Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bob Pickle]

It is dangerous to rely on what some one, some leader, or what some organization says.  The GC has been wrong before and will probably be wrong again...after all they are just human beings too.  We do need an organization but we need to study and read for ourselves.  We can't blame the organization when we stand before God!  We also need to question ourselves whether what I believe is right.  It took me several years to believe what SDA's teach.  Much of my proof came out of the Catholic Encyclopedia because of my preconceived ideas...and found the SDA organization was quite similar.  I can at this time, only believe the GC is wrong.

The issue is not whether the GC can be wrong. The issue is whether each man can do whatever is right in his own eyes, without a Bible or SoP mandate, to the point of exalting personal opinions and preferences above the vote of representatives of the entire world church at a GC Session.

[Bob Pickle]

Is Newman advocating that unions and conference support the 1990 and 1995 GC Session votes, or is he advocating that they instead rebel?

 Bob, I have gone to the document and I have read it again.  I do not believe that he addresses your question in that document.  So, I cannot respond directly to your question.

Does not Newman state that WO is a moral issue, despite the claims of liberals even today that it is but a cultural issue, not a theological issue? Does not his casting it as a moral issue foment rebellion, unless he at the same time cautions against moving forward without authorization from a GC Session?

It is really curious that the liberals attack the anti-WO position by characterizing the issue as being only cultural, but then excuse their rebellion by morphing the whole WO debate into being about a moral issue. This smacks of worldly politics, and I think this was the same class of things that was happening in 1888 when Ellen White stated that she feared that there would have to be another coming out.

[Johann]

Why isn't that sufficient?

Because the ordination that confers authority to baptize and organize churches is not the same as the ordination that Ellen White called for in 1895. But I think you already must realize that.

No!

I have no problem with ordaining women to serve as Bible workers, or as physicians, or as deaconesses. What I have a problem with is ordaining women to serve as gospel ministers "with full ecclesiastical authority" (LP 42). We have no basis in the Bible or SoP for ordaining women to serve in that capacity.

For a number of years I served as the Lay Activities,  Sabbath School, Youth, Pathfinder, Communications Director, as well as a church pastor. During a period of 2-3 years, my records state I baptized 17 souls. If you ask me in which capacity those souls were won, or under which hat I baptized, then I'd  have to tell you it was under all of them. So for me your conclusion seems ridiculous.

Then you have a problem, because what you then are advocating is the abolition of gospel order within the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Within Adventism we have never said that a Sabbath School Superintendent is authorized to baptize anyone, with or without ordination as a SS Supt. Never.

Neither have I said that a Sabbath School Superintendent is authorized to baptize anyone.

[Bob Pickle]

Why isn't that sufficient?

Because the ordination that confers authority to baptize and organize churches is not the same as the ordination that Ellen White called for in 1895. But I think you already must realize that.

No!

I have no problem with ordaining women to serve as Bible workers, or as physicians, or as deaconesses. What I have a problem with is ordaining women to serve as gospel ministers "with full ecclesiastical authority" (LP 42). We have no basis in the Bible or SoP for ordaining women to serve in that capacity.

For a number of years I served as the Lay Activities,  Sabbath School, Youth, Pathfinder, Communications Director, as well as a church pastor. During a period of 2-3 years, my records state I baptized 17 souls. If you ask me in which capacity those souls were won, or under which hat I baptized, then I'd  have to tell you it was under all of them. So for me your conclusion seems ridiculous.

Then you have a problem, because what you then are advocating is the abolition of gospel order within the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Within Adventism we have never said that a Sabbath School Superintendent is authorized to baptize anyone, with or without ordination as a SS Supt. Never.

Neither have I said that a Sabbath School Superintendent is authorized to baptize anyone.

Then if that really is true, quit the games and engage in the discussion.

