Leading Adventist Pastors, Seminary Faculty ask for Credential Change Because of Vote on Ordination
October 22, 2015: A number of leading Adventist pastors in the United States and seminary faculty at Andrews University have requested that their credentials as ordained ministers be exchanged for commissioned minister credentials. This is happening because the denomination’s General Conference (GC) Session voted against allowing its 13 global divisions to allow the ordination of women serving as pastors.
“I can’t make them equal with me by ordaining them,” Pastor Mike Speegle, senior pastor at New Hope Adventist Church in the suburbs of Washington DC near GC headquarters, told Religion News Service (RNS), speaking of women serving as his associate pastors. “But I can make myself equal with them by taking the commissioned [credential], which is exactly what they have.” New Hope is one of the largest Adventist congregations.
Many Adventists feel that gender discrimination in ordination is unjust and unethical, a violation of the New Testament teaching on spiritual gifts and their own denominational heritage in which a woman, Ellen G. White, is the most important of the founders of the faith and was issued credentials as an ordained minister by the GC for most of her life. Other Adventists have adopted the “male headship” theology of the Southern Baptist Convention in recent decades and believe that women most not hold any church office that involves spiritual leadership over men.
The question presented to the delegates at the every-five-year GC Session in July was if it was appropriate for this question to be settled separately in different parts of the world. Adventists who want to end gender discrimination in ordination are largely from Europe and North America, although the denomination in China ended it in the 1980s. Adventists in Africa and Latin America are more likely to support “male headship” theology. A third segment is made up of those Adventists who are afraid that this conflict will cause schism in the faith which has more than 18 million members and perhaps as many as 30 million adherents.
Two leading pastors of historically African American congregations in the denomination’s South Central Conference also told RNS last week that they have taken a stand similar to Speegle’s. Pastor Kymone Hinds from Memphis and Pastor Furman Fordham from Nashville (both in Tennessee) said they wanted to stand in solidarity with the women in ministry.
Rumors about a group of seminary faculty at the denomination’s leading university taking a similar stand have been circulated on social media for about ten days. Adventist Today talked with several of the faculty members involved about three weeks ago and has not published anything to date for two reasons. (1) It has been impossible to determine how many have taken this step because several are still thinking about it and it is a personal step, not a public statement. (2) Some of the reports published by other sources have been less than entirely accurate.
The sources who have talked to Adventist Today have requested anonymity. “I am not sure if this is the right time to publicize these decisions,” one professor stated. “These were deeply personal decisions for each one of us.” Another source said, “Some of the professors who made those decisions are very conservative and may feel that someone betrayed their trust by providing information to the media.”
At least nine male faculty members at the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary at Andrews University have evidently made a personal request to the GC to re-issue their ministerial credentials as commissioned minister credentials. “There is very broad support for women’s ordination” among the seminary faculty, Adventist Today was told. “Except for a small handful.” In fact, the seminary faculty have issued a consensus statement with a critique of “male headship” theology as less than biblical and published an entire volume of scholarly papers entitled Women and Ordination: Biblical and Historical Studies earlier this year at the denomination’s Pacific Press.
A total of 16 scholars contributed papers to the book, including the current and former dean of the seminary and the highly respected historian of the Adventist denomination, Dr. George Knight, a retired faculty member. Several seminary faculty were members of the denomination’s Theology of Ordination Study Committee (TOSC) which conducted a careful review of the topic over the past several years with the majority reporting no Bible reason to prohibit the ordination of women clergy. Seminary faculty have also been involved in several previous volumes of Bible studies on the topic and previous official study groups, going back to the 1970s. Their findings have been consistent through the decades of debate.
What is the practical difference between holding credentials as an Ordained Minister or a Commissioned Minister in the Adventist denomination? In fact, very little. There is no difference in pay scale. The differences in authorized functions all revolve around the role of conference president, which the GC insists must continue to be limited to Ordained Ministers.
Effectively, by making the difference between ordained and commissioned ministers center on the role of conference president, the denomination has created an episcopal order within its ministry. Those who are not ordained are excluded from it. Some of the protests are as much against this development in Adventist organizational concepts as it as about the role of women in the ministry.
“We have never believed in bishops or a higher order of clergy,” one veteran theologian told Adventist Today. “Are we in danger of backing into something we have always thought of a not biblical simply to avoid taking the step of removing gender discrimination from ordination?”
How many more ordained ministers may request a change in their credentials is unknown. A spokesman for the denomination’s North American Division told RNS it was “not a lot … so far,” but also pointed out any change in credentials occurs at the local conference level in most cases and the denomination really has not system to track it.
God will eventually run them all out of the church by various circumstances. Or, God will simply abandon the SDA movement as being an instrumental means of grace to finish the work.
The church will get a lot smaller before it can be used of God for His original intended purpose.
Some who attack male headship are simply blatant rebels against the word of God. They deceive many and few actually study the issue out in scripture, but follow some “reverend” leader they assume is “highly enlightened” but is walking in darkness and a delusion.
The conflict will intensify rapidly in the next few months and many will be overthrown by the delusion.
“God will eventually run them all out of the church by various circumstances.”
No, He won’t.
“Some who attack male headship are simply blatant rebels against the word of God.”
No, they are not. There is nothing biblical about male headship theology. It comes from Roman Catholicism via Calvinism. It is based on Greek philosophy which we as a church have never ever accepted.
It’s a Baptist doctrine that’s a right zoo. Nobody knows how to implement it–especially its proponents.
Male spiritual headship is Biblical as demonstrated throughout the Scriptures. This debate has gone on long enough and it is very disappointing to the Seminary Profs taking up the unsanctified cudgels in defiance of a GC decision in Official Session.
When such an action occurs it makes me wonder as to whether these Profs who teach our young people are following Scripture in other areas. Just asking!
Which GC decision are they in contravention of?
No GC decision forbids them from being commissioned.
Male headship is Biblical. and is the God ordained order for humanity. Christ over the church, man over the woman. Those who are promoting the ordination of women do not recognize that this has more to do with the attack on the authority of the Bible than on any other issue. Paul was writing scripture when he said, “I do not allow a woman to have dominion over a man in the church”, this is not just “his opinion”. If it is, then the whole Bible can be thrown out the window.
This is just a distraction to what is important to God, we should be more concerned with winning souls to Christ.
Who is this distracting?
Recognizing women in ministry prevents nobody from evangelizing.
Everyone wins.
Mr. Sorensen has a very “interesting” theology. It does not seem to be a theology that one reads about in the New Testament. It would appear to be the theology of the anonymous Old Testament writers who did the final editing of the first five books of the Old Testament attributed to “Moses.” They probably would resonate with Mr. Sorensen’s idea that “God will eventually run them all out the church.” Very sad.
Ervin,
You wrote: “It would appear to be the theology of the anonymous Old Testament writers who did the final editing of the first five books of the Old Testament attributed to “Moses.””
I’m not familiar with any “editing” of Moses’ book. Where can I find information on this “final editing” of the book of Moses, which you refer to?
Well, Daniel, A-today and Spectrum are playing their roles to the hilt to discredit official church authority and undermine the SDA system of church government. Congregational style of worship is the final result of their spirituality. They feel justified in their continued effort to destroy the SDA church. And they may well get it done, since our leaders in high places refuse to act to hold the church together on a strong biblical basis.
And maybe it is God’s permissive will to let the church self destruct and force individual church members decide various moral issues on their own, and not simply reflect “The church has said.”
We are in a war similar to the Sabbath change to Sunday in the early church. It seems likely that most people simply said, “Who cares? It can’t be that important.” And this is the agenda I think is controlling the SDA church today.
The abuse of authority by men, has created the illusion that the authority God has ordained that men should hold in the beginning is not a reality. But we will see in the end, that abuse of authority does not negate the order of authority God ordained. None the less, the abuse has allowed the advocates of WO a false opening to advance their false spirituality on the church.
Bill,
“And maybe it is God’s permissive will to let the church self destruct and force individual church members decide various moral issues on their own, and not simply reflect “The church has said.””
With an understanding that there are two aspects of the Christian Church, that is, the “Visible” and the “Invisible” attributes; then it wouldn’t surprise me your statement rings true. How things turn out toward the end of world history—time of the end, is yet to be seen. Whether or not the “visible church” just disappears or continues until the end is not clear. One thing is certain: the “two witnesses” of Revelation 11 are eventually taken up to Heaven, and will no longer be here on earth (powerless). I understand that the “two witnesses” represent the Holy Scriptures, that is, the Law and the Prophets, both witnessing to Christ, in the first instance.
Those who keep undermining the Holy Scriptures and deny their authenticity will eventually have nothing to turn to. Having denied the Holy Spirit they will be utterly destitute. Very sad.
WHAT? “Abuse of authority by men….” I fail to see ANY. Mistakes and challenges happen but the same can be said for any person in office regardless of their gender. I find your comment unfounded.
“Well, Daniel, A-today and Spectrum are playing their roles to the hilt to discredit official church authority and undermine the SDA system of church government.”
Not necessary. The policy itself does all that is needed to discredit church authority. Nonsense has a way of doing that. If you can’t trust the common sense of your leaders, they cease being your leaders.
Will the Sda Church ordain Transexual oe Eunch. How anout hemathrodite. This just plain stupid.
“To the eunuchs who keep My sabbaths, And choose what pleases Me, And hold fast My covenant, To them I will give in My house and within My walls a memorial, And a name better than that of sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name which will not be cut off.”
“Also the foreigners who join themselves to the LORD, To minister to Him, and to love the name of the LORD, To be His servants, every one who keeps from profaning the sabbath And holds fast My covenant; Even those I will bring to My holy mountain And make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be acceptable on My altar; For My house will be called a house of prayer for all the peoples.”
“It will come about after this That I will pour out My Spirit on all mankind; And your sons and daughters will prophesy, Your old men will dream dreams, Your young men will see visions. Even on the male and female servants I will pour out My Spirit in those days.”
Bill, maybe this is God’s way of taking His true believers back to the beginning. Congregations were all that He had for centuries. Paul set up congregations, not a world-wide organisation. The Latin Church did that later and SDAs now call it the Beast, so maybe organisations are not God’s way? Its easier for the faithless to hide in an ‘organisation’ yet feel no need to grow in grace and in knowledge, because the ‘organisation’ has supposedly done that for them. You have always been looing forward to a time when your ‘faith’ would be tested. You just didn’t expect it would come from within your chosen organisation. C’est la vie, mon ami.
Serge,
I agree that it was the Roman Church that first implied a catholic (universal) authority by referring to the bishop of Rome as the head of all the churches (local congregations). (Not unlike–in my opinion–the recent use of the term “World Church” in our own denomination.)
You don’t need to go back to the first few centuries AD, however, to find an example of opposition to creedalism, opposition to the hirearchical model and opposition to the dogmatism that creedalism engenders. The majority of the pioneers of the advent movement were opposed to those things–so much so that it was only with considerable difficulty that they were even able to select a name for an adventist publishing assoication.
Notice that the word, “Church” was conspicuous by its absence from the name of the Review & Herald Publishing Association, the Michigan Conference of Seventh-day Adventists and the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. I believe that was intentional and intended as symbolic of the fact that the pioneers of the movement were opposed to using an hierarchical model of organization.
I don’t believe congregationalism is the answer but space does not permit me to go into details about alternatives. The question now is whether those alternatives can be implemented at the local level or whether a clean-sheet-of-paper approach is required.
“Satan hopes to involve the remnant people of God in general ruin that
that is coming upon the earth….Men and women will arise professing to
have some NEW LIGHT OR SOME NEW REVELATION whose tendency is to unsettle
faith in the OLD LANDMARKS. Their doctrines will not bear the test of
God’s word, yet souls will be deceived…”Believers are NOT TO REST
IN SUPPOSITIONS ILL – DEFINED IDEAS of what constitutes truth”…
Now day in SDA leaders and so call wise man using “Suppositions
satans tool, and not anymore “It is written” and this is big problem.
(The EGW quote from devotion book 2015 Maranata, p. 64, 65.
Ziva
I would encourage Daniel to go to a library that holds theological literature and read most any mainline, scholarly, i.e. non-fundamentalist commentary on Genesis. Most bible scholars from Catholic and mainline Protestant denominations have long since determined that the use of Moses name on the first five books was a literary convention. But I know that this is difficult to accept for those brought up with the traditional Adventist understandings of these things. If it really is of concern to you, just forget it.
By the way, Mr. Sorensen might wish to use the standard abbreviation for Adventist Today. It is Atoday. No hyphen.
So for Dr Taylor there can be no such thing as a “fundamentalist theologian” who is a true “scholar”?
Forget about that basket boat floating in the rushes along the banks of the Nile? Forget about the Exodus? And the Ten Commandments? And the many other acts attributed to Moses?
Moses was not an actual person, just a “literary convention”?
“If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.”
Sort of demonstrates, Jim, that Ervin may need *progressive* sources in an attempt to prove his point, doesn’t it?
We have *not* followed cunningly devised fables as propounded by the feminist cabal and their supporters. Nor fables of so called erudite theologians.
That’s what Google is for. Look up Moses’ writing of the Torah for starters.
Mr. Sorensen can not be more right about all of them, including those who share their views. We are serving a God of order. Who are these to correct God. Where were you when he created man? Are these theologians become God? Do you understand what does that mean: God is the head of Christ? Christ head of man and man is the head of woman?
Now, the Church representing woman. Can a woman ruled over woman? Yes. Unless they repent and follow God’s objectives.
Ordained to commissioned kind of sounds like changing homo-sexual to gay expecting the intent and meaning to change. Living a lie is still a sin, is that not what the intent is, circumventing the will of the voice of the Church. Ellen White proclaimed the GC in session to be the voice of God to the church, they wouldn’t hear Moses either. Yet their decedents claimed him as authority, they didn’t listen to sister White and again today they proclaim her yet deny her words. Confusion. The master Divider is at work again, will we too become a divided host. I would rather be the janitor than fight to be an elder/minister etc. cleaning up this world is the example we are to be instead positions are desired. In the end the real cream floats unless it is homogenized and then it just blends in. Lucifer lusted for recognition, he got it he is a failure according to the book of record.
