Why do people keep saying Ellen White was not ordained by the Church when we have her Ordination papers signed by the officiating officers of the church. It's like Christians denying the existence of dinosaur bones because it doesn't fit there belief about creation.
The issue at hand is wither denying women the option to be "sent/ordained" by the church Biblical. Although I enjoy what DB says in a lot of his messages he dropped the ball on this one. the revealed word of God is our only guide

stum·bling block
n.

An obstacle or impediment.

If we ignore the pleadings of the third world leaders, if we ignore the vote that the church had on this matter and go ahead and ordain women, are we creating stumbling blocks?

The last point first.

>>Never in any of them does it support the idea that the oil and hands of humans were placed on her in ordination.<<

And, we may, in fact, be justified in our subjective observations re the matter. Would it have been unBiblical to perform a liturgical ordination complete with oil and the laying-on of hands sans the presence of any but the immediately involved? Why is it so readily assumed that a Certificate of Ordination could not have been conferred upon one without its having been recorded elsewhere than upon the Certificates themselves? or that that record was simply lost? or ‘edited’?

How does one address the authenticity of both the Certificates and their signatures?

>>All these were designed to convey was that she was recognized by the Adventist church as a minister of the gospel.<<

But not pastor/minister, yes? And we know that how? It seems that the .Org has made much of the fact that she ‘Pastored’ the entire movement. What’s THAT?

I submit that that is a tepid explanation. Weren’t Certificates of Ordination conferred upon Pastors/Ministers - of like configuration? But of course they were. One assumes then that those Certificates were not diminished by over-exuberant dispersal. If they were passed out without awareness of what, exactly, they denoted, that would suggest

malfeasance.

>>See, the word "ordination" means:

"to select for or appoint to an office."<<

Except, that later she [constructively] denied having been ordained as a minister.

>>This is the "archaic" meaning, not the more current usage.<<

Kinda like arcane? :-)

Moreover, do Deacons, Colporteurs, Missionaries, Foreign Field Workers, etc - in other words, Servants and Evangelizers of the Gospel - receive, likewise, Certificates of Ordination?



>>Examples of the above evolving of the word of God would be interesting to examine. Note some examples to the contrary.

"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?<<

Well, speaking of Moses and without enumerating upon other examples both large and small:

Divorce as decreed or taught by Moses versus its evolution to that taught by Jesus Christ (Matt 19:8) might suffice as example.

>>No, the Bible says:

"For I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed." Malachi 3:6 (ESV)<<

So, what’s that say re the transition from the OT to the NT?

>>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.<<

Oh, I wouldn’t go so far as to say “virtually all of the resons [...] are thrown out”. There are reasons to worship on the seventh-day of the week

>>Also, the reasons why the martyrs gave their life are removed.<<

The subject is still the Sabbath, yes? Then – not so, that assumes that the Seventh-day Sabbath was/is the only reason one chooses to be martyred.

“One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day [alike]. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.” (Rom 14:5)

>>No, God never changes.<<

That may be so, but times, circumstances, and doctrines do; if not, what’s with the 30+ million words of ‘revelation’ proffered the Remnant? What’s that?

By contrast, there are less than 800,000 words in Holy Writ; yet, translations, transliterations, interpretations, and parsings are endless...

>>Sinners must change to be like Him. He does not change to be like sinners.<<

Well, not exactly.

IN RESPONSE

This is a very important differentiation that must be recognized. Having papers of ordination is different from being ordained. The papers she was issued only say that the church recognizes the fact that God has ordained someone already. I have copies of them in my file, somewhere <G>.

See, as I stated in another post, when a person has been ordained to a higher office, they do not need to be ordained to serve in a lesser office. E.g., if one has been ordained as a local elder, they can serve as a deacon. Or, if one has been ordained as a pastor, there is no need to be ordained as an elder.

Now, in respect to the ordination of a prophet, this is the highest ordination any human being can be given. God's ordination is and ordination that is far above any human ordinaiton as the sky above the earth.