Above you stated, "No!" But you never said what you were saying no about. Were you saying no to the idea that the ordination Ellen White wrote about in LP 42 was different than the ordination she wrote about in 1895? If so, then you are ignoring the obvious. Were you saying no to the idea that you already realize that they were different? If so, then why did you only say no? Why didn't you also acknowledge that you had missed that point heretofore, and would take it into consideration in the future?

Your second statement is too brief as well given the context. I stated that I had no problem with ordaining women to be Bible workers, physicians, and deaconesses, but not as gospel ministers with full ecclesiastical authority to organize churches. You said that was ridiculous because you had baptized individuals while serving both as a church pastor and as a SS Supt., among other things. I then said that within Adventism, a SS Supt. is never authorized to baptize, with or without ordination. To that you said, "Neither have I said that a Sabbath School Superintendent is authorized to baptize anyone." So then, what was the point of your comment that my conclusion was ridiculous?

Quit the games and engage in the discussion.

[Johann]

Why isn't that sufficient?

Because the ordination that confers authority to baptize and organize churches is not the same as the ordination that Ellen White called for in 1895. But I think you already must realize that.

No!

I have no problem with ordaining women to serve as Bible workers, or as physicians, or as deaconesses. What I have a problem with is ordaining women to serve as gospel ministers "with full ecclesiastical authority" (LP 42). We have no basis in the Bible or SoP for ordaining women to serve in that capacity.

For a number of years I served as the Lay Activities,  Sabbath School, Youth, Pathfinder, Communications Director, as well as a church pastor. During a period of 2-3 years, my records state I baptized 17 souls. If you ask me in which capacity those souls were won, or under which hat I baptized, then I'd  have to tell you it was under all of them. So for me your conclusion seems ridiculous.

Then you have a problem, because what you then are advocating is the abolition of gospel order within the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Within Adventism we have never said that a Sabbath School Superintendent is authorized to baptize anyone, with or without ordination as a SS Supt. Never.

Neither have I said that a Sabbath School Superintendent is authorized to baptize anyone.

Then if that really is true, quit the games and engage in the discussion.

Above you stated, "No!" But you never said what you were saying no about. Were you saying no to the idea that the ordination Ellen White wrote about in LP 42 was different than the ordination she wrote about in 1895? If so, then you are ignoring the obvious. Were you saying no to the idea that you already realize that they were different? If so, then why did you only say no? Why didn't you also acknowledge that you had missed that point heretofore, and would take it into consideration in the future?

I made a great mistake. I thought that word might ignite some independent thinking so we could start the discussion and avoid the games.

Your second statement is too brief as well given the context. I stated that I had no problem with ordaining women to be Bible workers, physicians, and deaconesses, but not as gospel ministers with full ecclesiastical authority to organize churches. You said that was ridiculous because you had baptized individuals while serving both as a church pastor and as a SS Supt., among other things. I then said that within Adventism, a SS Supt. is never authorized to baptize, with or without ordination. To that you said, "Neither have I said that a Sabbath School Superintendent is authorized to baptize anyone." So then, what was the point of your comment that my conclusion was ridiculous?

Quit the games and engage in the discussion.

I invite you to quit the game of changing the meaning of the words I do use, even if I express myself briefly. That would make it much easier to have a discussion. I never said in my original post that I had served as a SS Supt. I said I functioned as the Conference Director of Lay Activities, Youth, and Sabbath School. I was the only Departmental Director in the Conference, excepting the President who also served as the Director of the Ministerial Association, and I believe he had the Department of Religious Liberty as well. If you do not understand the difference between a Conference Director of SS, and a SS Supt., I invite you to read about it in the policy you quote so frequently.

[Bob Pickle]

I made a great mistake. I thought that word might ignite some independent thinking so we could start the discussion and avoid the games.

And thus you evade actually engaging in the discussion, for you have failed to address the point being made. By default, then, we should be able to conclude that you concede that the ordination in LP 42 and the ordination referred to in the 1895 quote are not the same.

I invite you to quit the game of changing the meaning of the words I do use, even if I express myself briefly. That would make it much easier to have a discussion. I never said in my original post that I had served as a SS Supt. I said I functioned as the Conference Director of Lay Activities, Youth, and Sabbath School.