It was a post from Elaine Nelson (a faithful AT blogger and wise woman) that first got me to thinking about declaring solidarity with pastors everywhere, who have said that being an Ordained Minister in the Seventh-day Adventist church cannot be exclusively for males.
I prayed about it and discussed it with family and friends and publicly declared that being ordained is no longer a title or designation I wish to have. I am in SOLIDARITY with the Andrews 9 and others.
I am a retired Adventist Pastor, a retired Chaplain, and pastoral educator. I too join in this request and have asked for my ordained status to be changed to commissioned credentials.
I realize my action is more symbolic, and that the negative consequences (if any) may be minimal. But, the point in doing this is to show solidarity with others who have bravely announced their stand against gender discrimination in our church.
So many all over the world have begun to feel a desire for solidarity with those calling for the church to respect our women pastors. Solidarity for our fellow women ministers is simply the demand of fraternity, that we treat each other as brothers and sisters with the love and respect that God gives to all of us.
THANK YOU ELAINE!
If not us, then who? If not now, then when? If not this, then what?
Sam, As you say, it is a symbolic move; it will cost you nothing. Many SDA ministers exhibit characteristics of hirelings, false shepherds, more interested in their insurance plan than the work to which they have supposedly been called.
A recent article on Atoday documented the cost of winning a single soul in Northern to tens of thousands of dollars, a figure determined by counting dividing new members into ministerial salaries. What do these people do to actually earn their salary? Certainly, it’snot like they are breaking any new ground with their sermons. Deacons and elders can visit the sick, pray with people, counsel.
I never read of Paul running around with his paw out, trying to shake money out of people with the threat of a curse.
That is not a valid, accurate way of calculating the cost. It ignores the fact that ministers have many other duties.
Monte,
What would those “many other duties” be?
“A recent article on Atoday documented the cost of winning a single soul in Northern to tens of thousands of dollars, a figure determined by counting dividing new members into ministerial salaries.”
Sounds like big business, to me. There must be some benefit, or profit in the end?
May I join with Mr. Geli in lauding the mature comments of Elaine on the Adventist and Spectrum web sites. Her perspectives will long outlive the rantings of those who lack her insights. May she continue to live long and prosper.
Elaine,
You never told me the good Doctor was your son?
Thank you, we do not need to be ordained by the GC to be called by our God.
Who is your god?
Sam, I hope you do not find the path of someone who decades ago left God’s church your model.
Ordained to commissioned kind of sounds like changing homo-sexual to gay expecting the intent and meaning to change. Living a lie is still a sin, is that not what the intent is, circumventing the will of the voice of the Church. Ellen White proclaimed the GC in session to be the voice of God to the church, they wouldn’t hear Moses either. Yet their decedents claimed him as authority, they didn’t listen to sister White and again today they proclaim her yet deny her words. Confusion. The master Divider is at work again, will we too become a divided host. I would rather be the janitor than fight to be an elder/minister etc. cleaning up this world is the example we are to be instead positions are desired. In the end the real cream floats unless it is homogenized and then it just blends in. Lucifer lusted for recognition, he got it he is a failure according to the book of record.
Gay panic doesn’t make a point effectively.
Sam, your compliments and acknowledgement are deeply appreciated. The idea came to me spontaneously as it was a realistic approach to the crude saying: “Put your money where your mouth is.”
So many will comment that this or that should be done, but it begins with “me” if change is to be made. Martin Luther, and his namesake, Dr.King, were courageous in stepping out alone and their courage made it easier for more to join with them.
But even if no more ordained pastors like you and the few who we know of are willing to become commissioned, it will stand as as a public reprimand to those who continue to keep women “in their place” by refusing to recognizing their full equality that God gave them. “Going public” is not to gain either criticism or praise but perhaps encourage others to take the same step.
Martin Luther stood up for the truth of the Bible and the Bible was the basis of his stand. He did not stand up for the social correctness of the day. But rather on the truth of God’s Word. Those who seek to know the truth must pray and read and be open to receive.
Those who disrespect and reject ordination into communion of saints will be deprived of it’s privilege forever.
Because playing the church and being the pillar of the church are whole different things. Poor people, why wouldn’t they start thinking of what they’re doing?
I find it strange that they still want to get paid and use our resources to teach our children.
This is respect for the vote? Is this what they teach our children? Is this not what caused the problem to start with? While we are in the great falling away and trying to save the Church; as they sit and add to the continuing problem that they created? But we all hold guilt for allowing such to happen.
These are the results of those with the mental capability of a rock and the moral ethics below the rock; but at some point in time they will wish they had the rock to hide under. HE will make sure of that. If you are unable to read the BIBLE, think you are far superior to GOD and HIS PLAN and wish to derive your own; then don’t expect to teach our children or be around our families. We are commanded otherwise. Is this simple enough for everyone?
Jesus was taught by Mary, His Mother, a women, don’t you think your a bit out of line, condemning people to have rocks fall on them, for standing by women.
If A = B and B = C. You contention is the actions of these individuals rate at the same level as the strength and conviction of Mary? Or even better; all women have the strength and conviction of Mary? This sounds like your wisdom; nothing of HIM.
The vote prevented men from being comissioned?
I cannot understand how requesting Commissioned Minister credentials in any way raises the status of females in the SDA Church. In the minds of many they will still remain in a 2nd class status with limitations on how they may serve. The fundamental issue will continue to remain as to how we will be willing to use in ministry all people whom God may call. For that reason I see no value in requesting that I be given Commissioned credentials rather than those of an ordained minister.
Gregory,
I am happy to see your understanding of the fundamental issue being God calling people to minister as He sees fit. God will calm the surrounding storm of loud and emotional argument as more people come to that same understanding.
It’s about solidarity, Brother Matthews!
If the category of ordained minister can only be given to male persons, then one way to change it is to render the category null and void. The action of the conference in Scandinavia, the Andrews 9, and others expresses a fundamental alternative to the status quo of gender bias and discrimination in our church’s ministerial ranks.
I’d rather say it’s all about lack of wisdom.
I just wonder why catholics don’t have any problem with the women ordination? Is there anything special in SDA regarding this matter?
And one more thing.. what relationship will be between other Christian denominations and “SDA organization of non-ordained lecturers” from now on? 🙂
Don’t you think they will cease to accept SDA as a church?
The lack of wisdom, that’s what it is.
I have pontificated time and again that the Adventist end event scenario, its eschatology, is a major liability to its mission that hasn’t been confessed because it would destroy the church. It’s raison d’etre turned out to be a lie. The 1844 fiasco and the rationalized theology still in support of it represent its fatal theological flaw, its very limp backbone that emasculates its legitimacy. The rabid supporters of the “soon” coming of Christ tied to straw man of the “papacy” on this forum is continuing evidence of the grip SDA mendacity holds on blind believers. Like abused women who suffer misdirected guilt by feeling they “deserved” the abuse, Adventists blame themselves for the eschatology abuse by their sin of not being good enough.
But, to my surprise, out of nowhere women’s ordination arrives as the potential schism with dire possible results. And it’s a much lesser issue than one hundred forty years of miserably failed theology. But as a here-and-now issue with immediate effects for every member it elevates to grand schism probabilities. In the historical failed scenario individual Adventists would face the crux of Sunday/Sabbath keeping under the threat of civil punishment. No civil threat here, but worse, the issue of women’s ordination immediately forces every member to take a stand with pastors facing the ultimate dilemma.
And the pope was Adventist who spoke Ex Cathedra in San Antonio. Unforeseen Shaking Time? Go figure!
Larry Boshell, WHAT IN EARTH ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? WHO’S SIDE ARE YOU ON? And, what do you mean by the 1844 FIASCO? To all who are on the side of women’s ordination. When you can find ONE text in the Bible that promotes a woman to be priest, PLEASE share it with me! We ought to be looking for God’s endorsement on this issue in. HIS OWN WORD, NOT looking to see that it DOESN’T say anything against it!!! Miriam was a prophetess. Since she was of the family of Levi as Aaron and Moses were, surely THIS would have been a great story to include a woman priest, but Miriam WAS NOT a called a priest, but she was indeed a prophetess, so really, what does this TELL US? God ordained for males and males aline to be priests. God’s system for the family is God, then man, then woman, then children. This order in the fmail is also to be replicated in Church life. Does this mean a woman cannot sometimes preach? No. Remember Miriam, obviously, sometimes had a word from the Lord, so she, obviously, somerits spoke before the children of Israel, which, OBVIOUSLY included the men of Isreal also. Women DO NOT NEED to be ordained in order to work for God, but then, neither do men!
It’s time for us SDAs to realize that this whole issue about WO is clearly a STUPID DISTRACTION from Satan. Very soon our probation as a denomination will close at the announcement of the enforcement of the Sunday law. The FIRST twin was born on Friday, June 26, 2015, THE NATIONAL SAME-SEX MARRIAGE, the SECOND twin, the national Sunday law is about to be born. Fellow SDAs, OUR SOUL’S SALVATION IS MUCH MORE IMPORTANT THAN WO! In fact, if those of us who are continually attempting to justify the having of female priests when there were none to be found neither in the Old Testament nor the New Testament, this will become SIN to each of those individuals whether they find themselves in our seminary at Andrews University, or just a regular member of our churches across the globe. One last thing, female priests were ONLY FOUND IN PAGAN RELIGIONS, AND THEY WERE ALSO USUALLY TEMPLE PROSTITUTES!!!
Amen!!!!!!!!!!
Where do you get the idea of female priests???? There are none in the Adventist Church. We do not believe in a priestly system akin to Catholicism. A pastor is not a priest.
Rosita, AMEN! Dare I say: PREACH IT!
Rosita a prophet has a higher position then a priest which makes many women in the bible and ellen authorities above priests which were male in ancient cultures. God called women and His ordination has more value then the ones men get in church!
Rosita, I really don’t care one way or the other about women’s ordination. I’m not a church member so unaffected. As I see it all the quoted Biblical buttressing texts are bogus since the experience of the authors and their demographics have nothing whatsoever to do with today’s issue.
Your interpretation of the Scriptures is an opinion, without any authority and with questionable enforcement possibilities.
The energy, bile, and misdirected shouting meets my criteria of a forming schism. That’s the core of my “pontification.” Who will end up being “persecuted?” There will be an orthodoxy developed (may already be via San Antoni) and some will have to pay the price of “rebellion. Your passion is evidence of the entrenched positions. My question is, where will this end? Those prepared for Catholic oppression may find a find conscience sullied at home.
All of your “pontificating” is way off track. Adventist theology is a perfect explanation of the sanctuary model and the time prophecies of Daniel and Revelation.
Your theology is the “failed” theology, as time will bear out!
The SDA church has survived and thrived through the years in spite of several major challenges (Kellogg, Canwright, Ford, Brinsmead, etc.) and will continue to do so, while Larry Boshell will fade into obscurity like all the other naysayers.
History continues to repeat itself.
I agree. I’m no friend to AToday or Spectrum. Our 1844 message will stand on its biblical grounds.
How can you say that? Where is there any 1844 fulfillment? If the Mormons were the purveyor of the he empty prophecies of Adventism you would be calling them idiots and liars for continuing to promote abject, obvious failures. But when it is your ox, goring isn’t allowed even at the expense of “truth.”
“But when it is your ox, goring isn’t allowed even at the expense of “truth.””
“Truth”? I thought that was something you thought didn’t exist, unless it was your version of “truth”? But, I must be misreading you again, maybe you are referring to your own version of “Truth”?
Yes, Adventism trundles along hallucinating in a Sanctuary pipe dream, a small piece of a huge mythical credenda, a vertical version of Alice in Wonderland. It was a face saving coat thrown over the prophetical, blatant, undeniable, total eschatological miscalculation by well-meaning, but ignorant founders, of a new religion, Adventism. And of course it will live long past me. That doesn’t excuse its 140 year heralding a lie in the name of dogma where any observer can see its failed prophecies as track records of fiction.
The survival of the myth is evidence that a theological fantasy reproduced long enough becomes religious “truth.” The sanctuary and D&R have no magnetic power, only an adhesive grip on those in the Adventist sound proof chamber who view themselves as part of the 144,000 contingent.
Come James, fess up. You can’t face the real truth of the paucity of Adventist theology. I understand from my own experience the anxiety and pain of facing up to the destruction of cherished beliefs. When I faced the reality of Adventism 45 years ago I felt God had walked out on me. I wrongly thought he was Seventh-day Adventist. Now I am joyful in knowing he is love, unattached to the pipedream of human dogmas or theology.
And if it’s your profession of faith that ties you to the enchantment of imaginary visions, I respect that as your faith metaphor in lieu of reality.
Show me where I am wrong.
Wow just wow, I’m praying for you Larry.
Really! Why? You don’t need to, just show me how I am wrong.
James, all ‘pontificating’ must now end. Raymond Cottrell, who is almost single-handedly responsible for the SDA Bible Commentary (as editor ie) has spent his life trying to defend that ‘Adventist theology is a perfect explanation of the sanctuary model and the time prophecies of Daniel and Revelation.’
Study this manuscript which is the result of his lifetime of study, and then get back to us.
http://www.rethinkingadventism.com/support-files/cottrell_1844.pdf
The SDA church has never postulated JC would return in 1844… that was the Millerites remember??? der?
OK Danny, but it’s a difference without a distinction. The church adopted, enlarged and promoted a manufactured doctrinal mythology, with Ellen’s imprimatur, created by the Millerites. None of it now favors enlightenment and “truth.” The Millerites laid an egg purchased by a system that now refuses to admit it never hatched. It’s a paradox that Adventism, a self-appointed truth seeking system, has a veritable lie at its core.