Therefore, if Ellen White had accepted the laying on of hands and the annointing oil of a human ordination, she would have been denying that she had been ordained of God. It would have been tantamount to the responses of the two that God called before her and who refused to serve.

It is brought up, quite often, that if God choose a woman, then why can't the church? Well, the answer is really quite simple. God is far greater then any human or human organization. God can choose anyone He wants to. That in no way curtails the instructions He can give as to those who humans can ordain.

The church has NO AUTHORITY to ordain anyone, male or female, that does not meet the conditions set forth in the Bible. If it does, it is in open rebellion against heaven, takeing for itself authority that God has not given to it. "You shall be as God." Who spoke that?

Now to the second part of your question. Both good questions, by-the-way, and I hope that these answers will address them.

What about ordaining a woman.

In Deuteronomy, Moses makes this statement, and I am going from the Hebrew, not the English.

"No woman of the sons of Israel is to be ordained (quadesh),
No woman of the sons of Israel is to be ordained.
No male of the sons of Israel is to be ordained,
No male of the sons of Israel is to be ordained."
Deuteronomy 23:17

This is the text that those advocating the ordination of women say does not exist, but it does.

What has fooled Bible students is the technique used by the translators here. Translators use three approaches to a word in the original languge.
1. Translate it.'
2. Transliterate it.
3. Illustrate it.

They have used the third option in this case. The word "quadesh" means: "Set apart for a holy purpose, or Set aside as holy." Hundreds of pages have been written about this word alone. But, they do not really apply to this situation.

Most translations render Quadesh here as a "temple prostitute." However, the same word is used when Moses struck the rock and was denied the privilege of going into the promised land. Was Moses punished becasue he did not hold God as a temple prostitute? I hardly think so. Therefore this rendition is substandard at best.

This discovery was not a result of any skill on my part, the Holy Spirit drew my attention to this passage one morning when my late wife was reading the Bible for our morning worship. When she read this passage, the Lord impressed me that this was the so-called "text that does not exist." I studied it out and indeed, it is just that prohibition against ordaining women that is claimed does not exist. It raised many questions in my mind, however, I found answers to all of them and it is as I present it to be. (I am condensing close to 100 pages of information into this statement here.)

The first question I had, when it came to my attention was: "Why did Moses say that no male of the Sons of Israel should be ordained." Then my mind was lead to the fact that the tribe of Levi was not to be counted among the Sons of Israel. See NUM 1:48 Therefore, when God said that "No son of Israel" He is referring to the other 12 tribes, not the original 12. Remember, Joseph was given two parts that makes up for the loss of Levi.

"For the Lord had spoken to Moses, saying,
NUM 1:49 "Only the tribe of Levi you shall not number, nor shall you take their census among the sons of Israel.
NUM 1:50 "But you shall appoint the Levites over the tabernacle of the testimony, and over all its furnishings and over all that belongs to it. They shall carry the tabernacle and all its furnishings, and they shall take care of it; they shall also camp around the tabernacle.
NUM 2:33 The Levites, however, were not numbered among the sons of Israel, just as the Lord had commanded Moses.
NUM 2:34 Thus the sons of Israel did; according to all that the Lord commanded Moses, so they camped by their standards, and so they set out, every one by his family, according to his father's household.
NUM 3:12 "Now, behold, I have taken the Levites from among the sons of Israel instead of every first-born, the first issue of the womb among the sons of Israel. So the Levites shall be Mine.
NUM 3:13 "For all the first-born are Mine; on the day that I struck down all the first-born in the land of Egypt, I sanctified to Myself all the first-born in Israel, from man to beast. They shall be Mine; I am the Lord."

So, God told Moses to declare that only males of the Sons of Levi who met the other conditions were to be ordained, or set aside as holy to the Lord.

However, today we have no "Levites." God forsaw this and made one change in those requriments. He removed the issue of belonging to a certain tribe of Israel. He told Isaiah to prophesy this, which he did in Isaiah 66:21. God said that he would take out of the nations, priests and Levites to serve before Him.

