If that is true, I am sorry to hear it. I think that all sides of this issue need to be heard, but it needs to be done (if possible) in a way that does not cause bad feelings towards each other in our church. I do not know if this is possible, but hope and pray that it is.

If you are asking the question about the AdventistForum-- how the members here feel or think about the issue-- both sides are represented. The Forum itself does not take a position as such but each person is free to express his/her viewpoint about it. We respect everyone's right to take the position they honestly and sincerely believe is the right one.

Personally I really like Doug Batchelor and I find myself in agreement with him on most questions.

I would not favor taking away people's right to listen to Doug Batchelor on the Central Study Hour.

I heard that the video of weekly Sabbath School lesson in Central Study Hour is usually pre-recorded 3 weeks in advance. So for example for this week's lesson the video was already made on the Sabbath August 16, and this first Sabbath of Sept the Central Study Hour will discuss about the lesson for the last Sabbath of the month (Sept.27).

If so, no wonder the Senior Pastors (especially the young Pastors) in their own churches have plenty of time to choose what study materials they like or don't to feed their sheeps every Sabbaths/Friday nights.

But again, what's your position about Women Ordination?

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.

I should emphasize here that I am only speaking for myself and not as a representative of the Forum.

So, that is my own personal belief at this time as a result of Bible study, but I am open to other people's beliefs on this. I don't believe that it's an issue that involves a person's salvation. In other words, I believe that good people can come to a different conclusion from mine and still be saved in God's kingdom.

For me the essential issue is how we treat others who disagree with us. I think that this is more important to God than whether we are right doctrinally on this issue. What really worries me is when I see one side or the other of this issue mistreat those who have drawn different conclusions from themselves.

Some Adventists would see this issue from different aspect, that is as an in indicator or something like that.

Following what's the Lord says is always safe and better. That's why this group doesn't agree about a woman to become a pastor. And without judging others, the other group that agree for the women ordination and says "not a problem at all" would probably is the group that has tendencies to follow God's rules and commandments, but not all--only if they want to like eating in a bufffet restaurant. 'I do it my way' scenario.

Especially if somebody has a friend or relative...that is a woman as a pastor--mostly the person will support women ordination for the sake of their relationship.

Again, this is just a tool. An indicator as if diagnosing something, but not to judge others.

Just how could it be banned?

By the way, this is the position of the majority of the church. Asia, Africa and Latin America.

Who is THEY?

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).

This post is trash in my view. It is just pointing fingers and blame. God is a God of Love. Love will win another ... not trashing those who have different views on non-salvational issues such as this. Let's show a little tolerance and love for one another.

I could easily say the same thing this person is saying. But in reverse. My point is that we as honest Christians can come up with different interpretations. But we should do so without claiming our way is God's way and anyone else that has a different view is not following God.

I am sure the person that wrote this is a wonderful person. I would probably enjoy his/her presence. But sadly there is much misinformation due to an intolerant and unloving philosophy.

PS. This topic has been well discussed. I don't see the point in doing it again. If you want to look up all the positions on this forum you can. But I don't see you as an open person. I think you just want to preach intolerance. I won't participate in that. Maybe there are others who want to.

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.

I suppose that churches are within their rights to not listen to arguments that they don't want to hear, but sticking your head in the sand doesn't make the issue go away.

The question is, did they ban it because they disagree with his position, or did they ban it because they thought he would be hectoring their position?

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.

However, I don't think it's something worth making into a church-splitting controversy. I will vigourously support womens ordination, but I don't think those who don't support it are misguided or sinning, I think it's a matter of opinion. I would hope they extend to me the same courtesy.

Could you expand on the above thought?

How is God's calling of a prophet-- giving him/her visions, and personally commissioning them as His messengers-- related to what the New Testament says concerning the selection of pastors and elders? It seems to me that God chooses the prophet to speak for Him to the church, whereas the church chooses the pastor or elder to speak for the church to the congregations.

If a church does not select the pastor or elder, he won't be a pastor or elder. On the other hand, if God chooses a prophet, they are a prophet whether the church accepts them or not. For instance, whether Ellen White is a prophet or not has nothing to do with how the church receives the messages. She is a prophet or not strictly on basis of God's selection. If every SDA today rejected Ellen White, it wouldn't affect the genuineness of her calling. It was the same with Elijah. We can't say that about an elder or minister or pastor.