Larry: “The Millerites laid an egg purchased by a system that now refuses to admit it never hatched.”
Larry, go to the top of the class, and I do mean ‘class.’ That is metaphoric masterpiece, unsurpassable. All the better for is truism.
Serge,
I’m familiar with Cottrell’s exposition of the Sanctuary doctrine. If I recall correctly it was Bill Garber who alerted you, and I have also read most of it, especially on Daniel 8:14. An excellent work, no doubt, which I full agree with.
As for Mr. Boshell, if he would speak plain English, he might make more sense to some of us illiterates (I speak for myself, of course).
“It’s a paradox that Adventism, a self-appointed truth seeking system, has a veritable lie at its core.” That’s a profound statement, especially coming from a former SDA pastor. I knew the “truth” was out there somewhere, just didn’t know it was here at Atoday.
Daniel, while you generally have to rely on ‘former SDA pastor’s to reveal the true state of affairs with SDA doctrines, it is rare to hear it from one who never parted company, but speaks the truth nonetheless. If you have not studied this manuscript by a very fine SDA theologian, you cannot claim to know much about SDAism at all. I think it behoves you to read this carefully, then you may continue to comment in a much more knowing way. I believe it was George Tichy who alerted me to its existence, on another thread, for which I thank him.
http://www.rethinkingadventism.com/support-files/cottrell_1844.pdf
Thanks Daniel….. yes, apologies Bill. But then, you and George always make equal sense to me. Not sure if George approves of Cottrell however.
Changing the credentials may turn out to be a big problem with the IRS, no? If I am correct, and I might not be, only “ordained” ministers qualify for the parsonage allowance.
James, I believe you are correct.
Nope – It was the IRS who introduced the term “commissioned” into SDA parlance. We adopted “commissioned” from IRS jargon so that unordained ministers could qualify for parsonage allowance.
IRS regulation 1.1402(c)-5 requires that an individual be a “duly ordained, commissioned, or licensed minister of a church.”
The only doors closed to commissioned employees are a conference president and other positions considered promotions.
The SECC has a woman conference president, but her name is not listed in the annual G.C. book of conferences and officers. Why would that be??
This whole movement for women’s ordination is nothing more than part of the women’s liberation movement that has infiltrated into our church and is Satan’s way of destroying God’s church.
However, I think this movement will help to call out God’s people one way or the other which is a good thing.
It is time to split and move on with the three angel message and for every conservative Adventist take his tithes and offerings out of these liberal conferences.
The Civil Rights movement affected the church. Was that evil?
Yes. You cannot give rights to the wicked. Tell the wicked they have the right to do as they please and they will do just that-evil.
Consider that the SDA church has created its own challenge by allowing men to be legitimate pastors based on need and want. I know of several personal friends that were studying in other fields (i.e. social work, psychology, nursing home administration and even marketing) and after graduation was asked and/or felt the proverbial ‘call’ to be a pastor. The SDA conferences grandfathered them into a pastoral position. My point is: If an allowance has been afforded to non-theologically trained MEN to become pastors, then an argument for disallowing theologically trained WOMEN to be pastors is definite discrimination. These men had better get a theological degree pronto! They are soon to be upstaged by theologically trained women! Frankly, I’m aghast that a law suit hasn’t been filed.
However, let me be clear, the Bible is patriarchal for a reason. Women in the Bible served in an equal capacity to men but in separate ‘callings’. If ANYONE fails to understand that tenet, they have a frail grasp on the Biblical picture, however measured.
If you are a woman and you ARE ‘CALLED’ to preach, then PREACH!!!! Start your OWN ministry! God WILL bless it. Consider this: If you are stymied, buffalo-ed and/or bullied by a church, a person, a conference…..then maybe you weren’t ‘called’. What happens if you DO NOT answer God’s call? (Jonah comes to mind!). I would avoid a vacation-cruise by all means!!! Better yet, please let me know if you are on a boat; I will avoid it!!!
“If you are a woman and you ARE ‘CALLED’ to preach, then PREACH!!!! Start your OWN ministry! God WILL bless it.”
I agree! If you are “anyone” and your are called to preach, or minister in any way, do it. Start your own ministry. Too many church members are pew warmers who complain that the church isn’t doing anything, or isn’t doing what they think it should be doing. If God has blessed you with an idea, then do it. Gender is not an issue and insisting on employment by some church entity is merely a lack of trust in God to provide for you. If He called you to do something, He will provide for you when you are doing it.
When I was asked to be a pastor (commissioned, btw) and told that I would only be paid about 40% of all the other pastors, I told the conference president that I work for God and if he chooses to have part of my support paid by the SDA church, then that is between God and the church, but my reliance is still 100% on God–the reaction was stunned silence.
It will be interesting to see how they get on. Pastors in the UK who tried this recently were told it was prohibited by Policy. Once ordained, you can’t be unordained…
It’s not about policy, it’s all about personal willing. If someone voluntarily rejects his dignity, no policy can prevent it.
For some people ordination means nothing, so is the policy.
That’s why “once ordained – for ever ordained” is just not true and the policy is insufficient on this matter.
Ordaining women is NOT against policy. The Working Policy clearly states that there no restrictions on gender. The leaders are “appealing” for no WO because it can only be an appeal, it is NOT policy.
I doubt that their stand of solidarity has changed many minds on this issue.
We have been saying this over and over that the Leaders in GC should resign. If they cannot put together the ship and they are discriminating women but supporting thieves in some of the divisions and unions, we strongly advise them to resign and we elect new leaders. Just today the GC President published a document about how he likes Mrs.Ellen White who was actually an Ordained Pastor but on the other hand he cannot ordain other women of her caliber this a contrast. Therefore we should not accept this kind of a leader who is not consistent in what he says and what he does.
The church just had a chance to put in new leadership. They didn’t.
I believe you are incorrect about Ellen bring ordained. That has been covered over and over again.
Tim, yes in July the Session has approved wrong leaders and that is normal because they went around in Africa and Latin America sensitizing Unions and Divisions which had the same view on women discrimination. The GC Leaders have even created new Unions in those areas because they new that the Session was near and that those Unions were to support them in wrong doing. Therefore a propaganda like that cannot be blessed by the Lord of the Lords. Those leaders are pretenders they are showing the wrong face to the SDA Believers and that is why we are requesting them to step aside. If they don’t resign and which is the good way of solving this problem in SDA Church, the Retreat which is going to take place in Europe will do something, more to that the Adrews University Lecturers will also do something. The Renaissance of the SDA Church has started and it will not end until it will have reached to its climax. We hope that the new Leaders will learn from this mistake which was committed by GC Leaders when they descriminated women.
If you feel that there are leaders in the church, at any level, that are not qualified enough, or sanctified enough, or doing what you think they should do, you should pray for their removal from office.
God has many more ways to remove a person from a position than an election every 5 years. I have seen it work miraculously. I have prayed for the removal of leaders that I knew (first hand) to be corrupted, and in almost every one of those situations, the people were removed (through a variety of circumstances) within a few months. In one case, all of the top officers of a conference were defeated by the members at a constituency meeting to the surprise of the Union and Division leaders.
I guess with the others that were not removed, I may have been wrong. Or maybe God is saying not yet. God tolerated the evil kings in Israel and Judah for years. But our job is to pray for their removal or repentance, as Elijah did for Ahab.
The first and presently 3rd voices speaking out in this thread are BS and ET. How appropriate that we hear from the far right and the far left. BS hawking male headship. Hawking male headship in the church or on websites should preclude anyone from reading another word the proponents write. Then ET tries to throw in some JEDP non sense supposing that God needed editors and additionally was not smart enough to inspire Moses in writing the first five books of the OT. These views right and left are BORING because they are intellectually vacuous.
It appears that anyone who needs to use capital letters to write out words in their postings can safely be ignored.
Erv, not sure what you mean by this? Is it use of caps in ‘shorthand’ for otherwise unknown quantities/names, (as in BS or ET or JEDP- none of which makes any sense to me) or is it any use of caps, where, eg, I use them if I want to EMPHASISE a word? I used to be able to use italics or bold script, but that facility seems to be no longer available. Doesn’t AT like their bloggers using expressive language? How can we do this otherwise?
Yes, your highness!
The dummy spitting begins:
Therefore take away the talent from him, and give it to the one who has the ten talents (more deserving). – JC
Its a big shame for ALL THOSE WHO OPPOSE WHAT THE MAIN SESSION HAD ALREADY PASSED. Any confusion comes from the NAD and their counterparts in Europe, Trust me God is pulling out his hand and soon you will here that there should embrues what has been going on. Please keep the church united, dont dived us.
It is not so amazing that Elaine Nelson gets so much affirmation and a high level of credibility on a forum that professes to support the SDA church of which she is not a member.
This forum like Spectrum draws unbelievers like flies on cow pies and all are applauded as highly enlightened and spiritual. They tolerate me and a few others so they will have some people to point to as the trouble makers in the church.
By the way, Dr. Taylor, Jesus referred to “Moses and the prophets” and I think it is more than a little liberal to attack Moses as not a valid bible writer or the one who wrote the first 5 books of the bible. Even many of you “liberals” I suppose, would not advocate this position. So…..jump all over him like you do those who defend basic SDA doctrine. Or is he an A today icon beyond challenge?
I suggest you challenge each other if you want to project a truly objective forum for discussion. They do it on ADvindicate and I am all over Paulson as well as others for some of his “off the wall” positions. Even David Read bounced him about the separation of church and state ideas he tried to “sell”.
OK, I’m waiting………
Talk about being tied to mama’s apron strings. Stand up and be a man and let the women fill the roll God created them to do. Love, nurture and stand by their man!
How can you de-ordaine someone?
Who cares if the big guns are careless about their ordination, it’s just an indication of how careless they are about God’s word.
While everyone is distracted arguing and fighting over WO, Jesus is going to come and catch you all unprepared. Will he be able to say “well done thou good and faithful servant”? I think not!
Nobody has to fight over ordination. They should just let it go ahead by territory as they see fit.
For the past two years most of the pro-ordination rethoric I’ve heard has come from ordained individuals.
Today, what they call for continues to be refused, for decades now. Soo, why aren’t ordination credentials being exchanged for Commissioned credentials by the bucket loads?
Shame on all the pro-ordination voices who still cling to their precious ordination credentials. They’ve made a ruckus for naught.
Their “support”, when truly tested, turned out to be no support at all!
Do they fear loosing their salaries?? Didn’t they think about it ahead of time, before so strongly vocalizing their “support”?
The following is a subjective/imperfect/very personal prediction/opinion:
If the North American and European Divisions continue to hemorrhage members at the rate of today, the global church will experience a very strong shift in ideology.
Because North American, European and othe “modern” nations, in their majority, continue to turn their back on Adventism and continue to protest the pillars of our faith, they are, most unwittingly, leaving the reigns of the church in the hands of the rest of the world. I say most unwittingly not because minorities cannot lead (they do so exceptionally well), but because ideals such as WO will be disregarded as the church continues to grow its membership within minority sectors and as it continues to loose members within its most affluent/liberal countries.
So, in away, what some call backwards…
So, in a way, what some call backwards/outdated/OT Adventism will only continue to grow from here!
Minorities (of which I am one), in their/our majority, are notorious for believing/backing up the Bible and SOP as the literal Word of God.
So, given this scenario, If membership stagnation and growth continue to grow at todays rate and in today’s geographical locations, were going to have a totally different mindset, as a global church.
Regardless of this year’s 60/40 + margin, if the issue of WO is brought to the table again at the next GC, changes in global perspective as a result of membership growth/loss might not allow the issue to advance, yet again.
Onan The Magnificent got right at the beginning of the discussion. Our job is to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Satan is winning.
“Onan The Magnificent got right at the beginning of the discussion.” How sad … so much mistaken biblical metaphor. Onan might have got it right at the beginning, but at the end, …. well….. bit anti-climactic.
BTW Scott, Satan is not winning. He can never win. He is already defeated.
Col2.15 having despoiled the principalities and the powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
I don’t question the sincerity of the individuals who wish to exchange their credentials from ordained to commissioned, but it is only a superficial token of support for women and other commissioned ministers in the church. The benefits of ordination are not being relinquished:
1. Ordained ministers can perform ministerial activities (weddings, etc.) anywhere in the world without permission from their local conference and the conference where the activity is to be performed. This privilege will continue for ordained ministers regardless of the words on their ID card. (Note: While preaching at an evangelism campaign in a country in Asia, I was asked by the conference leaders if I was ordained or not and when I said I was only a commissioned pastor, I was not allowed to participate in the baptisms of members who had attended…)
2. Ordained ministers are paid substantially more than commissioned ministers and I did not hear of anyone mentioned in this forum refusing to accept their salary or their expected retirement earnings.
3. Regarding the IRS and the parsonage provision: The IRS accepts the statement of earnings from the conference designating the minister as being eligible or not and I did not hear of anyone mentioned in this forum asking the conference to inform the IRS of their ineligibility.
If the ordained clergy are sincere in desiring unity with their commissioned sisters, they should go further than just changing a word on an ID card.
Powerful and thought provoking!
One can only hope.
1) Recognition of Commissioned ministers varies widely around the world. Different Divisions handle this differently. This was part of the thinking underlying the vote in Austin. The majority of the delegates voting, did not want to handle Ordained ministers on a Divisional basis.
2) According to NAD pay scale, Ordained and Commissioned ministers with equivalent training and experience are paid the same.
3) IRS tax regulations regarding clergy apply to any “duly ordained, commissioned, or licensed minister of a church”.
Jim,
Many years ago during my few years in pastoral work, the conference declared me a “commissioned” minister. However, it came with certain restrictions prohibiting me from leading-out in a Communion service or conducting weddings. Are you aware of any such restrictions today in any conferences in North America?
