavish gifts cautiously, examining the horse for any trapdoors in it, trying to ascertain if the gift came from the Trojans, etc. Maybe Daddy was right, but . . .

So here I sit down and think.

Did Jesus ordain anyone? I know he set apart 12 apostles, and then there was another larger group sent out "without scrip" and without a lot of other baggage. But I don't remember any ordination services being held in the gospels.

[doug yowell]

Interesting. I want to announce the side I'm on. None.

However, I have discovered in the past that many "prizes" (such as ordination could ostensibly be for women,) turn out to be manipulative devices designed to take, not give liberty in Jesus. So I tend to look at lavish gifts cautiously, examining the horse for any trapdoors in it, trying to ascertain if the gift came from the Trojans, etc.

So here I sit down and think.

The Scriptures (not to mention EGW)in several places (in the mouths of 2 or 3 witnesses)clearly forbid women from usurping the authority of their husbands.Yet,when this fact is cited by WO opponents as a Trojan horse policy that threatens the city of distinctive gender roles the WO advocates do not argue that those roles will continue to remain safe they argue that the horse will insure that the destruction of that city which they claim has been a hindrance to the strength and prosperity of the entire nation.Beware of Greeks bearing "gifts"!!

[teresaq]

So here I sit down and think.

Did Jesus ordain anyone? I know he set apart 12 apostles, and then there was another larger group sent out "without scrip" and without a lot of other baggage. But I don't remember any ordination services being held in the gospels.

Someone said that the only people recorded as ordained in the bible were missionaries (the disciples and Saul/Paul) and deacons (the 7).

[teresaq]

The Scriptures (not to mention EGW)in several places (in the mouths of 2 or 3 witnesses)clearly forbid women from usurping the authority of their husbands.Yet,when this fact is cited by WO opponents as a Trojan horse policy that threatens the city of distinctive gender roles the WO advocates do not argue that those roles will continue to remain safe they argue that the horse will insure that the destruction of that city which they claim has been a hindrance to the strength and prosperity of the entire nation.Beware of Greeks bearing "gifts"!!

[olger]

I still don't know what WOPE is. What is it, brethren??