Ordaining someone has to do with the church giving them authority to represent them. It is an agreement by the church that certain people have certain work to do and that they are authorized by the congregation to do certain things, such as preach or lead, etc. Once a minister or elder has their ordination or credential or license revoked, they do not continue in the same position in the same church. They may go elsewhere to preach or teach, but they do not continue to have authority to represent the organization or group that took away their license, etc. (I'm sure we can all think of examples of how this has worked out in recent church history.)

The prophet is different. Since he/she is not selected by the church, the church cannot take away her/his authority.

In our own history as a church, the local congregations and the conferences have a right to give orders and regulate the behavior and activities of the pastor or elder or other church officers. They select them and therefore have a right to tell them what to do. Example: Paul's instructions regarding the selection and behavior of pastors and elders,etc.

Not so the prophet of God. The church makes requests but it does not order the prophet to do anything or to say anything.

Is this in line at all with your understanding?



I completely agree with your attitude about showing courtesy for different views of this issue.

There should be no name calling from either side, nor any denigration of people who hold a particular view.

I won't say that I will vigorously oppose women's ordination. I will say only that I will vigorously study the issue and write what I believe is true.

If we have two sides who are both vigorously taking opposite viewpoints, that is when we usually run into church-splitting controversies. I don't want to see that happen.

I don't think it's simply a matter of opinion. I think the Bible is clear, but I think that we have to be willing to allow for differences of viewpoint even in those areas where the Bible is clear.

QR frame:

Several points, if I may...

Asia, Africa, Latin America, and others - are rather male-oriented. Mention of others that view women as 'only a vessel to bear men sons' - is gratifyingly absent.

An approximation of the above cultures - is represented in both the OT and NT texts. However, regardless - 'example-as-provided' - that would not obtain re North America and other basically English-speaking countries :-) These English-speaking countries, having naturally evolved, are organically different from antiquated notions reflected and referenced.

I can understand a localized .org not condoning or supporting an oppositional viewpoint re this matter, but to actively participate in a direct ban against said oppositional viewpoint - goes beyond the pale. 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.

Re EGW:

Certificates of Ordination re EGW exist; regardless, the prescription proffered that 'ministry' as pertains EGW is not in view - in those Certificates of Ordination.

[/Beg to differ...] :-o

"actively participate in a direct ban"

Folks this is not 1984 YET. there is no way to ban it. So lets not start any rumors.

>>"actively participate in a direct ban"

Folks this is not 1984 YET. there is no way to ban it. So lets not start any rumors.<<

Thread Title.

"...Central Study Hour is banned this"

Sorry, for the 'lack of the inflected' use. :-o

I do understand what you are saying here. The argument is often used in discussions of the topic, that the West is superior to the less socially evolved, more primative countries of Africa, Asia, and Latin America, etc.

The issue of women's ordination must be decided theologically, by the Bible, and not by appeals to ethnocentrism and the idea that one society is superior to another. Such arguments can lead to all sorts of things, such as the belief that homosexuality is OK because it is viewed as OK in the West.

Can we blame the other nations for feeling that we in the West are arrogant and think we're superior to them?

Besides, how do we know that we Westerners have "naturally evolved" upwards? Perhaps, rather, we have "naturally evolved" downwards when it comes to some issues. I submit that the fact that we accept certain behaviors and standards is no proof of our moral superiority.

Again, what we need to be looking at is whether we are more in conformity to the Bible, and not in conformity to the norms of society if these norms conflict with the Bible's. The Bible has to be the standard for the church, not the practices of society at large.

>>The argument is often used in discussions of the topic, that the West is superior to the less socially evolved, more primative countries of Africa, Asia, and Latin America, etc.<<

I don’t think one can automatically assume that “naturally evolved” translates to the pejoratively charged “superior” or “arrogant”. However, as those terms may rightfully apply to a society embracing and adhering to the belief that a woman serves only as ‘a vessel to bear men sons’ – I concur.