William, I know you asked Jim, but in my experience as a commissioned pastor, my conference allowed me to do everything an ordained pastor was allowed to do except ordain others. My only restriction was that I could not perform any of those activities outside of the conference without express permission.
It’s up to the conference where you are working whether you will have any restrictions on your activities.
In the conference where I live now they are treated the same. But that is not true everywhere.
This whole thing about Commissioned ministers was created in response to US tax code, and has been a bit confused and inconsistent from its inception. In practice it tends to mean whatever a Division, Union or perhaps even Local conference wants it to mean.
Ordination in the SDA church is orthopraxy. Commissioning in the SDA church is heteropraxy.
A majority of the delegates who voted in San Antonio voted against Ordination becoming heteropraxy.
SDA is fallen, is fallen, is fallen. The Glory has departed. Alas
Another anonymous without the courage of their pathetic convictions. Besides that, ‘the glory has NOT departed.’ There was never any glory in SDAism to begin with! Alas!
Beware lest the same fate befall thee that befell the father and grandfather of Ichabod. (I Samuel 4)
Serge, I agree Satan will loose in the end. If he can keep us busy with arguing instead of spreading the gospel, he wins.
It’s called creeping compromise, and you can blame your leadership for this outcome. Adventist churches have had women associate pastors for years, but did the leadership stop them at the outset? NO. In fact, they encouraged it by putting them on the payroll. I can name over a half a dozen other creeping compromises this church has allowed that were at one time never practiced.
So instead of letting out your frustration on each other in here, direct that frustration at those who are accountable for it. They are the ones you pay handsomely to keep your church peculiar and separate from the world. And if nothing gets done, and your Spirit and the Word of God is telling you women ordination is wrong, then it is you who needs to make a decision to stay or go. And that’s a choice you will be accountable for.
However, given the political strategy by pastors here, and looking at the history over the last 20 years with women and their escalating roles in this church, it would not surprise me if this is all being played out this way, “on purpose”, to bring about the desired doctrinal change. Biblical/Religious historians know doctrinal change must come very slowly or risk losing members. And it’s even harder for a church that tells you they have the truth and then go ahead and change that truth. Then it wasn’t truth to begin with, and therefore was false doctrine. Shalom Shabbat everyone!
jc4meandu on October 23, 2015 at 9:10 pm said: “And if nothing gets done, and your Spirit and the Word of God is telling you women ordination is wrong, then it is you who needs to make a decision to stay or go.”
You have it wrong, the way one measures success, getting things done” is by God’s standard. God wants us to stop gender discrimination, now!
Defining success may be the most important decision we make as God’s people. Measuring it comes a close second because what we measure communicates what we value. How we as Adventist Christians define and measure success gives form and direction to all aspects of our ministry. It shapes the culture that follows and ultimately determines our future.
The only time the word success is mentioned in the Bible (KJV) is in Joshua 1:8.
“This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall read [and meditate on] it day and night, so that you may be careful to do [everything] in accordance with all that is written in it; for then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will be ]successful.”
This is happening just before a great event: Joshua is taking on a new role, he is leading a great people, they are about to enter the Promised Land, they must face many enemies, they need success. Isn’t this our life in 2015?
“The value of our life does not depend
on the place we occupy.
It depends on the way we occupy that place.”
——Pérèse de Lisieux
Why not do God’s will and be truly…
” God wants us to stop gender discrimination, now!”
God ordained gender “discrimination” and won’t be stopped now, or ever. You are warring against God who ordained the order of government in the world, the home and in the church. So you won’t stop what you call “gender discrimination” now or in eternity. All you can do fight God and try to tell Him how to run His government and kingdom.
Priceless.
Worthless
Sammy, In my post I offered you liberty/freedom to choose your path. In your post you lord over me. You tell me I am wrong, but you don’t answer to God for my choices.
I spoke the truth and you tell me my truth is false. Are you telling me that the Spirit and the Word of God that is speaking to me is wrong? You are lording over me, Sammy?
Jesus warns us about doing what the heathens do –that no one is to lord over us. Church organization, any organization is designed to lord over people be it management and subordinates or clergy and laity. As we see from your remarks, you want to lord over those who oppose you. Manipulation and coercion are all effects of church organization. I abhor church playing politics and organizations can’t exist without politics.
As I said in my previous post, you chose what is right in your heart and allow me the freedom to chose what is right in my heart. What Bill said below and Malachi 3:6 For I am the Lord, I change not. I can’t change what God has ordained. Like it or not, I must serve the Lord and keep my conscious clear. You must keep your conscious clear and therefore you must do what you have to do. Let us live peaceably, not condemning one another for their beliefs, but loving one another because of their beliefs –not in spite of them. Whether you accept this or not, you can still learn from it. It may make you stronger and build a more peaceable character. Sammy, chose ye this day whom you will serve….God or m
CONT.
successful?
Lexicon of Acronyms used on this web page:
JEDP – An explanation of the authorship of the Pentateuch in light of the Documentary Hypothesis. This view believes that the Pentateuch represents the conflation of four different sources rather than the work of primarily one author, traditionally Moses.
GC – General Conference (of Seventh Day Adventists)
OT – Old Testament (of the Bible)
NT – New Testament (of the Bible)
EGHW (aka EGW, EW) – Ellen Gould Harmon White (held by most Adventists to be a prophetess, but by others to be an imposter or even the Mark of the Beast since those letters in her name that correspond to Roman numerals add-up to 666)
BS – Bill Sorensen (not to be confused with Bovine you-know-what)
ET – Ervin Taylor (not to be confused with Alien you-know-what)
Sam Geli,
It was over 50 years ago that I first said that it was a mistake to measure the “success” of pastors or evangelists by the number of people who join the SdA organization. I thought then–and I still do–that whether a person becomes an adventist is more important then whether he becomes an Adventist.
I am using the captialized word “Adventist” to refer to a member of the SdA organiazation and the lowercase “adventist” to refer to a person who believes 1. that the kingdom of glory will be an heavenly kingdom, not an earthly one, 2. that the second advent of Jesus will be supernatural, cataclysmic and visible to everyone on Earth, 3. that the purpose of the second advent will be to resurrect the sleeping saints and take them with us (Christians) to be with Jesus where he is.
The advent movement is important because people who are expecting an earthly kingdom will be more easily deceived by a false messiah.
Doctrines such as the seventh-day-ness of the sabbath and conditional immortality are not “wrong”. Indeed, I think they are helpful. At the same time, however, failure to adequately emphasize salvation by grace alone, the primacy of scripture and the priesthood of all believers has created a significant barrier to promotion of the advent movement among protestants.
Before 1860, adventists didn’t promote an organization. Let’s measure success by other criteria.
Roger, I agree on finding “other criteria” by which we can measure success.
Many of us have to make decisions that define who we are and what we believe in. Most often, the choices we face may seem insignificant. But this doesn’t mean that they’re not important to us: even the smallest action can have an impact on our self-respect, our integrity, and ultimately, our success.
In a world where “success” is often dominated by people who make the wrong choices, people who make the right ones can seem to be rare. However, it feels good to live and work with integrity, and when we become known for this highly valued trait, our lives and our careers can indeed be successful.
Thank you for your input in this and other discussions.
We are definitely thankful for our fellow adventist’s (lower case) Roger.
We are thankful the Evangelical Protestants: the Southern Baptists, Assemblies of God, Churches of Christ, Lutheran Church (Missouri Synod) and the American Presbyterians have been able to pick up our losses. Along with the 5 million migrating from the Mainline Protestant: Methodist, American and Northern Baptist, Lutheran of America,USA Presbyterian and the Episcopal Church; this growth has not been easy.
It did seem odd at first to think of successes of the entire Body. We are glad that our Evangelical brothers were there; and shared the same Sound Doctrine. We also see the Mainline Protestants, that are loosing so many members, share the same worldly doctrine of these wishing their credentials changed. The difference between those taught to teach and those in the field doing the work; in cases. The difference is wisdom from HIM.
HE only has one “criteria” for measuring success; saving those that Love HIM. I really don’t think our measurements even rate the scale.
The Adventist church is NOT growing in the western world, but shrinking. Nearly all the denominations you mentioned have ordained women ministers, excepting the Southern Baptist. But correlation is not causation as no one could say that the Southern Hemisphere Adventist church is growing rapidly BECAUSE the have no ordained women
Actually even the Southern Baptists do; for specific roles (no different than our current situation). The Assembly of God has changed their policies in restrict and is now growing. Churches of Christ are independent and only a small list allow. Lutheran Missouri Synod and the American Presbyterian, absolutely not.
Actually some have restricted their policies and grown rapidly. The American Presbyterian split in 1997 (if I remember right) for this very reason and has grown rapidly; while the Mainline is dying. Is that causal enough for you? In correlation; any failure as a Christian to serve GOD is failure. But CHRIST died because of us; otherwise we would have no other path. HE asked the FATHER; but there was no other way. This is absolute causation.
Which Southern Hemisphere Adventist Division are you talking about? South America is growing and said no with the BRC release before the vote. South Pacific is growing, but still not back to the point a few years ago; before this fiasco began. SUD and WAD have dropped but with almost 50,000 missing (sometimes that word scares me). SID, ECD and SSD have gained constantly but all voted no beforehand.
I am not exactly what you mean in “correlation is not causation”.
Charity,
I’m confused. On the one hand, you seem to wish to identify with adventists. On the other hand, you seem to identify with those who consider spiritual authority to be vested in the officers of an organization and distributed by those officers through “ordination”.
Some questions, if I may.
Is your willingness to impugn the motives of those who disagree with you based on your own PERSONAL study of the Bible or is it based on what someone has told you the Bible means?
Are you acquainted with the considerable aversion among the pioneers of the advent movement to hierarchy and creedalism?
What do you think “ordination” is? Or do you simply subscribe to the “traditional” view of what ordination is? What is the origin of the traditional view?
Roger Metzger – you aren’t adventist and have no idea what Adventism is all about.
Read this –
“6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,
7 Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.
8 And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.
9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
This is the real Adventism.
Unbelievable! Does your pastor know you talk to non-adventist this way? Your reply is enough to turn anyone away from Adventism. What are Adventist preachers teaching their followers these days?
Roger, on behalf of the Adventist Church I extend my sincerest and heart-felt apology for Andrian’s remark. I can only pray that Andrian will do the right thing and apologize to you publicly for his remark. If this is the fruit that Andrian produces, then we know him by that fruit. This is a forum to discuss issues, not destroy souls to which Jesus died to save.
On this web site we do not know who is strong or who is weak, who is lost or who is found. Each one is precious in God’s sight and He gave His Son to redeem the lowest of the low and the highest of the high. Our highest respect for one another, no matter how strong the differences, must be continually maintained or we put at risk our eternal life. Eternal life is not a right, it’s a privilege. It’s not earned, it’s a gift, and we must never abuse that gift.
MJP – “Does your pastor know you talk to non-adventist this way?”
***
Sure! Everybody knows that I love to quote the Bible. Is there any problem with that? 🙂
PS:
BTW, Nobody delegates to you the right to speak on behalf of the Adventist Church. That’s the first thing, and the second one – You don’t have to apologize for me neither, because I’m still alive and can easily do it myself. And I’m definitely will do it – as soon as you show me what do you think is wrong with my quote.
Have you find any distortion in this or something?
You said: “Roger Metzger – you aren’t adventist and have no idea what Adventism is all about.”
Andrian, I found this statement to be offensive –rude, condescending and hurtful. It makes you look superior to Roger. And if Roger is not an Adventist, or is not a Christian (nobody knows for sure but Roger and God), I do have the authority to protect the image of Christ, His Church and Christians all around the world. This language is unbecoming a Christian no matter what denomination you belong.
Well, if you think so, I trust you, and thank you for clarification.
English is my second language, as you might notice that by counting my grammar mistakes, and it definitely can be improved. That’s the main reason why my posts look so categorical and straight.
So, dear Mr. Roger Metzger, I ask you to forgive me the shape in which I put my message.
But I hope that you’ve understood the core of it – there is no Adventism without proclaiming the Three-Angels message. And I’m sure any one on this forum can confirm that.
Once again, please take my apology.
Quoting the Bible is not a virtue.
What is?
Jc4meandau, please note: Samuel is fine, Sam is OK, but Sammy is entering a zone that my late Mother was the only one to use.I prefer that most persons call me Sam. “Lording over” is a term I’m unfamiliar with.
Nehemiah 8:8 is my standard, I too seek God’s wisdom
Duly noted. Lording over? All four gospels emphasize “no lording over others.” According to Jesus, good leaders lead without lording over others, as opposed to what worldly leaders do. It is to influence without imposing oneself, without being intrusive and without interfering. Matthew, Mark and Luke all record Jesus’ emphatic negation by stating clearly and explicitly that his disciples are not to lord over others like worldly rulers do (Mt 20:25-28; Mk 10:42-45; Lk 22:24-27). To act in a domineering or superior manner toward others. In other words, remain humble in all things. Hope this helps, Samuel.
I completely agree. How often do you see someone turning the other cheek? Or what about holding your tongue? Very few people today are submissive –that’s a sign of weakness! It’s a world where we are taught to be strong, bold, dominant –stand out in the crowd. Today’s ego’s are explosive. It takes special effort to see the world from any perspective other than our own. This is not the character Jesus set out to build in us through His Spirit. And ironically, we need these things that Jesus taught us, (turn the cheek, hold our tongue, be submissive, humble, etc.), so we do not tempt ourselves to lord over others.
jc4meandu
Thank you for the clarification. I appreciate your helpful response.That’s what dialogue in this AT forum is for me: a form of discussion aimed at fostering mutual insight, understanding and common purpose. The process involves asking for clarification, searching for common ground, exploring new ideas and perspectives, and bringing unexamined assumptions into the open.