I did not change the meaning of anything. You never said anything about "the Conference." You said:

For a number of years I served as the Lay Activities,  Sabbath School, Youth, Pathfinder, Communications Director, as well as a church pastor.

The word "Conference" isn't there, but the phrase "church pastor" is. I would not be the only one out there who would understand you to be referring to positions in the local church, especially since you were commenting on my statement about ordaining deaconesses.

[Johann]

I made a great mistake. I thought that word might ignite some independent thinking so we could start the discussion and avoid the games.

And thus you evade actually engaging in the discussion, for you have failed to address the point being made. By default, then, we should be able to conclude that you concede that the ordination in LP 42 and the ordination referred to in the 1895 quote are not the same.

I invite you to quit the game of changing the meaning of the words I do use, even if I express myself briefly. That would make it much easier to have a discussion. I never said in my original post that I had served as a SS Supt. I said I functioned as the Conference Director of Lay Activities, Youth, and Sabbath School.

I did not change the meaning of anything. You never said anything about "the Conference." You said:

For a number of years I served as the Lay Activities,  Sabbath School, Youth, Pathfinder, Communications Director, as well as a church pastor.

The word "Conference" isn't there, but the phrase "church pastor" is. I would not be the only one out there who would understand you to be referring to positions in the local church, especially since you were commenting on my statement about ordaining deaconesses.

I said: NO! I have made a point of it several times that I do not see Ellen G. White making any practical distinction between what you insist on calling the LP 42 ordination and the one in 1895. I see the difference in wording only a description of either side of the same coin, and I believe the study of her Australian articles in this very section makes that clear. Throughout the writings of EGW as gathered in a number of her books, such as Gospel Workers, Evangelism, and Testimonies to Ministers, she is giving  varying pictures of the work of the pastor/evangelist. If you have a biased opinion of the work before you read these books, you might be able to define uncountable kinds of ordination, if you feel this is as important a doctrine as Justification or Righteousness by faith.

It is my honest conviction that Ellen Whites stresses that Jesus and salvation must always be the thrust and central point in every sermon, rather than by what kind of ordination certificate the preacher has received from his/her conference. Bringing the Gospel to the World is in reality all that counts. Or was Paul mistaken when he wrote in 1 Corinthians 1:17-18: "17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God."

Perhaps you ought to read and study the following article:

« August 2012 « Union News
Yes - The Bible does support the ordination of women to the gospel ministry

By Richard Davidson

On May 9, 2012, The Pacific Union Executive Committee voted (42 to 2) to authorize the Pacific Union to approve ordinations to pastoral ministry without regard to gender, and to call a special constituency session to amend the bylaws to make this action official.

The executive committee based their action on earlier Adventist studies that have determined that the Bible does not exclude women from pastoring churches or from ordination, but many delegates will want to review what the Bible teaches on this topic. The two articles that follow, both written by committed, loyal, conservative Seventh-day Adventists, provides a brief introduction to the most commonly discussed texts and the conflicting ways that some Adventists interpret those texts. For more detailed biblical studies on the topic, go to http://session.adventistfaith.org.

Richard M. Davidson, Ph.D, is professor of Old Testament Exegesis; chair, Old Testament Department, Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, Andrews University, Berrien Springs, Mich. Davidson is a past president of the Adventist Theological Society. In 1998, an ad hoc committee from the seminary published the book, Women in Ministry: Biblical and Historical Perspectives (Andrews University Press, edited by Nancy Vyhmeister). Chapter 13, "Headship, Submission, and Equality in Scripture," was written by Davidson, who describes the following outline as a “handout” used in connection with that chapter.