>>The issue of women's ordination must be decided theologically, by the Bible, and not by appeals to ethnocentrism and the idea that one society is superior to another.<<

Does the .Org require that others of differing cultures practice Adventism equally, the same – as do those living here? Or do they accept that other cultures simply cannot practice Adventism as might the North American?

>>Such arguments can lead to all sorts of things, such as the belief that homosexuality is OK because it is viewed as OK in the West.<<

Okay, is it Theologically/Biblically condemned that one hitch horse to buggy to travel miles and miles upon the Sabbath? I don’t suppose you would condemn the practice – as, likewise, no other practicing Adventist would. However, how does that square with the strictest reading of Writ?

>>Can we blame the other nations for feeling that we in the West are arrogant and think we're superior to them?<<

A nation that can place a man upon the moon is – superior; however, that would not argue for a general application of the term.

>>Besides, how do we know that we Westerners have "naturally evolved" upwards?<<

The facts argue the issue.

>>Perhaps, rather, we have "naturally evolved" downwards when it comes to some issues.<<

Goes to perception.

>>I submit that the fact that we accept certain behaviors and standards is no proof of our moral superiority.<<

I’ve not made that argument.

>>Again, what we need to be looking at is whether we are more in conformity to the Bible, and not in conformity to the norms of society if these norms conflict with the Bible's.<<

Horse and buggy?

>>The Bible has to be the standard for the church, not the practices of society at large.<<

Does the .Org understand the significance of incorporating? that would include, even the concept of ‘association’...

I'm a woman and one who has had position in the church, a national officer for many years in Adventist Singles Ministries.
I was opposed by the other women of the board of directors when I fought to not have a woman as president of that organization.
I'm not predjudiced toward women in office or as CEO's or even President of the United States. But this is a ministry to Christ and the cross. It is more effective with men as the pastors. Christ knew this, thus the reasoning behind Pastor DB's statements.
If it's not effective to God's glory, then it is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Being a person who has studied this topic from both sides of the camp I can clearly say that the ordination of women issue for our church is illogical and unbiblical. First there are no scriptures that dictates which sex should and should not be ordained minsters. While there are many references to men being in leadership positions, we cant jump to the conclusion that women are not called to be ordained ministers, Else we find ourselves in the same camp as many Catholics and evangelicals, who read about early Christians worshiping on Sunday and take it as a sign that the first day of the week is the new Sabbath.
Secondly, lets be true to ourselves for a second if a women is doing the same work as a male in a church, if she's preaching, teaching and evangelizing who are we to say she's not ordained by God (especially if there's fruit to her labor). Remember the church only validates what God Orchestrates. And in our church the big difference between ordained and unordained is financial.

Finally E.G. White has made several references to women being equal to men when it comes to the gospel ministry, that they should receive equal pay and equal respect. As a side note Ellen White herself was the first women to be ordained in this church. Her papers can be viewed at the Ellen White estate at either Andrews University or Oakwood University
Family we are living in the last days the three angels message needs to go forth in power and authority I for one will not tell 1/2 of our population they can't minister because of cultural taboos that has nothing to do with the scriptures but our own beliefs

A technological advance or superiority does not translate into being better people spiritually or morally, which is the important point in our discussion about women's position in the church.



The facts argue the case that we in the West have more "things," greater wealth in terms of possessions, and have made technological progress, but I would make the argument that we have not kept pace with moral or spiritual health or conformity to the will of God.

This may be a really wierd tack to take, but I can't actually find a theology of ordination in terms of pastors, male or female-at least as we understand it. There are elders, there are deacons, there are evangelists, there are apostles, there are overseers, there are teachers and preachers. It mentions pastors in Ephesians, but simply mentions that God has given the gifts of people to the church as well as the gifts of the Spirit.

This is my best finding on each's role.
Overseer/bishop indicates the role of oversight
Pastor indicates the role of care
Elder indicates the necessity of spiritual maturity

Which role are females excluded from? All?

As best as I can find, the pastoral role as we understand it is a fairly new idea. One where all these roles are expected to be found in the one person. It might even be seen as a tradition inherited from the cultural understanding of how 'church' is done.