While EGW had credentials for a few years that had ordained marked on them, that doesn’t prove she was ordained because she was also issued some that had “ordained” crossed out. No records exist within the church or the writings of EGW that reveals she was ever ordained as a pastor in our church by the laying on of hands.
If she had been we would know where this happened, we would know the year it happened, the church where it happened, and the names of those church leaders that were they when it happened, just as we have records and know when and where every pastor in within the SDA was ordained.
These ordained pastors can ask that their credentials be changed because official records ave been kept that states they were ordained. How can they expect us to believe EGW was ordained when no records exist to prove their claim? Within over 400,000 plus pages of her writings there is no mention of the church ordaining her as a pastor, yet the WO supporters keep pushing the same false claim upon us as if it is truth.
These false claims, these false teachings are the doctrines of Balaam Jesus warned us about.
When Miriam demanded she be elevated to the priesthood office (ordained pastor) Jesus turned her into a leper because he was against that happening.
Clyde,
May I suggest that you review Numbers 12 one more time?
Both Aaron and Miriam were speaking against Moses. The issue was not the Priesthood, but rather the role of Moses as the primary spokesperson for God.
You equate the Aaronic Priesthood with the modern role of an ordained minister. In this you are actually supporting Roman Catholic theology, and also that of the LDS church. On the other hand the Protestant Reformation affirms the Priesthood of ALL BELIEVERS. The Protestant Pastor is NOT an intermediary between God and Humans, in the sense of the Aaronic Priests and the later RC and LDS Priests.
The official position of the SDA Church has never been that Ordination in any way signifies induction into a Priesthood.
So your OT analogy of Miriam is broken twice.
If any of you have not been interrogated by a fundamentalist Baptist, I suggest you get out and meet your neighbors! Having that experience may well teach you to avoid using those techniques.
“The hour of his judgment is come.” Is this a reference to the end of the 2300 days? I think so. I don’t think, however, that obligates me to believe (let alone teach) every doctrine that some people have attached to that verse! The verse CAN be used to encourage faith in God. That doesn’t mean that all the baggage that verse had accumulated since 1844 is necessarily designed to encourage faith in God.
“Babylon is fallen.” There is a false system that claims to be Christian and I agree that this verse is a reference to that. It doesn’t necessarily follow that the only way to come out of Babylon is to join the SdA denomination.
“If any man worship the beast…, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God…” If you read the context, I think you will agree with the protestants of the 16th century that the mark is coercion. Will coercion someday be employed in an effort to get seventh-day sabbath keepers to work on the sabbath day? I don’t doubt it. (There is such a thing as a self-fulfilling prophecy.) I simply don’t get that particular meaning from Revelation 14.
Are only those truly adventist who agree with me? I hope not!
Mr.Metzger, sir, I think in your analysis you approach to the horse from the wrong side.
Let me help you with some details that were missed.
First of all, the vision of 14th Ch. is chronologically consistent. One event follows another one and is predecessor of the third one and so on.
Which means, the second coming of Jesus Christ is described in verses 14-16. The Last judgment, or the Lord’s day, is described in ver.18-20 accordingly.
BUT!
We have proclamation of another judgment which was made by 1st Aangel! Isn’t it weird? What kind of judgment is that?
The second Angel proclaims the ending of the judgment and the Babilon is pronounced guilty and fallen.
Than we have a third warning – Do not serve the beast and Satan! Which means the kingdom of the beast and Satan is going to be established right before the second coming of Christ.
So this is the plain picture of the nearest feature.
And the SDA Church only can give you the answer on what the first judgment is. No one else can do it.
This is investigative judgment, which defines who is going to meet Christ on clouds when He comes back with multitude of Angels.
It’s all very logical, very clear and understood.
Just think of it.
You replied: “Than we have a third warning–Do not serve the beast and Satan!”
I understand that the beast requires the whole world to make his image as well as worship him. I find it interesting that the whole world is asked to make his image first and then worship him.
I’m not sure if those who make the image to the beast receive his mark, or if they have to worship the beast as well as make his image to receive his mark, but I do find it interesting that making his image is part of the process here. So the question is: do you get the mark by first making his image or making and worshiping him?
If either making and/or worship, the second commandment clearly comes into play here for only the second commandment forbids making images of anything in heaven, earth or sea. Coincidentally, today we are living in what is called the digital age, where making images of everything in heaven, earth and the sea is never questioned –not even by stanch Christians –they have images of a man they call Jesus and use images of God and angels, as well as people, lambs, fish, etc.
That said, it seems that the time would be ripe for such a beast to appear and no one would question his order to make his image because they make images of everything anyway. Could this be why everyone is deceived? I mean 50 years ago, not many denominations would allow for images –not even a cross and when you look at history –all the way back to the 5th century, the issue of images was…
…..front and center.
Mr. Bright, could you please elaborate, Biblically?
Jesus was the one who turned Miriam into a leper? I never knew Miriam was after the sanctuary priesthood. Moses was never a priest, others (levites) were appointed to the priesthood. Miriam was envious of Moses’ leadership and bitterly murmured behind his back, causing dissension and strife.
Numbers 12:
1 And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.
2 And they said, Hath the LORD indeed spoken only by Moses? hath he not spoken also by us? And the LORD heard it.
3 (Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth.)
Looks like in verse 2 Miriam wanted voice? Looks like in verse 3 Moses was very meek and a little higher than a Priest?
6 And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream.
7 My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house.
8 With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?
9 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them; and he departed.
10 And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and, behold, Miriam became leprous, white as snow: and Aaron looked upon Miriam, and, behold, she was leprous.
Hey Roger: many agree in essence. CHRIST said if they are not against you they are with you. We are one Body; our brothers are cherished.
You ask some questions above.
I have no willingness to impugn upon others; motive or otherwise. We are provided Sound Doctrine by Holy men of old and the Body, the BIBLE belongs to all; I study and have opinions, that always seem to lead to this same commonality. We are commanded to speak, exhort and rebuke any breach in such or stumbling block with all authority; are we not suppose to do this?
There is no question in creedalism; the BIBLE is our only Creed. Such creates hierarchy and self control by default. Just as Grace added extensively to the requirements of Law and the responsibilities associated in such.
CHRIST ordained the twelve, they chose and ordained others; Apostles, Elders, Bishops and Preachers (1 Timothy 2:7). That is my traditional view of ordination; “for it is written” may be the best representation?
Our parents tried to teach my siblings and me to show respect for even those with whom we disagreed. I don’t remember them ever referring to members of other denominations as daughters of the great whore or even referring to them as not truly Christian. My mother often used a phrase that I took to be an expression of the distinction between Christians and non-Christians. It was clear to me that she could accept as Christians those who were (in her words) “honest in heart”.
Both of our parents were voting members of the SdA denomination before I was born and very active in “church work”. I was, therefore, a member of the Sabbath School within a month of my birth. By the time I was old enough to have any concept of the meaning of “membership”, I considered myself a member of the SdA denomination, albeit not a voting member. I considered Sabbath School membership to be a form of auxiliary membership.
For more than half a century, I have advocated having high standards for voting membership, higher standards for certain KINDS of leadership AND no (behavior) standards for fellowship. Which is to say that I accept as truly Christian whoever makes a profession of faith in Jesus–the exception being anyone who denies he is a sinner. The only criterion for SS membership was regular attendance.
Should this be called being inclusively exclusive or exclusively inclusive?
Charity,
My statement about impugning the motives of others was a response to your statement, “We also see the Mainline Protestants… share the same worldly doctrine of these wishing their credentials changed.”
I think I understand your “logic”. If the ordination of women isn’t biblical, anyone who advocates it is “wordily”.
Please see my previous post about being exclusive with regard to voting membership while being inclusive about whether someone is “honest in heart”. The fact that someone disagrees with me should not be taken as evidence that he is not, in his inmost soul, true and honest. There may be people who refer to themselves as “atheist” who are more intellectually honest than some fundamentalist “Christians”.
When the apostles ordained others, was it an affirmation that the Lord had ALREADY bestowed directly on those individuals the spiritual authority and other gifts appropriate to the offices for which they were candidates? Or was the ACT of ordination the means whereby that authority was received from the apostles?
I was under the impression that our denomination (at least in theory) rejects sacramentalism.
We are a Body; the inclusion and agreement acknowledge the affirmation; the vote in replacing judas acknowledged affirmation. Many are called, but few are chosen. GOD will insure, HE always does; HE is the caller. Are we not absolute in sacramentalism; HIS sacrifice?
In many cases I disagree, but without Guidance to raise my head. CHRIST brought both Grace and Truth. Are those “honest in heart” not of the world (Proverbs 28:26)? But if we walk wisely in the Spirit; it will bring us into remembrance and teaches us all things.
Does the question not change perspective then. Should it be how inclusive and exclusive of HIM are we in our votes? Do we look at the requirements in 1 Timothy 3 (proven and much more difficult now in the environment we have created) or do we exclude such and include those that believe like us? Do we exclude what is best for the Church, to include individual beliefs? Do the ideologies not all return to the same question; do we include or exclude HIM? In all honesty, how high we rate with HIM is much more important than how high HE rates with us; but does this ideology not create a sad situation?
Andrian,
Please allow me to respond to your statement, “And the SDA Church only can give you the answer on what the first judgment is. No one else can do it.”
Many members of the SdA denomination–including yours truly–understand Ellen White to have advocated a PERSONAL belief system based on “The Bible and the Bible only”. I don’t deny that Ellen White was inspired but, to me, that doesn’t mean that my theology should be based on her writings. If we interpret modern revelation by the Bible we are doing the exact opposite of what LDS (Mormons) do which is to interpret the Bible by modern revelation.
If you decide to interpret the Bible by modern revelation, what can you use as a basis for deciding which modern prophet to follow?
If someone in your local congregation understands the three angels’ messages as I do (please see my previous post on the subject), would you take steps to have his name removed from the records?
I’m too old and too feeble-minded to accept any major office in our local congregation and probably would no longer accept even a minor office. I don’t think it would matter much if my name were deleted. I never did consider my salvation to depend on my denominational affiliation.
But before you undertake to “clean up” the record books, please consider that your congregation might benefit from some balance against dogmatism.
Mr. Metzger, that’s all about delusion. “Take heed that no man deceive you”. Why? Because this is the “death and life” question. So it is the matter where are you and who’s around you.
And yes, you’re right – nobody knows everything even after reading E.White. But surely we need to understand why Babilon is Babilon and why we shouldn’t be there.
Blessings!
Yikes! Babylon is a huge topic only because it is not only a well recorded topic in the bible, but because in the last day the angel calls us out of Babylon.
First, I think Roger makes a good point and I tend to agree with him on the denomination affiliation. Maybe it’s our elder age and a better understanding of things –through experience and much study of God’s Word, but I don’t put much stock in organized religion either as a vehicle to save me or for the dogma they express –be it true or false. I do know –through my years in this church, that what they preached 30 years ago is not preached today. In other words, what was truth back then is not truth today. So was it false doctrine they taught?
As for Babylon, I have a very different ideology on the subject. To me, Babylon rubs the second commandment the wrong way. Babylon is coined: The Gateway to the gods. Babylon is pagan and pagan’s worship images and gods. Earlier I wrote to you about The Beast and his image and asked about when the whole world receives his mark. Do we get the mark when we make his image, or when we worship him, or both?
Again, making images fall right into the second commandment and with the beast, making the whole world make his image, and with Babylon being an image making nation of many gods, there seems to be some correlation with the second commandment. Pretty much the whole OT revolves around idolatry and it seems the best way for Satan to ensure we get his mark…..
….is to get us into idolatry some how. Given the state of our world, and what the bible says and what EGW talked about on the subject of idolatry –in the last days idolatry would be rampant, the Beast, his image and Babylon and given the whole world makes images of everything in heaven, earth and the sea, I can’t help but question if coming out of Babylon is coming out of idolatry.
Charity,
I was a junior at Campion Academy 1960-’61. I took a Bible doctrines class. That same year, a Week Of Prayer speaker tried to explain the doctrine that was discovered by Edson, Crosier and Hahn in the mid-1840s. I was quite sure I didn’t understand it well enough to agree or disagree with it but I was equally sure that I could never teach it the WAY it was taught at Campion that year. It seemed to me that the WAY it was being taught contradicted basic Bible doctrines, especially salvation by grace alone through faith alone.
Some of my Campion classmates apparently had never been taught that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone. After they graduated, they discovered that doctrine (Ephesians 2; Romans 4) and, believing that the SdA denomination denies salvation by grace through faith, threw out the baby with the bathwater.
I never assumed that my teachers INTENDED to deny salvation by grace through faith so I continued to study. It wasn’t until the early 1980s that I taught anything about the pre-advent phase of the final judgment.
If I were to set up an evangelistic association for paying lay evangelists, they wouldn’t teach that doctrine the WAY it was taught at Campion. That doesn’t mean, however, that I think everyone who explains that doctrine differently than I do should be prevented from holding voting membership in our denomination. —continued
Charity, —continued
Sally and I read the entire 5-vol Conflict series together before our wedding but she didn’t request baptism until a few years later. Her parents (not SdA) attended. After Sally was baptized, got dressed and joined us in the pew, her mother whispered, “I don’t know whether you know it but I think you just joined their organization.”
Sally whispered back, “I know. That’s what I intended to do.”
There were no women elders in that congregation. Within about a year of Sally’s baptism, we requested that our membership be transferred to another congregation in another state. There were no women elders in that congregation either.
Before we were asked* to approve the ordination of women as local elders, Sally and I had never discussed the question. Sally was more vocal in her opposition than I was. When one of Sally’s best friends was ordained, neither Sally nor I attended the ceremony but that didn’t interfere with the two women’s friendship.
Should Sally have continued to express her opposition to the ordination of women as local elders?