The ONLY fulfillment of this prophecy is in the instructions that the apostle to the Gentiles gave to the church as found in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1. Paul recorded the instructions God gave to him that were in harmony with the prophecy of Isaiah.

Because of Paul's instructions in this, the accusation is often thrown at him of being biased against women, of reflecting his culture, of having a superiority complex, etc. etc. etc. None of which are true. Let's look at a couple of these.

1. Biased against wome n. Over and over he complimented women for the services rendered to him and the church. He complimented Aquilla and Priscilla on an equal basis, as a team as well as other women who served the church, including Dorcas and Pheobee. This can hardly be taken as being biased against women.

2. Reflecting his culture. This is the furtherest out of the three claims. Paul was raised in a Greek culture, not a Jewish one as is claimed. He was Saul of Tarsus, not Saul of Jerusalem. When you examine the way women were treated in the Greco-Roman empire at that time, one will find that women had more rights and were treated better then men. Those who do not know better equate the "slavery" of the Greco-Roman empire with the slavery found in the south in the early days of our country. That is just not so.

Dr. C. Mervyn Maxwell was working on a paper regarding women in the Greco-Roman empire. I do not know if it ever was publishsed before his passing. But he sent me a copy and it should be published if it wasn't.

3. When the inspiration of Paul is questioned in this area, it means that nothing that Paul wrote is trustworthy. It would set up the requirement that we must test everything to see if it fits our culture before we accept that. The loss of such a position is taken is incalculable. We must not even look in that direction.

Again, as I have stated in another post, the real issue is in regards to whether the church will follow the divine instrucitons for setting up church leadership, or will they do things their way and ignore God's instructions.

Many have openly told me that this is not something God has spoken on (they are not correct there), but it is a committee position. In other words, they openly admit that this practice is of man, not of God.

Therefore, how can God, today, bless something that He has cursed in the past? There are many, many things in this area that we have been sold a bill of goods on. It was when I discovered the misinformation that was being spread about back in the 60's and 70's that I discontinued my support of this movement and started my research into what the Bible said. That is an incredible amount of information, of that you can rest assured.

Happy Sabbath!

Maranatha :)
Ray

It is worse then a stumbling block.
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.<<

I think I’ve listened to all but his latest tapes.

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

I don’t think supporters of a ‘prophet’ of Gd ought to be compelled, upon multiple issues, to recourse to the ‘Jonah/Ninevah’ defense.

>>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.<<

Re dreams and/or ‘visions’: one, without exhausting the subject, reminds of the “Shut door”.



>>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.<<

I regard EGW with measured respect to honor my mother’s trust in EGW.

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

I was corrected by an administrator upon another SDA forum re EGW with the fact that EGW’s writings comprise a total of more than 30 million words. I accept that with this caveat: So, Gd, dissatisfied with the seeming difficulty mankind has in expositing Holy Writ (800,000 words) placed an entire library of ‘revelation’ before them, compounding their (mankind’s) ignorance.

I wonder...

>>When you say you "consider her pastoral," is that view in harmony with what she says about herself or her position or work?<<

Well, it harmonizes with her designate upon the Certificates of Ordination.

>>Does she give you reason to believe that this is the way she believed she should be viewed?<<

In my considered opinion, she places a burden upon Gd’s people who, as St Peter might state it, is impossible for the ‘fathers’ to bear.

Some good points made here ... Thank you. But I would add ... to bear or to understand.

He wrote some very good books on the meaning of the sanctuary services, particularly as they help us to see Christ and His work today.



I don't think that is generally a necessary recourse. What issue, for instance?



She never claimed that the messages from God taught that the "shut door" teaching was a true doctrine. In fact, it was as a result of visions that she was led to see that the "shut door" concept was wrong.

So am I to believe that when she states something ... it is just her belief but not from God. But when she clearly states it came in a vision ... then we can believe it?

Would this be your correct view of how to use EGW?

What does your pastor say to that question? I would like to know.