Well said, I agree

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.<< [ed.jasd]

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

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

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

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

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

However, for here, I want to underline answer.

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

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

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

"'But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray, so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols.
21 'And I gave her time to repent; and she does not want to repent of her immorality.
22 'Behold, I will cast her upon a bed of sickness, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of her deeds.
23 'And I will kill her children with pestilence; and all the churches will know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts; and I will give to each one of you according to your deeds." REV 2:20-23

Note the points made here by the "faithful and true witness," Jesus, are these.
1. Tyratyra tolerated the symbolic Jezebel.
2. Jezebel called herself a prophetess.
3. Jezebel was leading God's "bond servants" astray.
4. The result was that they commit spiritual adultery.
5. Jezebel has been given time to repent, but has not.
6. God says that all who follow her, He will destroy.

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

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

"And Ahab the son of Omri did evil in the sight of the Lord more than all who were before him.
"And it came about, as though it had been a trivial thing for him to walk in the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, that he married Jezebel the daughter of Ethbaal king of the Sidonians, and went to serve Baal and worshiped him."1KI 16:30,31

This is the first reference to Jezebel in the Bible that I found. Here a few points are made.
1. Ahab did evil in the sight of the Lord, more then all before him.
2. He considered just walking in the sin of Jeroboam as a light thing.
3. He married Jezebel to raise that sin even forther, above all who went before.

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

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

"After this event Jeroboam did not return from his evil way, but again he made priests of the high places from among all the people; any who would, he ordained, to be priests of the high places.
"And this event became sin to the house of Jeroboam, even to blot it out and destroy it from off the face of the earth." 1KI 13:33, 34

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"When He had torn Israel from the house of David, they made Jeroboam the son of Nebat king. Then Jeroboam drove Israel away from following the Lord, and made them commit a great sin.
"And the sons of Israel walked in all the sins of Jeroboam which he did; they did not depart from them, until the Lord removed Israel from His sight, as He spoke through all His servants the prophets. So Israel was carried away into exile from their own land to Assyria until this day.2 Kings 17:21-23

There is more, but enough for now.

Happy Sabbath!

Maranatha :)
Ray

Redwood

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Happy Sabbath!

Maranatha :)
Ray

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happy Sabbath!

Maranatha :)
Ray

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

You said:

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

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

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

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

Happy Sabbath!

Maranatha :)
Ray

You wrote:

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

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

Happy Sabbath!

Maranatha :)
Ray

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

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

Happy Sabbath!

Maranatha :)
Ray

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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



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