To me, the true church consists of all true believers, regardless of our denominational affiliation. If I were to pay laymen as evangelists, they would not refer to an organization as “the church”.
Should I urge that anyone who refers to an organization as “the church” be deprived of voting membership in our denomination?
*another story
Roger, all I could get from your post is that for you, there is not much meaning or content in being a member of any church community.
For me personally, a church defines its meaning by way of scripture and expresses its convictions as a church community so that everyone who wants to know, can learn “What is a SDA?”
The fact there is no continuity in the SDA church today on any subject, simply means no one outside the church can possibly know what the church stands for, because the church itself does not know what it stands for. We are down to two basic things, the Sabbath and state of the dead, and even these are on the bubble and not so clearly affirmed by more than a few, even in high positions of influence and authority.
The basic doctrine of sin, atonement, and salvation are so obscure that anyone can teach and believe anything and be endorsed by the SDA church. The phrases, “Righteousness by faith” and “Righteousness by faith alone” are often considered one and the same thing, and thus it is impossible to define either in a clear biblical context.
Anyone with a reasonably clear understanding of sin and atonement can only shake their head and wonder if Adventism can possibly be useful in the future to define a clear biblical doctrine of sin and atonement. It doesn’t seem likely. And as many of us know, politics and church unity have taken the place of clear bible truth and truth must take a back seat.
Bill,
My religion is personal–not institutional. Always was. My beliefs have undoubtedly been INFLUENCED by my SdA parents, SdA school teachers, Sabbath School teachers, pastors, etc. but I have been careful to not TEACH anything that I didn’t dig out of the Bible FOR MYSELF.
An hirearchical/creedal “church” was exactly what the pioneers of the advent movement didn’t want to result from adopting a name or creating a legal corporation for the purpose of joint ownership of a business (publishing business) and the related property.
The SdA corporations that were created in 1861 & ’63 didn’t include the word “Church” in the legal name and the first lists of doctrines were clearly labeled as “not a creed”.
The problem (the enormous disparity in understanding of the nature and function of the church) is that multitudes have been made voting members of the SdA organization while still clinging to their notions that the organization IS the church and that a “church” organization is necessarily hierarchical and creedal. If no one were given voting membership until after studying the genesis of the advent movement, there wouldn’t be so much argument about how the organization should operate.
When people read the preamble to the “Fundamental Beliefs”, what do they think “not a creed” means?
Today, the majority use it to measure orthodoxy–which is what a creed is.
You raise good points. To be taught theology, or taught to teach others theology, does not a theologian make (this issue and instant situation used as specific example). I would not trust the safety of my family in medical, transportation, construction, nor many things, especially Spiritual; without the wisdom of works and experience (and trials), especially from HIM.
My wife very vocal in opposition (and in a Covenant marriage a long time ago). She would not allow me to sit by and not support her or teach her otherwise; but I have nothing to offer in alternative. Otherwise; would we not consider our conviction stronger then theirs, even in support of?
I pay laymen, other denominations, to be evangelists in small areas with no other Churches and ability of our presence; is that wrong? Would I deny others membership or the responsibility of vote in such; to anyone?
My wife says she sees a lot of failure in the commanded callings of teaching in Titus 2 and testimony of 1 Peter 3; along with the failure in strength and conviction to note such. Is she wrong? Would you like to explain to her how she is wrong (I definitely know better and would not attempt to). She does not want these persons and their individual ideologies around any children. Would you like to explain where she is wrong there? The are multitudes out there like her. What now?
Does the organized SDA Church belong to God or to those who have superior education, intelectual status and experience? And did God invest the church with authority orare we free to ignore any GC decision we don’t like??
Donald. The church of SDA does not belong to God. Neither does the Roman Catholic church, or the Baptist church, or the Mormon, or all other organized religions, although all claim to be God’s chosen. The Church of God is all Christians who have accepted Jesus Christ as Lord, Savior, and Redeemer, and all others that GOD the ALMIGHTY shall call HIS. The SDA GC, have a poor record of management. More than one of its Presidents of the past 30 years have proven to be incompetent, and not abiding by it’s mandate. The Mandate of management of the SDA Church has a Check and Balance system whereby the GC manages the general business of the Church. The UNIONS have authority of the Ministerial role ie: selecting, Ordination, and discharging of Pastors; Religious instruction, tithe collection, and general management of the churches in their Conferences. This prevents the GC of creating Celebrities of the GC officers and LORDING it over the masses of individual membership. The church now handles $3 Billion dollars per year, and this has caused a general degree of “LORDSHIP”
of the GC over the Church, the Tail wagging the dog, so to speak. The Church members concerned are speaking out boldly, “TO REIN IN THE GC” to their mandate of the business management “ONLY”. The individual members have equal access to the Holy Spirit, and alerting the GC to cease overriding the GENERAL MEMBERSHIP.
Charity and Donald,
Jesus said, “…whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;” Matthew 20:26 In keeping with a custom common among Hebrews, he then said the same thing in a slightly different way for emphasis, “And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:” v. 27
Nobody has to agree with me about what Jesus meant but I take it to mean, not merely that we should refer to pastors as “ministers” (not “reverend” or “father”) but that the clergy are servants of the laity. By virtue of their theological training, they are equipped to help us avoid making certain kinds of mistakes–especially when it comes to theology–not in the form of imposing dogma on us but in the form of pointing out the disadvantages of specific WAYS of explaining our PERSONAL beliefs. A clergyman who understands his role in this way will think of himself as a resource person–not as a manager or a foreman–and he will not think of laity as unpaid employees of the conference officers.
I extrapolate this same principle to mean that local conference officers are servants of the pastors and the laity, union officers servants of the local conference officers, the pastors and the laity, etc.
The Roman Church turned that ideal on its head. I see no reason to follow that example.
Think about it!!!! The UNIONS have in place the BUSINESS acumen, of handling
the HOLY TITHE, AND OFFERINGS. And this is “AUDITED AS REQUIRED”. The Union
manages the Conferences, which also handles these funds and is AUDITED also.
Why can’t the UNIONS stand alone in sole authority (having a membership of
autonomous UNIONS) and remove the “HIGH PRICED HIERARCHAL” secondary level of duplicating what the UNIONS are already doing???? This is a terrible expense of redundancy????
Much more money would be saved by getting rid of Unions, the middle layer. Why can’t the Conferences handle what Unions now do, then forward to GC. The high-priced hierarchal layer is the Unions. Or, perhaps we could get rid of the Conferences, the lower-midlle layer, and let the Unions handle the details. With today’s technology, we do not need both — Conferences and Unions. Imagine the savings!
The elephant in the room is this question: If we don’t use the list of “Fundamental Doctrines” as a creed, how do we answer the question, “What do Seventh-day Adventists believe?”
When the delegates to the 1860 conference in Battle Creek adopted the name, Seventh-day Adventists, there was general agreement among them about some things–the seventh-day-ness of the sabbath and that the return of Jesus was “near” (as opposed to the belief that he would return after a millennium of peace and increasing properity). They probably didn’t all agree about what, exactly is involved in “sabbath keeping”. Most probably believed Ellen White was “inspired” but that doesn’t necessarily mean that most of them thought the Bible should be interpreted by Ellen White. They still had disagreements about who Jesus is.
The practice of appealing to the list of “Fundamental Beliefs” as a measure of orthodoxy has become so common in our denomination, I doubt that it is a tradition that can ever be successfully challenged. In hindsight, however, I think it would have been preferable to make a list of doctrines SdAs may NOT teach if they are paid from tithe funds. That list might be longer than two-dozen doctrines but it would start with 1. Sunday sacredness, 2. natural immortality.
The idea of an organized church as a means of grace is not faulty in and of itself. It is when the idea of “unconditional election” is advocated, and then everything is done to preserve the church, even above and over truth, that the church soon becomes useless as God’s instrumentality to communicate His truth and His kingdom. “Order is the first law of heaven.” EGW. And so it is. There is no “order” if and when every “Tom, Dick, and Harry” spouts off their own personal convictions when it is clear opposition to the stated views of the church community.
Even if they are right, then they must at some point simply abandon the community, or should expect to be put out. The ridiculous idea that you can teach anything you want, even if you think it is true, in opposition to stated church doctrines is inane and stupid. Go start your own church, get out of town, man up and don’t “cry baby” all over the church about religious liberty and your freedom of religion.
Freedom of religion is a civil right, not some mandate to allow you to teach anything you want in any given church community. Yet this is what more than a few who profess to be SDA claim as they attack basic SDA doctrine in the name of “freedom of religion.”
Onyone with an once of intelligence should be able to see the faulty reasoning of such a claim. But the “blow hard” their baloney on and on as though they are abused by the opposition to their “rights”. My response is “Get a life.”
Bill,
I teach that
Jesus is one of three divine persons who constitute one God.
There never was a time when God the Son was not. All things were made by him.
Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone–grace is the source and means of salvation; faith is the vehicle or conduit of salvation.
Faith is God’s gift to us–not our gift to him.
The Bible is not the only source of inspired council but it is the highest source in the sense that anything that is purported to be modern revelation should be evaluated and interpreted by older revelation.
Every believer has a form of priesthood (spiritual authority).
The church consists of believers; it may be organized; organization can be a valuable tool of the church but no organization is the church.
The church has existed from before Jesus was born.
The church is the true continuation of Israel and is, therefore, the object of the Lord’s supreme regard and the entity through which or to which the promises to Israel and the prophecies about Israel will be fulfilled.
The seventh-dag of the week is the day the Lord rested in creation AND in redemption; resting on the same day the Lord rested both honors him and is a symbol of entering into his rest.
If someone today teaches otherwise–for example, that the Son didn’t always exist or that the Holy Spirit is not a person–should he be excluded from our denomination?
“If someone today teaches otherwise–for example, that the Son didn’t always exist or that the Holy Spirit is not a person–should he be excluded from our denomination?”
Yes, of course, if this is the confession of the church community. People may personally believe various things not in harmony with the stated confession of faith, but if they feel free to “pontificate” their view all over the church knowing full well they are attacking accepted church teaching, they should be put out.
The confession of faith you have articulated may be good and OK in and of itself, but it is not definitive enough to state all the fundamental doctrines that define the church. 1844 and the pre-advent judgment is so foundational, that to attack it is totally unacceptable. If a person has carefully studied it in light of the EGW presentation, and then decide it is wrong, they should simply abandon the SDA church. This is non-negotiable to be a SDA.
You can believe in the Sabbath, state of the dead and other doctrines you agree with, but on this single point, if you disagree, you are not in harmony with the spirituality of the SDA church as explained by EGW and the bible.
Seventh-day Adventism is a 3rd use of the law system of theology. The original intent was to highlight human accountability to God and a judgment to determine who has accepted that accountability based on the law of God. This, of course, in light of the gospel. But the gospel in the beginning was an “objective…
given” with the assumption that people already knew the gospel. This is why 1888 was important to affirm the gospel in the Protestant tradition, and to show the IJ was not a judgment to determine who had “merited, or earn” heaven by good works.
The moral law is not a “legal” document or mandate to fulfill for a legal purpose or reason. It determines moral fitness and is therefore a “moral mandate” that all true believers must agree to as members of God’s family. We accept Christ and His atonement as our legal right to heaven, we also willing subject ourselves to His authority as Lord and King.
If don’t accept both of these factors, you will not be in heaven. Adventism was to be a very definitive and articulate teaching on all the principles of atonement and salvation. To date, we are about far from God’s goal as we could possibly be. As many know, we are far more interested in unity than bible truth. We are far closer to joining the world wide eccumenical movement than many realize.
Church members are woefully ignorant of what divides Protestants from Rome in their spirituality. Modern Protestantism has already joined and we are a hair away from doing the same. We have no valid argument not to with our present spirituality.
Most of the people who will be in heaven will have died or been translated while disagreeing with one or more of the doctrines I listed earlier today.
When Jesus returns, most of the people who are translated without dying will disagree with one or more of the “Fundamental Beliefs” of the SdA organization.
I can accept that the present list is a reasonably accurate representation of what the majority of SdAs currently believe but that is vastly different from thinking that the doctrines on that list are “Fundamental” in the sense of being essential to the advent movement.
We are not saved by our beliefs. We are saved by grace alone through faith alone. Doctrines can help to encourage faith in God but we are not–and never will be–saved by doctrines.
If anyone thinks any of the doctrines I listed earlier today should not be taught by people who are paid by tithe funds, by all means, work to insure that doesn’t happen.
On the other hand, if dedication to orthodoxy (however it is defined) prevents someone from thinking of other Christians as better than himself, that seems like a serious problem.
“We are not saved by our beliefs.”
This is so blatantly false, I could wonder that any rational bible student with give it a second thought. WE are absolutely “saved” by our beliefs. You are suggesting we don’t need to believe in Jesus, who He was, what He did or any other aspect of His ministry and its implications.
But your statement is the typical “lawless Christ” that some have been duped into accepting and believing in. Apparently, at least some have never really considered the implications of such a statement. But of course, it fits well with Satan’s “universalism” that he is “selling” the whole world.
And you went on to say, ” We are saved by grace alone through faith alone. Doctrines can help to encourage faith in God but we are not–and never will be–saved by doctrines.”
Are you aware that “faith alone” is a doctrine? And everything that you have stated that we are “saved by” is doctrine? How absurd is such a statement “We are not saved by our beliefs.”?
I wonder if there is one rational poster on this forum who will either agree with you, or, if not, admit the outlandish and inane idea that we are not saved by our beliefs?
Might one ask, Bill, who will be the objective arbiter as to who or what is ‘rational’ on this forum? Secondly, its a principle of psychology that our beliefs form independently of and prior to the work of ‘rationality’ which is only called upon to justify those beliefs.
If you are saved by your beliefs, Bill, it is a rational conclusion to draw that you are doomed to enjoy a very lonely eternity in your heaven.
