Right on target! Ray

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

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

"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.

>>...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” ...



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.

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

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

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.

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.

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