The role of pastoral care in particular, I often see females relating to more comfortably than their male counterparts. I don't see any Biblical mandate against women being involved in caring for people.
I also don't think its entirely fair to eliminate the cultural understandings, as I think they do actually help us gain a better understanding, and I believe that God works within culture and time.
My general conclusion is that there are gray areas in our understanding, and as such we work with the best of the understanding that we have. I also agree that it should definitely not be a church splitting issue.
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.

Excellent post. Thank you. But be prepared for someone here to change the subject and say that if you have women ... you will have homosexuality. Go figure.

Wonderful Post. Thank you for sharing this with us. I hope that many read and grasp what you are saying.

After studying this weeks lesson .... I am proud that our church saw the necessity to share and study the way God uses women in the Bible and in our modern times. I am glad to see them promoting more and more the need to utilize the gifts of all of God's people. And bring the 3AM to all people.

It is interesting that even my nation is just beginning to see that a woman could answer the "3AM call to the White House". Whether it is Hillary or Sarah ... they are seeing the qualities of a woman leader. I hope the church will follow suit.

There truly is neither Jew not Greek ... male nor female .... in God's kingdom.

I appreciate the Godly women that serve Him with a gentle & quite spirit (1 Peter 3). I also appreciate the sisters that respect the role differentiations that God has set up.

The qualifications for an Elder exclude most men and all women. God knows His reasons for this. It is not our place to rebel, but to yield to God's instruction in this matter.


Warm regards,


og

By what mandate are you equating the role of "elder" with the role of "pastor"?

Give us some Biblical reasons.

Graeme

I have seen this discussion many times. One viewpoint I have not seen is how ordination of Women would effect the evangelism in the world church. 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? IF there is a chance this will damage our work overseas, isn't that reason enough to drop the issue?
Also the world church has voted against it. Do we respect the democratic process or do we just plow ahead and do what WE think is right?

Is there any element of selfishness in this movement?

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

>>A technological advance or superiority does not translate into being better people spiritually or morally, which is the important point in our discussion about women's position in the church.<<

Note my adverbial ‘however’, which concedes that point.



>>The facts argue the case that we in the West have more "things," greater wealth in terms of possessions, and have made technological progress, but I would make the argument that we have not kept pace with moral or spiritual health or conformity to the will of God.<<

That may be; however, who, other than ‘we Westerners’ have more truly fulfilled the Great Commission?

The assumption in the original post in the thread is based on a rumor. Is there any evidence at all available on which we can test that rumor? Any evidence at all of such a 'ban'?

This thread could be classified as gossip ... right Stan?

When dealing with this topic, often more heat then light is generated. Having studied this topic since the late 60's, being related to the first woman who was an ordained chaplin in the US Army, and having dicovered many passages that are not commonly recognized, I could write a book (which I have) on the topic.

In all kindness, there was an error of historical events in 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.

If someone is ordained as a pastor, do they have to be ordained as a deacon in order to function as such?

And another issue. If God has called someone, is that call dependent upon humans ratifying it by also calling them?

In brief, the subject of who should be ordained is mentioned in the vast majority of the books of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. I know of no other topic that has as much space dedicated to it in God's word. Surprised? So was I when I discovered it. Why, then has it not been recognized sooner?

1. Why was not the seventh day Sabbath recognized sooner the Rachael Oaks Preston?

2. Why did those who were preaching the second coming of Jesus in the early 1800's not understand the "mistake" of the date of 1844?

3. When translators gave us a translation of the Bible from Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek to whatever language one reads it in, they handled original words in three ways.

a. They translated words from the original language to the target language.

b. They "transliterated" words from the original language to the target language.

c. They "illustrated" the concepts presented into examples of how the principle was applied in other times.

These are the reasons why this topic has not been recognized sooner.

Just one more point. The issue is NOT whether women can be ordained. The real issue is two fold.

1. Will we do things God's way or the way humans do it?
2. The issue in God's word is not the gender of who is ordained, rather their qualifications. Gender is only one point in the list.

This is only a very brief overview of a huge topic. If more information is desired, I'll be happy to share. It is all from God's word.

Happy Sabbath

Maranatha :)
Ray

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