    Genesis 1 teaches us that male and female participate equally in the image of God. “So God created man [Heb. ha’adam ‘humankind’] in His own image, in the image of God created he Him; male and female created He them” (Gen 1:27). This foundational passage (and its surrounding context) gives no hint of a divine creation order. Here man and woman are fully equal, with no subordination of one to the other. We find that this description of the relationship between man and woman holds throughout Scripture and beyond. No inspired writer — not Moses, Jesus, Paul, or Ellen White — teaches the creation headship of man over woman. Nor has this position ever been accepted in the history of Adventism.
    Genesis 2 reinforces Genesis 1. In Gen 2, woman is presented as the climax, the crowning work of creation. She is created from a rib from Adam’s side, to show that she is “to stand by his side as an equal” (Gen 2:21-22; PP 46). She is man’s ‘ezer kenegdo (“help meet for him,” Gen 2:18 KJV), which in the original does not denote a subordinate helper or assistant. Elsewhere in Scripture it is most often God Himself who is called ‘ezer (“helper”) (Exod 18:4; Deut 33:7, 26; Ps 33:20; 70:5; 115:9, 10, 11). The phrase ‘ezer kenegdo in Gen 2 means no less than an equal counterpart, a “partner” (Gen 2:18, 22 NEB). Contrary to popular argument, Adam does not name the woman (and thereby exercise authority over her) before the fall in Gen 2:23. Adam does not name Eve till after the fall (Gen 3:20). In short, Gen 2 contains no creation order subordinating woman to man or restricting her from entering into full and equal participation with man in any ministry to which God may call her.
    Subjection or submission of wife to husband comes about only after the fall. A subjection of Eve to Adam is mentioned in Gen 3. God says to Eve: “Your desire shall be to your husband and he shall rule over you” (Gen 3:16). But it is crucial to recognize that the subjection of Eve to Adam comes after the fall. Furthermore, it is limited to the husband-wife relationship, and therefore does not involve a general subordination of women to men. This is precisely the consistent interpretation of Ellen White (see especially PP 58-59, 1T 307-308, and 3T 484) and The SDA Bible Commentary. The servant headship of the husband set forth in this passage can no more be broadened to men-women relationships in general than can the sexual desire of the wife for her husband be broadened to mean the sexual desire of all women for all men.
    Paul’s writings maintain the Eden model. Paul gives much instruction regarding the relationship between husbands and wives. As can be seen by 1 Tim 2:14 (see also 1 Cor 14:34 and PP 58-59), it is ultimately in light of Gen 3:16 that he indicates the “head of a wife is her husband” (1 Cor 11:3 ESV) and calls upon wives to “be subject in everything to their husbands” (Eph 5:24). Such passages as 1 Cor 11:3-12, 1 Cor 14:34-35, and 1 Tim 2:11-12 all concern the issue of the submission of wives to their husbands and not of women to men in general. Furthermore, in 1 Tim 2:13, Paul is not arguing for a creation headship of man over woman as has often been assumed. Rather, he is correcting a false syncretistic theology in Ephesus which claimed that woman was created first and man fell first, and therefore women are superior to men. Because of this false theology, wives were apparently domineering over their husbands in public church meetings. Paul’s counsel for husbands and wives cannot be extended to the relationship of men and women in general. The apostle himself shows how the marriage relationship applies to the church. Husband headship in the home is not equated with male headship in the church. Rather, the Husband/Head of the church is Christ, and all the church — including males — are His “bride,” equally submissive to Him (Eph 5:21-23).
    In the Old Testament we see numerous women in ministry, including leadership roles over men, thus confirming Genesis 1: the matriarchs of Genesis; Deborah (Judges 4 and 5), one of the judges over the people of Israel — women and men; Miriam (Exod 15:20-21); Huldah (2 Kgs 22:13-14; 2 Chr 34:22-28); Esther, and others (e.g., Exod 38:8; 1 Sam 2:22; 2 Sam 14:2-20; 20:14-22). And a host of women preachers (Psalm 68:11, ESV, NASB)! Although in OT Israel there did exist social inequalities for women, reflecting a distortion of the divine ideal set forth in Gen 1, there are no legal restrictions barring women from positions of influence, leadership, and authority over men. God’s original plan was that all Israel be a “kingdom of priests” (Exod 19:6). Because of Israel’s sin, an alternate plan was given in which even most men were excluded — except for one family in one tribe in Israel. Yet in the New Testament, the Gospel restores God’s original plan. Not a few male priests, but once more the “priesthood of all believers” (1 Pet 2:5, 9; Rev 1:6). Joel 2:28-30 predicts a time in the last days when both men and women will have equal access to the gifts of the Spirit (see also the radical new covenant promise regarding women’s roles in Jer 31:22, 31-34).
    Jesus called His people back to the original plan regarding the role of women. In the NT, Jesus Himself set the tone for the Gospel restoration by pointing His hearers to God’s original plan “from the beginning” (Matt 19:8). He did not move precipitously, upsetting the very fabric of Jewish culture; He did not ordain women as His immediate disciples, just as He did not ordain Gentiles. But He pointed the way toward the Edenic ideal in His revolutionary treatment and exaltation of women (see John 4:7-30; Mark 5:25-34; Luke 8:1-3; Matt 15:21-28; John 20:1-18, etc.).
    The Gospel ideal is the return to the Eden model. Paul emphatically declared: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28). This is not merely a statement on equal access to salvation among various groups (cf. Gal 2:11-15; Eph 2:14-15). Rather, it specifically singles out those three relationships in which the Jews had perverted God’s original plan of Gen 1 by making one group subordinate to another: (1) Jew-Gentile, (2) slave-master, and (3) male-female. By using the rare NT terms “male-female” (arsen-th?ly) instead of “husband-wife” (an?r-gun?) Paul establishes a link with Gen 1:27 and thus shows how the Gospel calls us back to the divine ideal, which has no place for general subordination of females to males.

