You are thinking in worldly terms based on human love. God's love is completely opposite:

Is 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Mark 10:43 "...whoever would be great [rank] among you must be your servant, 44 and whoever would be first [the highest ranked] among you must be slave of all.

This is why I oppose women's ordination because it is based on iniquity - a bent to self - self-importance/rank.

I can't write very much at this time except to say that there is a big difference between being ordained of God as a prophet and being elected by man to be a pastor and elder. The first is a mouthpiece of God to the church and the second is an administrative office selected by man to be act or speak for the church. The prophet does not have authority over the church administrator. They are separate offices and functions. Ellen White never held authority over an elder or minister. She never took one out of office or gave him orders as to what he must do. The prophet received visions and words from God and then used them to try to persuade people to make changes, but they often did not do what she asked them to do. You will see many times when she told the brethren what God wanted them to do, but very often they did not do it. When that happened, Ellen White was not given authority to force them or to replace them. It was the same with Nathen's relationship to the King or Samuel's. They gave them God's word only. They were messengers of the Lord. Ellen White's authority did not rest on the church; therefore they could not give the authority and they could not take it away.

I'm talking of the push behind this...not so much of women individually. That's what I see as wrong....

Gregory ... Regarding "Should they have baptized? "

I know of NO Biblical instructions that requires a Christian to be baptized by a Pastor let alone an ordained pastor. I think it is just fine if ANY lay person wants to baptise another who requests it. Granted ... they would not immediately become an SDA until they were accepted by profession of faith. But, in that sense ... as long as the two people were happy with it - the SDA church is happy with it after profession of faith.

So to answer your question YES. Women can baptise and that baptism is recognized by the church via profession of faith.

REDWOOD

John 317 ... We have had some great conversations but I have to respectfully disagree with you regarding what you said:

"Ellen White never held authority over an elder or minister. She never took one out of office or gave him orders as to what he must do."

This gets into the painful subject of Church Politics. But, the truth is that an Elder or Minister has little or NO authority be it a man or a women. The people who have the authority is the members of the Church BOARD be it man or WOMEN. The women on the board have a great deal of power and authority over the Pastor. The pastor is hired to fulfill the wishes of the Board. If he doesn't like what the Board tell him to do the only thing he can do is to resign. He cannot make policy against the ruling of the Board.

If you believe that women should not have authority over men then you should not have any women on the Church Board. And also that includes representitives to the GC session. The GC session makes policy and they have authority over the elected officials in the GC such as the President.

Are you advocating that we not have women in any authority postion over men? The consequences are revolutionary the way I see it.

I am not aware for sure but I would say that Ellen White WAS a delegate to the GC session and therefore had authority over the ministers. I believe she did take even a president out of office by her influence and vote.

Can you explain what you are meaning?

Redwood:

I must not have been clear, or perhaps you have not read all that I have posted.

The SDA Church allows women to baptize today.

The two women I mentioned were not allowed to baptize at that time. There would have been severe consequences that would have effected their ministry if they had baptized without denominational permission.

Those two women, in order to do ministry, rightfully chose to abide by the authority of the church that refused to allow them to baptize.

I guess I failed to make that clear.

To all:

John and I have engaged in some very frank discussion in which it is evident that we do not agree with each other on some points. I have appreciated that discussion, and I think it has been valuable to others. At least that is what I have been told in PMs that people have sent me. This discussion has helped some to clarify in their minds what the correct decision is, and it has helped some to make decisions about their life and ministry.

While John and I have spoken very frankly, at times, I have not been offended by anything he has said, and I trust he has not been offended by anything I have said. Neither of us has personalized our comments to the other. We have simply spoken to the idea presented by the other.

Folks, people can have frank, but civil disagreements.

It has been of interest to me to note that at times both John and I have, so to speak, spoken over the head of the other. I do not mean by that that one has been unable to understand what the other said. I simply mean that each of us has gone off on our own agenda, and has not spoken to the other's point. As I acknowledge that I have done such, I am not saying that such is wrong. I am saying that this often happens in disagreement. It is quite common.

People often do not really listen, hear, or understand the other. When that happens communication breaks down. When people intentionally decide not to address the comment of the other, as I believe has happened here, that can be more productive.

Well, I just wanted to say that while John and I have both been quite frank, I thank him for the spirit in which this discussion has taken place, and I believe it has been helpful to people reading it.

Excellent suggestion, Robert! I might suggest that we attempt to understand the whole of what he, and the rest of the NT writers say, attempting to understand the full original context and meaning as it would have had to 1st Century Greek speaking Christians.

There is a significant amount of convincing evidence supportive of women in ministry, even directly from the pen of Paul himself. In fact, the NT positively applies the key terms for all of the NT church offices and leadership roles to women. Do you know that he specifically refers to women elders in one of his letters? That he entrusted his most important letter to the care and delivery (which as a practical matter would have included reading it aloud to the assembly to which it was addressed) to a female minister and female leader over others of the NT church who should be listened to and obeyed? That Paul also praises several other female co-laborers (understand that a woman would have been a leader to some degree to even bear mention especially ahead of her own husband, as Paul specifically does...) in his gospel ministry including one which he regards as an outstanding apostle? That Luke specifically mentions a female disciple by name? That Jesus himself specifically and plainly affirmed a woman that bravely took the posture of a disciple by sitting at his feet to learn? (Rabbinical wisdom would have forbade that, saying it better to burn the Torah than to teach it to a woman.) That the first believer to preach the gospel of the risen Savior was a woman? If none of these are familiar, then I would suggest we need to start carefully studying the whole NT and what it really has to say about women in ministry.

Tom

Hi Stan,

Yes, I agree that there was freedom to express opinions on this issue as well as on many others. But I am not talking about mere articles. I am talking about a Signs of the Time editorial representing the position of the editors of the church's official organ. Remember that James White was the editor of the paper at that time. Surely that has to be taken into account. It is not as though they were publishing a mere opinion of just anyone.

Also, is there any proof that anyone during her lifetime was calling Ellen White a pastor or elder? Is there any evidence that Ellen White was functioning as a pastor or elder?

One other point that needs to be seriously considered is the difference that the Bible makes between the authority and function of a prophet and that of a pastor or elder or bishop. One is selected by God in order to function as His mouthpiece to the church; the others are selected by men to act and to teach in behalf of the church. Prophets get their authority from God, not from the church or from elected officers. Elders and pastors get their authority from the church. A prophet's authority cannot be taken away from them by a vote. A pastor's or elder's position can be and often is.

Also, Ellen White did not have executive authority over pastors and elders in the church. She received visions and tried to persuade them to do God's will, but many of them ignored or disobeyed her. All she had was her voice as a messenger of God, not any authority delegated to her by the church to act as an officer of the church, such as is done by elders and pastors. John317

John, when I said: "Yes, there were articles, and more, . . .," I was including editorials.