My Take: A ‘No’ Is a Deeper ‘Yes’!
by Raj Attiken, May 28, 2015: The Adventist Church has again picked up the ball regarding women’s ordination that it has fumbled many times over the years and is running with it. But which goal line is it running towards this time?
In my opinion, it is superfluous to ask General Conference Session delegates whether it is “acceptable for division executive committees, as they may deem it appropriate in their territories, to make provision for the ordination of women to the gospel ministry.”[i] The reason should be obvious. General Conference Sessions do not regulate what issues Division Executive Committees address or do not address.[ii] No authorizing action at a General Conference Session is needed for a Division to consider any matter of significance to its territory. Even as some local Conferences and Union Conferences have already addressed the issue of ordination, so can Division executive committees, should they so choose. A “yes” vote in San Antonio will not obligate every Division executive committee to take up this matter for their regions. Nor will a “no” vote prevent all Division committees from addressing the issue.
A further irony regarding the wording of the question to be placed before the delegates in San Antonio is that it implies an acknowledgement of the appropriateness of ordaining women to the gospel ministry. For surely the Church would not be asking whether a practice should be adopted regionally if, from the outset, the practice was recognized to be unacceptable on biblical, theological, ethical, moral or any other basis! It appears to me, therefore, that even the option of a “no” vote has a deeper “yes” embedded in it.
Unless the motion that is presented to delegates on July 8 is markedly different from the action proposed by the published question forwarded from the 2014 Annual Council, the delegates will not be asked to vote in favor of, or in opposition to, the ordination of women to the gospel ministry. This is a rather startling reality, given the intense focus on the theology of ordination in recent years! I am not aware if the wording of the published question represents a strategic intent or if it is an inadvertent misstep. By framing the issue as it has, the Church has resisted the temptation –at least in this one instance — to act as if it is God’s official question-answering machine churning out definitive resolutions by majority vote on any given divisive issue. This is sensible, since the world is not hanging with bated breath on our answers to this question! Nor are most Adventists!
It certainly is possible that the Chairperson at the Session could invoke a parliamentary procedural maneuver that allows him to introduce for a vote an alternate concept that is disparate from the originally published question. Or the Chair could permit a delegate to initiate such an action from the floor. In either case, such maneuvers – even if preceded by prayer — will demonstrate a lapse in ethical integrity, and would tarnish the significance or validity of the decisions made.
For some time now we have been treated to a good deal of heavy breathing and earnest handwringing about the issue of women’s ordination. Much serious study, deliberation, and prayer have also occurred. Although a great deal of time has been invested by many people, and the costs to convene meetings and publish reports have been considerable, the exercise has been good for the Church on many fronts. It has confirmed for the Church that the issue of ordaining women to the gospel ministry is not directly addressed in the Bible. It has allowed us to weigh the merits of varying and opposing perspectives and interpretations. It has helped us understand that the Church’s unity is in Christ and not in the uniformity of its practices, policies, rituals or programs. It has assured us that the practice of ordaining women is compatible with well-grounded biblical and theological principles. It has animated us to the possibility that the Church, at long last, could witness the unfolding of the “kingdom” ideal in this regard, where women and men are equally valued, equally called, recognized as equally gifted, equally needed, and equally mobilized in mission and ministry. In my biased opinion, these are all positive outcomes.
In two previous columns I opined that the issue of women’s ordination to the gospel ministry does not belong on a General Conference Session agenda and that regardless of the vote on the proposed question to be placed before the delegates, women will increasingly be ordained in various parts of the world. I argued that the primary impact the vote in San Antonio will have would be on the speed at which the practice becomes more widely adopted. Although both of these notions ascribe a diminished significance to the vote in San Antonio, I here advocate for doing what Hall of Fame philosopher Yogi Berra proposed: “When you come to a fork in the road, take it.” If a vote is to be taken at all, the reasons for a “yes” vote are both compelling and persuasive (as many have presented in this and other forums with logical, well-articulated commentary and analysis).
A hymn sung at the Commencement exercises at a theological seminary over the past weekend led me to think about the flurry of current activity in the Church in anticipation of the General Conference session. The lyrics, written by Thomas H. Troeger, included these lines: “May our learning curb the error which unthinking faith can breed, lest we justify some terror with an antiquated creed.”[iii]
It is time we curbed the error of denying ordination to qualified women pastors. It is time we acknowledged that diversity of practice in this matter does not impinge on the faith-content of Adventism but that it is an ecclesiastical reality that merits celebration and affirmation. That’s my take!