Within the cultural restraints of his day, Paul and the early church (like Jesus) did not act precipitously. The subordination of Gentiles was difficult to root out (even in Peter! [Gal 2:11-14]). Slavery was not immediately abolished in the church (see Eph 6:5-9; Col 3:22; Phlm 12; 1 Tim 6:1). Likewise, women did not immediately receive full and equal participation with men in the ministry of the church. However, Phoebe is mentioned as a “deacon” (Rom 16:1); Junia was a female apostle (Rom 16:7), and leaders of the church at Philippi were women (Phil 4:2-3). Priscilla assumed an authoritative teaching role over men (Acts 18), and the “Elect Lady” (2 John) may well have been a prominent church leader with a congregation under her care.

Paul’s list of qualifications for elders framed in the masculine gender (“husband of one wife,” literally, “a one-wife husband” [1 Tim 3:1-7, Titus 1:5-9]) does not exclude women from serving as elders any more than the masculine gender throughout the Ten Commandments (Exod 20; see esp. vs. 17) exempts women from obedience. Rather, these passages are again upholding the Edenic ideal — the principle of monogamy (Gen 2:24).

God does not speak directly to the question of the ordination of women in the NT, just as He does not deal directly with the abolition of slavery, with vegetarianism, abstinence from alcohol, and many other issues based on principles set forth “from the beginning.” But He has given clear Biblical principles to guide our decision-making.

In these last days God has called His church to return to His original blueprint for every area of our lives: our diet, our day of worship — and the three human relationships mentioned in Gal 3. God calls us to return to the Edenic ideal for male-female relationships that allows women equal access to the gifts of the Spirit (Joel 2:28-30; Eph 4:11-13). As the Spirit gifts women for ministry, “distributing to each one individually as He wills” (1 Cor 12:11), may the church follow the Spirit’s leading!

In the interest of brevity, references for further study were edited out of this outline. To read the entire outline with references, go to http://session.adventistfaith.org and click on Bible Texts in the left sidebar.

I apologize for my thinking that you were so familiar with SDA Denominational terms from all of your studies of the POLICIES that you realized the term "Director" is generally used on the Conference/Union level and not on the local church level, where I have never heard of a Sabbath School Director, but rather a superintendent. Such terms become a part of your vocabulary when you serve for many years in that capacity.