“If you are saved by your beliefs, Bill, it is a rational conclusion to draw that you are doomed to enjoy a very lonely eternity in your heaven.”
Not at all, Serge. Everyone in heaven will believe what I believe. Moses and all the prophets believe what I believe along with the apostles. We all believe the same thing.
We are all Seventh-day Adventists. There will be no Sunday keepers in heaven. There will be no one there who thinks they don’t have to obey the law to be there.
So you are sadly mistaken that heaven is full of people with diverse teaching and understanding of truth and their relationship to God and each other. And the fact is, according to the bible, very few will escape this sinful world and enter God’s kingdom precisely because of the false views that are similar to you own.
We will all learn some details that were not known or understood in this life. But the basic fundamental truths of law and gospel are not obscure now for any who want to know by way of scripture. If people are deceived, it is because they are willingly deceived and choose to remain so by their own free will.
Matt 5:6 Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.
I didn’t notice, ‘blessed are the rational for they shall exclusively own the life-saving beliefs.’ Perhaps, Bill, you can cite a text or three to support what must surely be the most important concept in all of scripture.
Do you thirst after righteousness? No you thirst after the world.
Are you merciful for HIS blessings? No you pursue your own blessings.
Are you pure in heart? No you are unable to give up the world.
The BIBLE is “rational”; you can read it. It is written for children, not for individual interpretation or fools who trust in their own heart; “a more sure word of prophecy”.
You wish to approach outside of Doctrine; then prove your point. Otherwise you only obligate others commanded to reproof, correct and instruct in righteousness.
Your approach serves no purpose of GOD and only forces others to do as commanded. We try to teach you, but you will not learn. You can read.
We are pure in heart, merciful, hunger and thirst after righteousness. We Love and worry of others you mislead and your; we have to, that is Love. But could you hurry up and stop being those that are “ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” at some point in time? This does get old.
The scripture I would quote to you:
Proverbs 28:
26 He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered.
2 Peter 1:
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
Bill probably has…
“Bill, you can cite a text or three to support what must surely be the most important concept in all of scripture.”
“My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge, and because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee.” Hosea
And Jesus said in John 8, “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”
And neither did Jesus imply that the more ignorant you are, the better off you are because you won’t be held accountable as long as you are ignorant. Willful ignorance is equal to full enlightenment that is simply rejected to defend ignorance itself.
This is an inherent part of the unpardonable sin.
No one on this interesting thread has said that man saves himself. Most would oppose that position because it is both unscriptural and anti-scriptural. But so is the doctrine that man must not “do” anything to be saved and to remain saved.
Galatians is as strong as Romans in declaring that one is not saved by works of law, yet both of them are just as strong in declaring that baptism is essential to salvation. Rom. 6:1-7; Gal. 3:26-27. Of course, Peter got it wrong on the day of Pentecost when his hearers cried out asking “What must we do?” According to some, Peter should have said, “You have it all wrong. There is nothing that you can do.” Instead he replied, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” Acts 2:38. Someone should have been there to straighten Peter out. Jude got it wrong, also, because he instructed his readers to “keep yourselves in the love of God.” Jude 21.
Jesus got it wrong as well. He (mistakenly, I am sure) said that not everyone who says unto him Lord, Lord will enter into the kingdom of Heaven, but he that DOETH the will of my father Matt. 7:21-23. Additionally, he admonished the church in Smyrna to “be faithful unto death” and he would “give [them] a crown of life.” The fact that they had something to do – be faithful – made their salvation no less a gift, a gift that they would not have received had they become unfaithful.
I submit that the advent movement isn’t a religion. It is an important biblical emphasis within Christianity.
My religion is personal, not institutional. At what point in time did the advent movement become institutional? At what point in time did it become possible to say, in effect, “This is what you must believe in order to become an adventist; If you don’t believe this, you aren’t a real adventist”?
It certainly wasn’t possible to say that before 1860.
Whether a person thinks of the advent movement as including the Millerite movement or thinks of the advent movement as beginning after the great disappointment, the advent movement continued for some years before 1860. And it was a movement, not stagnant.
At what point did it cease to be a movement (become stagnant) because it had become institutional or creedal or both?
I submit that the advent movement is still a movement. At may have been hijacked to some degree by an institution or by people whose religion is institutional but there are still adventists whose religion is personal, not institutional.
For those of us who wish to encourage others to joint the advent movement (whether or not they become enrolled members of an organization), let’s find ways to promote the doctrines of the nature of the kingdom and the manner and purpose of the second advent–ways that don’t get people mired in institutionalism and creedalism.
Mmmm. Bill, if your logic in quoting Hosea is correct, then what is the knowledge of which he speaks? What knowledge are we lacking that will destroy us? It could only be Judaism. So we should all now be practising orthodox Jews.
As concerning the truth that makes you free. Is it the 28 FBs? Is ‘truth’ something which is written down, learnt by heart, convincing the rational intellect? No it is not! For Jesus himself has defined ‘truth’ for us.
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
He goes on to define for us the kind of knowledge we need:
Joh 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
The knowledge which destroys is the lack of ‘knowing God’ personally and directly, ‘in spirit and in truth.’
Paul emphasises this with the Galatians. 3.1 ¶ O foolish Galatians, who did bewitch you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was openly set forth crucified?
2 This only would I learn from you. Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now perfected in the flesh?
The hearing of faith is not an intellectual/rational process. It is personal, a matter of the heart. Rationality is a function of the flesh. The only unpardonable sin is rejection of the Spirit, who ‘bears witness with our spirit,’ not with our brains.
Well said Brother Metzger! Other denominations will/have presented alternatives to our theology such as the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, commonly called “once saved, always saved.”
I had a discussion with a colleague of another church who espoused that doctrine and I postulated to him a man who, after being truly saved, fell into strong drink, lived a life of insobriety, and died in that condition. I asked him if that man would go to heaven. His response was that God would not let a truly saved man die in that condition. I suggested to him that he should encourage his congregation to become drunk and stay drunk and that, since God would not let a saved person die in that condition, they would live forever. Who can believe that “Jack Daniels” is the fountain of youth!!!
That’s what Google is for. Look up Moses’ writing of the Torah for starters.
We do not know the final outcome of ANYONE! To some, it seems obvious that a drunkard would not enter heaven, but God alone can judge. Why is drunkenness so much worse than gossip, which few give up; or pride, which is prevalent when anyone judges as it means: “I am not a drunkard like you, so I can be assured of heaven. God only knows, not man.
This posits that only those who are perfect and sinless will be admitted to heaven. Not according to Christ’s message in Matt. 25. It was those who clothed the naked, fed the hungry, etc.
Mr. A says, “We are saved by grace alone through faith alone.”
Mr. B says, “I agree. Behavior has nothing to do with salvation.”
Mr. C says to Mr. A, “You don’t think behavior has anything to do with salvation.”
Mr. A responds, “I didn’t say behavior has nothing to do with salvation. I believe behavior is not the basis or the means of salvation. I believe Christian behavior is the result of salvation.”
If Mr. C wants to think Mr. A is teaching that behavior has nothing to do with salvation, do you think Mr. C will even try to understand what Mr. A really believes?
Mr. A says, “I think our denomination should have high behavior standards for voting membership and higher standards for holding certain offices in the denomination but we aren’t saved by our sabbath keeping or our dietary choices.”
Mr. C says, “You liberals are going to ruin the church by encouraging people to think they don’t have to keep the sabbath.”
Mr. A says, “I don’t have to keep the sabbath–I get to.”
Will Mr. C realize that Mr. A is keeping the sabbath? Will Mr. C realize that Mr. A thinks of the sabbath, not as something we do but as God’s gift to us?
Does it matter whether Mr. C understands what Mr. A believes?
To the extent that Mr. C succeeds in persuading people that SdAs believe in salvation by works, it will be difficult for to Mr. A to promote the advent movement among protestants.
“To the extent that Mr. C succeeds in persuading people that SdAs believe in salvation by works, it will be difficult for to Mr. A to promote the advent movement among protestants.”
All you prove is that you contradict yourselves left and right. The bible is not the mass of confusion that many of you express in your posts. You are confused and deceived. So the devil will end up leading you around by the nose as he did Eve and eventually Adam as well.
EGW has it right,
“It is thought strange by some that our salvation should demand our entire submission to the law of God. But The Lord Could Not Do a More Cruel Thing than to save man in his rebellion. No man can be saved unless he comes under the rule of Christ. Salvation means to us complete surrender of soul, body, and spirit. Because of the unruly elements in our nature, our passions often gain the mastery. The only hope of the sinner is to cease from sin. Then his will is in harmony with the will of Christ. His soul is brought into fellowship with God. Those who enlist in the army of Christ must in all things submit to His authority and consult His will. Implicit obedience is the condition of salvation. God’s law must be obeyed in every particular. It is our salvation to make His law our rule, His life our pattern, His glory our chief aim. To keep ourselves in the love of God, to be bound to obedience by His requirements, this is to be free in Christ.” Signs of the Times 1899
You apparently think because Christ has paid for your sins, you have no obligation to keep the law to be saved. The bible teaches no such faulty idea. The first work of the Holy Spirit is to enlighten the mind to all the ramifications of sin and salvation. We are then free to opt in and accept the gift and all it implies which is repent and obey the law of God to be saved. No one is saved, or every will be saved who thinks he has been released from the moral imperative to obey the law as the condition of salvation.
Do you think God will force you to obey? or believe? or have faith? The cross persuades the sinner to respond by faith repentance and obedience. Every one of these components are necessary for salvation. So, Paul says to Timothy.
“..heed the doctrines……for in doing this, thou shalt both save thyself and them that hear thee.” I Tim. 4:16
And “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling…….’
No one can do this without the Holy Spirit. But the Holy Spirit will not do it for you. He will inspire, enlighten and empower, but He will not do the obeying, or believing.
You must save yourself by “opting in” to the salvation offered and then remain in of your own free will. Millions who hear the gospel will never be saved simply because they refuse to respond to the invitation to repent and obey.
Your theory is non-biblical and total confusion.
Bill: “You apparently think because Christ has paid for your sins, you have no obligation to keep the law to be saved.”
And rational logic would tell us that ‘You apparently think that … you do have an obligation to keep the law to be saved.’
At least you recognise the logic of Ellen’s statement that keeping Sabbath is a requirement to receive the seal of God.
If ever there was a confused, non-biblical theory, that is it. But thank you for confirming. I trust others will be motivated to consider the real way God goes about reconciling us to Himself.
“At least you recognise the logic of Ellen’s statement that keeping Sabbath is a requirement to receive the seal of God.
If ever there was a confused, non-biblical theory, that is it. But thank you for confirming. I trust others will be motivated to consider the real way God goes about reconciling us to Himself.”
I am sure you think you are the “highly enlightened” but in fact, you are in the process of committing the unpardonable sin. The Holy Spirit is speaking through the ministry of EGW and you consider her inspired by Satan. And once you credit the work of the Holy Spirit to being the work of Satan, you are in the process of placing yourself where God can no longer reach you. Matt. 12.
But the opposite is true. You are inspired by Satan to believe a lie and Paul would say, “Be not deceived, God is not mocked” but that is exactly what you and many others are doing as you continually and consistently attack God’s instrumentality to show the true teaching of the bible. At some point, you must repent, or be lost. There is no other option.
I can really now understand what the Bible says about “wide is the way or road to hell and many will follow. Narrow is the way to heaven and very few will enter,” is because a woman was deceive from the beginning and almost all women and some men are still deceive. When are we going to understand and except the fact that us women are a help meet not the head? We can not be a priest! Ordain Pastor is the Priesthood call that is only to the man!
This is why we all die because of a woman Eve, not only she wanted to be God but she also wants to be the head.
The whole bible is mute about women ordination and headship.
We can still preach and lead others, we just can’t be a Pastor.
“The whole Bible is mute about men’s ordination, also.
There are no priests in the NT; it was all in the Jewish system. The pastor it NOT a priest. A priest intercedes between God and man, but when Christ returned to heaven, we all have direct contact with god, no go-between; that was the Levitical system which became obsolete at the cross. Read the entire book of Hebrews for clarification about the priesthood.
There are no more sacrifices to be offered; Christ was the sacrifice that took away sins; while in Judaism, priests must offer sacrifices to remove sins.
Here are some of the words of one of those mute ordained men; actually dealing with the subject matter.
1 Timothy 2:
7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.
9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
10 But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
And another:
2 Timothy 1:11 “Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.”
The need:
Romans 10:
13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
There has been a recent development in my wife’s thinking about the ordination of women as gospel ministers (clergy). By “recent”–I didn’t know about it until today.
Sally would still prefer that no women be ordained as gospel ministers. Upon close consideration of the current situation, however, she has decided that if it were up to her, she would recommend that only people with a Master of Arts degree be ordained as gospel ministers AND that if there aren’t enough men who are adequately educated, it would be better to ordain women than to not have enough well-educated ministers in our denomination.
I see a “flaw” in that logic. It was said of Jesus that he wasn’t qualified to teach because he hadn’t attended the rabbinical schools of his day.
Anyway, I thought some of you might be interested it what Sally is saying now.
Roger,
“she has decided that if it were up to her, she would recommend that only people with a Master of Arts degree be ordained as gospel ministers”
After many years of immersion in the Holy Scriptures and being taught by the Holy Spirit, who gives out the “Masters of Arts degrees”?
Just something else to consider?
Daniel,
When Sally and I were talking about this last, we didn’t get any farther than her specifying that she thought SdA pastors should have Master of Arts degrees (with those already ordained as gospel ministers being “grandfathered in”). If or when we talk about it again, we might explore the question in more detail but, for now, I’m assuming that she meant an MA in theology or ministry from an SdA university with a minimum of six years of full-time study in SdA schools (which six years might include elementary or academy (high school) education in SdA schools).