[Bob Pickle]

Okay, Johann, then let's try again. Do you acknowledge that there is a difference between the ordination of an elder, a deacon, a minister, and a physician? And are you thus saying that the only two types of ordination that you see no difference between is that of a minister and of a deaconess/Christian help worker?

Remember, the 1895 quote was specifically talking about ordaining women that were not the ministers. The quote itself plainly shows that.

[Johann]

Okay, Johann, then let's try again. Do you acknowledge that there is a difference between the ordination of an elder, a deacon, a minister, and a physician? And are you thus saying that the only two types of ordination that you see no difference between is that of a minister and of a deaconess/Christian help worker?

Remember, the 1895 quote was specifically talking about ordaining women that were not the ministers. The quote itself plainly shows that.

It is my perception that in what Ellen White wrote during her stay in Australia she is supporting a new emphasis on evangelism where women are to take part, joining hands with the more experienced misters whose responsibility it is to support this kind of evangelism. And these female evangelists are to be ordained, and she makes absolutely no distinction in the way that ordination is to take place from how other pastor/evangelists are to be ordained.

I also find it remarkable that EGW never makes a negative remark about the  previous proposal that women be ordained as minsters, which was never fulfilled. As far as I can determine the next mention by her of an ordination, is the ordination of these female evangelists, and what a blessing to the church these will be in bringing the gospel to the families.

My question is why did the GC not follow further this heavenly vision, or wasn't EGW moved by the Holy Spirit?

[Bob Pickle]

Okay, Johann, then let's try again. Do you acknowledge that there is a difference between the ordination of an elder, a deacon, a minister, and a physician? And are you thus saying that the only two types of ordination that you see no difference between is that of a minister and of a deaconess/Christian help worker?

Remember, the 1895 quote was specifically talking about ordaining women that were not the ministers. The quote itself plainly shows that.

It is my perception that in what Ellen White wrote during her stay in Australia she is supporting a new emphasis on evangelism where women are to take part, joining hands with the more experienced misters whose responsibility it is to support this kind of evangelism. And these female evangelists are to be ordained, and she makes absolutely no distinction in the way that ordination is to take place from how other pastor/evangelists are to be ordained.

1. In the 1895 quote, what distinction did she make between the ordination of Christian help workers, and local elders or local deacons?

Please answer the above question.

Also note that the 1895 quote specifically says, "Women ... should be appointed to visit the sick, look after the young, and minister to the necessities of the poor. They should be set apart to this work by prayer and laying on of hands." Note that the LP 42 statement mentions nothing along these lines, but instead mentions "full ecclesiastical authority" to organize churches and baptize. So clearly, you are wrong when you say that she makes "absolutely no distinction."

Will you break the cycle by acknowledging your mistake?

I also find it remarkable that EGW never makes a negative remark about the  previous proposal that women be ordained as minsters, which was never fulfilled.

2. Do you not also find it remarkable that EGW never makes a negative remark about the previous proposal never being adopted?

Please answer the above question.

As far as I can determine the next mention by her of an ordination, is the ordination of these female evangelists, and what a blessing to the church these will be in bringing the gospel to the families.

Women today are free to bring the gospel to as many families as they want. The real problem is that we don't employ enough Bible workers today, much less Christian help workers. Not ordaining women to the work of organizing churches and ordaining elders and deacons is not hindering any women from taking the gospel to any families.

My question is why did the GC not follow further this heavenly vision, or wasn't EGW moved by the Holy Spirit?

What heavenly vision are you referring to? A heavenly vision to ordain women to serve as Christian help workers, not as gospel ministers who organize churches and baptize? Thus far that's the only heavenly vision you've cited.

We might also ask why we fail to send our ministers out to raise up new churches, why we don't ordain physicians when they leave Loma Linda, why we wait until church buildings are paid off before dedicating them when they are supposed to be debt free the day we move in, why we have camp meetings in the same place year after year when we were told not to, why physicians get paid so much more than ministers, why we haven't passed around a pledge to go vegetarian, etc., etc.

But just because we've failed in so many ways to follow the counsel God has given us, that does not justify abolishing the distinction of the roles of men and women God ordained to be in the home and in the church.

[Johann]

Okay, Johann, then let's try again. Do you acknowledge that there is a difference between the ordination of an elder, a deacon, a minister, and a physician? And are you thus saying that the only two types of ordination that you see no difference between is that of a minister and of a deaconess/Christian help worker?

Remember, the 1895 quote was specifically talking about ordaining women that were not the ministers. The quote itself plainly shows that.

It is my perception that in what Ellen White wrote during her stay in Australia she is supporting a new emphasis on evangelism where women are to take part, joining hands with the more experienced misters whose responsibility it is to support this kind of evangelism. And these female evangelists are to be ordained, and she makes absolutely no distinction in the way that ordination is to take place from how other pastor/evangelists are to be ordained.

1. In the 1895 quote, what distinction did she make between the ordination of Christian help workers, and local elders or local deacons?

Please answer the above question.

Also note that the 1895 quote specifically says, "Women ... should be appointed to visit the sick, look after the young, and minister to the necessities of the poor. They should be set apart to this work by prayer and laying on of hands." Note that the LP 42 statement mentions nothing along these lines, but instead mentions "full ecclesiastical authority" to organize churches and baptize. So clearly, you are wrong when you say that she makes "absolutely no distinction."

Will you break the cycle by acknowledging your mistake?

Bob, I am not in the habit of writing something one way and let it mean something else. When I wrote

the way that ordination is to take place

I meant what I said and not what you interpret me to say.

Just outside my window stands a truck with a crane. A son intended to take our refrigerator to the repair shop on this truck.  Then last night when he and his two sons got the refrigerator they decided to do it in another way. They placed it in a van, which was also available, and that is how they brought it to the shop. The repairman wanted it in his shop where he has all of the equipment to do the job, so this is the way we did it, and the way he does things.

EGW makes it clear how these women are to be ordained,

They should be set apart to this work by prayer and laying on of hands.

Is this way much different from the way pastors/evangelists are to be ordained?

May I humbly ask that in our discussions we take the words at face value.

[Bob Pickle]

You're being unreasonable, Johann.

This part of our discussion started with your objecting to:

Because the ordination that confers authority to baptize and organize churches is not the same as the ordination that Ellen White called for in 1895. But I think you already must realize that.

And you want to reduce the discussion to merely whether both types of ordination involve the laying on of hands? Even after I already posted:

Okay, Johann, then let's try again. Do you acknowledge that there is a difference between the ordination of an elder, a deacon, a minister, and a physician? And are you thus saying that the only two types of ordination that you see no difference between is that of a minister and of a deaconess/Christian help worker?

Everyone can see that the ordination of an elder or a deacon as much involves the laying on of hands as the ordination of a minister. If there is no difference in the ordination of elders, deacons, and ministers, then there is no difference between elders, deacons, and ministers. But of course there is a difference.

Thus, there can be a difference between Christian help workers and gospel ministers, even though both are set apart by the laying on of hands, especially since the quote said that Christian help workers may need to counsel with the minister.

If you were trying to be reasonable about all of this, you would now acknowledge that there is a difference between the ordination of elders, deacons, physicians, ministers, and Christian help workers.

[Johann]

Your response does not surprise me any more because you will never understand what I am trying to say.

[Daryl Fawcett]

I am having a problem locating the actual quote by Ellen White, therefore, can somebody quote it here with reference?

[Snoopy]

Okay, Johann, then let's try again. Do you acknowledge that there is a difference between the ordination of an elder, a deacon, a minister, and a physician? And are you thus saying that the only two types of ordination that you see no difference between is that of a minister and of a deaconess/Christian help worker?

Funny but I find your tone exceptionally condescending, Bob.