As I mentioned previously, it might be possible for a person who has studied on his own for many years to “test out”, i.e. demonstrate that, in spite of a lack of formal education, he is “educated” by the wider definition of being knowledgeable with regard to the disciplines in the curriculum.
My father never finished grade school and only took a few college classes but he read his Bible every day and read something else besides the Bible almost every day. I’m guessing he would have “tested out” at about the equivalent of a BA–maybe higher.
Roger,
My apologies. I thought Sally was referring to “gospel ministers” in the Biblical sense and not as a defined criteria for ministers within the SDA church.
“There will be no Sunday Keepers in Heaven”. WOW, what a statement. How can you be certain??Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and ye shall be saved?? Now we know that what things soever the law saith to them who are under the law: all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in His sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. Being justified “FREELY” by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
But being justified by faith, in the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, the law has been satisfied by HIS shed HOLY BLOOD.
It is so obvious, Earl, that Paul is contrasting the atonement of Christ with the ceremonial law, that you have to “look the other way” to not see it.
If you will simply read those passages and place “pardon and forgiveness” where ever you see the word “justified”, you will cease to be confused about the meaning of Paul. Not only in this passage, but all his letters.
Give it a try, you might even like it.
This is not intended as a “reply” to anyone in particular–only a general observation.
Because I am intentional about promoting a) who Jesus is, b) basic protestant principles and c) the adventist message about the nature of the kingdom and the manner and purpose of the second advent, I have had opportunities to speak with hundreds (probably thousands over 50 years) of people from a variety of perspectives. Three or four of those were Baptists who quoted Bible text to “prove” that I was mistaken. They seemed to be working from the assumption that the way they understood those texts was the only possible way to understand them.
I am no less disgusted by Seventh-day Adventists who make the same assumption when trying to “prove” what I believe. I think that approach has resulted in not only creating huge barriers to the proclamation of Bible truth; I believe it has has made “enemies of the truth” of people who might have seriously considered what I believe if they had been dealt with differently.
When I encounter people who understand the Bible differently than I do, I want to know way. How many of the Bible thumpers on this thread can explain why some Christians believe there will be a pre-tribulation “rapture”?
I can’t say it is a “good” reason but there is a reason and it isn’t simply that they aren’t “sincere” or haven’t studied their Bibles enough.
Roger,
You wrote: “How many of the Bible thumpers on this thread can explain why some Christians believe there will be a pre-tribulation “rapture”?”
Firstly, as I am answering your question I must be a “Bible thumper”. Most of the people who use that term are against Christians and everything they stand for. I trust that is not your intention.
The reason why some Christians believe there is a “pre-tribulation rapture” is because they don’t know their Bible and have probably read too many other books on the subject.
When the Lord Jesus appears with His angels the earth and the heavens will melt with fervent heat, and there will be no one left standing, at least not in the physical sense. See 2 Pet.3:10-13; Rev.20:11-15.
Peace.
And we might add to Roger’s post, there are not 40 ways to interpret the bible and have them all be right. Daniel’s answer gives at least one reason for all the strange doctrines advocated. Namely, ignorance, and in many cases, willful ignorance.
People listen to every “Tom, Dick, and Harry” who claim they are “enlightened” in bible truth when on many level are woefully ignorant of scripture in form and spirit. Meaning, they not only don’t know what it says, but certainly don’t know what it means.
Sadly, many don’t know, and don’t want to know, and thus listen to any perversion that will excuse their sins and allow them to believe they can go to heaven without overcoming sin. A very appealing idea to say the least. And if the bible can be wrested every which way to make it say something to this effect, they are more than willing to believe it.
The “lawless Christ” is embraced many and will be embraced by most before the 2nd coming. And now we know how and why the devil had so much success in heaven as he convinced many of the angels to embrace a “lawless government” A rather flattering idea of irresponsible freedom contrary to the responsible freedom God intended for all His created moral being.
I thought I had defined “Bible thumpers” as people who quote the Bible as “proof” of their beliefs on the assumption that there is only one way to understand the text (or texts) they are quoting.
If a Baptist quotes the Bible in support of his beliefs, is that “proof” that he is right? If an Adventist does the same thing, is that “proof” that he is right?
If a Mormon quotes Joseph Smith in support of his beliefs, is that “proof” that he is right? If an Adventist quotes Ellen White in support of his beliefs, is that “proof” that he is right?
As long as a person interprets the Hebrew Bible “through the lens of the New Testament”, he is never going to understand the Bible the same way as someone who uses the Hebrew Bible to interpret the Gospels and the Epistles. Likewise, as long as a person interprets the Bible by modern revelation, he is never going to understand “truth” in exactly the same as someone who evaluates and interprets modern revelation by older revelation.
The question is whether we can help people with these various perspectives to trust the Lord and his written word? Or are we doomed to keep trying to destroy each other’s faith in the desperate hope that, if a person’s faith can be destroyed, he will adopt our understanding of “truth” in its place?
Roger,
Anyone who quotes the Bible in support of [their beliefs] should first question their deep inner fears and/or desires as to whether or not their beliefs are in line with God’s will and the Truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Quoting anyone other than the Bible in support of their beliefs, is proof they think the Bible does not have the answer to their questions.
Interpreting the Holy Scriptures without the Holy Spirit is self-seeking; an attempt to elevate oneself above others in a show of superiority.
By the way, you didn’t comment on my answer.
“Bible Thumpers” in today’s usage usually means those people who call on the Bible as the source of all their beliefs. It is seen in many public persons, and most prominently in some congresspersons who belief we should return to the Bible for our laws; and many of the current laws they dislike because they have not followed the Bible.
They even hold it up like some preachers that it should be the sole guide for our government and laws; placing it above our Constitution that favors no religion.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
The Country was built on GOD. We are and always have been Cesar. We have never been prohibited in the executing as such. Why would we have laws that would be contrary to the BIBLE? We do get to see the results in such failures.
The better question: how could laws ever get on the books that do not follow GOD? Our lack of conviction or the strength of others who serve someone else?
Whose god would determine this nation’s laws? Would the God of SdA’s enact observance of the seventh day as a law? Would those who believe God would kill homosexuals or adulterers (abiding by the Hebrew Bible) make such laws?
The laws are made by the people through their legislatures and Congress. Some have tried to push through laws banning many things that other people believe that their God would not do. So whose god should be followed by this nation?
All the laws of the nations are derived from God’s Laws as stated in the Bible. The only difference with the laws put in place by governing authorities is that the laws always have a loop-hole, through which the authorities can escape. Remember, the rich make the laws to protect themselves against those who oppose them. Also, governing authorities are not in the business of promoting God or Christianity, as everyone will have noticed with certain schools forbidding Scripture reading, etc. But there is a two-faced approach by the authorities which tries to put the fear of God into those testifying in their courts: “Do you swear on this Bible to tell the truth and only the truth?”
Elaine,
The concept of liberty envisioned by the founding fathers of the United States government was sufficiently complex that few five-year-olds comprehend it and even fewer five-year-olds can explain it.
I consider the Bible to be the basis of my religious beliefs but I avoid quoting it as a means of showing people they are “wrong” except to point out that the Bible texts THEY are quoting need to be taken in the context of other Bible texts.
Bible texts, taken by themselves, can be used to “prove” almost anything–that we are saved by what we do OR that we are saved by grace alone, for example.
In 1776, virtually all of the WASPs in the United States professed faith in Jesus. In that sense, the nation was “Christian”. The founding fathers, however, because they understood the difficulty of deciding who should decide what other people believe, intentionally created a SECULAR government for a “Christian” nation.
I have a number of political beliefs. I work to promote those beliefs, both in civil discourse with ordinary citizens and in letters to government officials. Some of those political beliefs I would stop promoting if I could be persuaded that significant numbers of people were referring to MY political belief as THE “moral” one. The problem with trying to legislate moral principles is that it requires a decision as to whose morality is being promoted.
How many five-year-olds could explain the SdA doctrine of 1844?
How many twenty-five or fifty-five could explain that, and other “odd” doctrines of the church that are very poorly understood, bu clung to by Adventists only because this is what they were taught?
Elaine,
5-year-olds can’t explain why the founding fathers chose to create a secular government for a “Christian nation. I think you agree that doesn’t mean the founding fathers were wrong to do that.
These next questions are rhetorical. You don’t need to answer them. What is “the SdA doctrine of 1844”?
Some teach that the 2300 days ended on Oct. 22. It may have but I don’t teach that specific date because there are more ways than one to calculate the date of the annual Day of Atonement.
I believe there is an investigative phase of the final judgment and agree that it precedes the 2nd advent. It is, however, a vindication of God and the saints–not what some SdAs make it out to be. I don’t teach that no one is forgiven until his name “comes up” in the judgment. I don’t teach that God will ARBITRARILY close human probation and I don’t teach that Satan will ever be our sin-bearer. If there are even a few thousand SdAs who don’t teach what I don’t teach, maybe neither what I teach or what others teach about “1844” can be considered truly “fundamental”.
To a Presbyterian, what 7th Day Baptists teach may seem “odd”. That doesn’t mean it is wrong.
To what other “odd” doctrines were you referring?
I was not referring to what defines a “Bible thumper”, but rather how Bible Christians are viewed by those who dislike them, whether they’re thumping the Bible or not. Another term one uses against Christians is “Bible-quoter”.
This desire on behalf of some ministers and religion faculty to change their status to commissioned from ordained is just another sad chapter in the ongoing WO controversy. The men who are doing this just can’t put WO behind them and move on for the good of the church. They want to continue to feed the fires of disharmony, discontent, and discord.
Dennis, during WW II with the Nazis requiring Jews to wear an armband with the star of David on their sleeves, the people of the Netherlands all began wearing the star of David in sympathy with the Jews.
This is exactly the actions that those ministers who turned in their ordination certificates to accept commissioned status were expressing: their “oneness” with those who were outside the ordination tent.
And just as during the Civil Rights Movement, there were many whites who refused to do business with those establishments which turned away blacks.
The leadership, not those ministers, have fueled this disharmony, discord and discontent by their refusing to equally recognize the ministry of women. By “appealing” for conferences not to ordain women they are ignoring the Working Policy which explicitly gives the unions the decision to ordain “without gender.”
To Love and protect the lives of others vs. the right to do something against the BIBLE and Sound Doctrine; sounds like a valid comparison (without the risk of life).
But most of the persons within the class that you wish to protect want nothing to do with what you, those like you and any associated Ahab’s are selling. They individually have infinitely more strength, conviction and wisdom than the sum compost of those pooled like you; they neither need nor want your individual ideologies. They add infinitely more value, because they follow HIM, not the world.
The working policy states without gender (except those requiring ordination to the gospel ministry*). I think you missed the last part; and many other parts.
You fuel the disharmony and blame everyone else; just like always.
Dennis Foxworth on October 28, 2015 at 7:53 pm said: “They want to continue to feed the fires of disharmony, discontent, and discord.”
In response, speaking for myself, nothing could be further from the truth.
When is it wrong to do what you feel and know is the right thing? This (asking that the status of credentials be changed from ordained to commission) was a very small, but necessary act in expressing solidarity and support for an important principle of ethics. Building a community that empowers men and women in ministry to attain their full potential through each of us respecting each other’s dignity, rights and responsibilities makes the world a better place to live.
Thirty years ago I was threatened that if I gave the emblems of communion to a patient dying of AIDS in the local hospital, I would be terminated. As a Chaplain, I was blessed by the solidarity and support of three other staff Chaplains (two of them were women) from different faiths groups, and a Lay Eucharistic Minister who assisted me. The service was a spiritual blessing for all. The organization that owned the hospital sold it to a more open, interfaith, company.
What would Jesus do? Gethsemane is an example in needing others.
Solidarity for our fellow women ministers is simply the demand of fraternity, that we treat each other as brothers and sisters with the love and respect that God gives to all of us.
If not us, then who? If not now, then when? If not this, then what?
Sam,
Thank you for sharing that story about the AIDS patient. We have much to learn about loving others and seeing them as equals in the eyes of God because we are all sinners called to minister salvation.
I was a pastor in New York City when AIDS became and issue. I was visiting in the neighborhoods where members of the “gender community” were found in significant numbers before anyone called it “AIDS” or understood how it was spread. If ever there were individuals who needed to have the love of God ministered to them, I was surrounded by them. I heard the fear in their words and saw it in their eyes. They needed to be touched by God’s love.
It is when we learn to follow the intimate and immediate guidance of the Holy Spirit that we truly learn what it means to minister God’s love. I think if you and I were to meet and swap stories we would find that God has led each of us on some redemptive adventures that would make those who lecture us about how to minister very uncomfortable.
Matthew 25:
35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
We see comforting the sick. We fail to see a demand of fraternity. Where is that in the BIBLE? But we do see requirements otherwise though in 1 Timothy 3 and many other places. We do see commanded callings that are not being addressed; by those or you. Since multitudes have conviction of Spirit, vote and can read the BIBLE; please explain.
Two, of many things, that I have absolutely no control over occurs at birth, 1) The color of my skin, and 2) The gender of my being. And it gives me great sadness to see the church organization I chose to align with as a lad to discriminate against one gender (which they cannot control) who has been Divinely called. And who am I, as a mere mortal male to determine and recognize that another child of God cannot have been called to an equal task in ministry simply based on their gender whom the Omniscient has loved, known, and called while yet in her mother’s womb? But I pray that our common enemy will fail in diverting our attention to the point where we lose focus of our mission and purpose of being here- – -taking the Gospel to the world and reproducing the character of God in our lives.
Read your BIBLE. Don’t think or follow your heart; both are foolish. Look around you for the results of your ideologies. GOD calls, not you. Discrimination is interfering with something that you have no idea about or thinking that your conviction or ideas mean more than others; or GOD’s.
They have much more strength, conviction and purpose that you could ever understand. Our common enemy will fail; but it is HIS mission and focus, not ours.