[i] The full text of the question that delegates will be asked to vote on July 8 is as follows: WHEREAS, The unity for which Jesus prayed is vitally important to the witness of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and; WHEREAS, The Seventh-day Adventist Church seeks to engage every member in its worldwide mission to make disciples of Jesus Christ among people from every nation, culture and ethnicity, and; WHEREAS, Various groups appointed by the General Conference and its divisions have carefully studied the Bible and Ellen G. White writings with respect to the ordination of women, and have not arrived at consensus as to whether ministerial ordination of women is unilaterally affirmed or denied, and; WHEREAS, The Seventh-day Adventist Church affirms that “God has ordained that the representatives of His Church from all parts of the earth, when assembled in a General Conference Session, shall have authority”; THEREFORE, The General Conference Executive Committee requests delegates in their sacred responsibility to God at the 2015 General Conference Session to respond to the following question: After your prayerful study on ordination from the Bible, the writings of Ellen G. White, and the reports of the study commissions, and; after your careful consideration of what is best for the church and the fulfillment of its mission, is it acceptable for division executive committees, as they may deem it appropriate in their territories, to make provision for the ordination of women to the gospel ministry? Yes or No.”
[ii] The boards and executive committees of each organizational level of the church have the authority to independently determine what is placed on their respective meeting agendas. Unlike Unions and Conferences, which have their own constituencies, Divisions are “divisions” of the General Conference. As such, they do not have their own constituencies, but operate through their elected executive committees. Division presidents are vice presidents of the General Conference.
[iii] “Praise the Source of Faith and Learning,” by Thomas H. Troeger, Oxford University Press, 1987.
Excellent and logical analysis, Raj! This whole issue about women’s ordination is actually a non-issue. Regardless of the vote in San Antonio, we will still have women pastors (because they were approved in 1990, and there is no motion on the table to rescind the 1990 policy adopted by the world church).
Regardless of the vote, these female ministers will still preach, teach, give Bible studies and evangelistic meetings, lead communion services, chair church board meetings, perform weddings and funerals and baby dedications, visit the sick, pray for the lost, etc.
The vote at the GC has nothing to do with whether we will have women pastors, or what functions they will perform. We already have lots of women pastors (including several female senior pastors), and they’re not going away.
All of the time, money, and energy expended on this debate is needless; it’s just a tempest in a teapot. Because all it amounts to is whether female pastors will be called “ordained” or whether we will continue to call them “commissioned.” Their work is the same, either way. The only difference is the name.
There is no biblical reason to insist on continuing to call them “commissioned” instead of “ordained.” It seems that nobody sees the pink elephant in the room: regardless of what label we give them, they are still pastors! Changing the title (or refusing to change it) won’t change who they are. And it won’t change whether God has called them to the ministry. It won’t change their role or their function.
The vote at the GC amounts to nothing but whether to allow individual divisions to call women pastors “ordained” instead of “commissioned.” It’s not a big deal. It’s just a matter of semantics. And, as you point out, it’s not even something they need permission to do.
Excellent post!
Good post, except that there is indeed Biblical evidence FOR the ordination of women. We just don’t study the Bible deep enough and are too ignorant of the culture to see it.
” In my biased opinion, these are all positive outcomes.”
I appreciate your honesty on this issue, and much of what you have stated we can all agree with. Namely, there has been no definitive issue stated about this highly sensitive doctrine that could be interpreted in any rational way as having any dynamic meaning.
In other words, it has all been “drivel” from the beginning in the way the GC has handled the issue and we don’t expect it to be otherwise in the near future. We are now a political entity with less and less spirituality as the focus of how to decide any issue.
As we all know, the church has already allowed ordination of women on some level as elders, and it is equally obvious that if a woman can be an ordained elder, she can hold any other office in the church without distinction to gender. She can be the General Conference president as long as those in authority consider her qualified spiritually and have adequate leadership abilities.
Either the church made a terrible mistake in the beginning by advocating WO, or, their is simply no stopping place as to where she can minister and hold authority.
These are the only two viable positions, and anything in between is superficial and inane. Simply put, it is all, or nothing. Period. And all rational people can easily see this is true.
Again, I appreciate your candor even if I disagree with your conclusion. For you, it is all. For me and some others, it is nothing. Those in between are worthless to the conversation and have nothing viable to offer.
I might add that the fact the church has already approved WO, those who continue to support this agenda have a considerable edge over those who disagree. It is far easier to support what the church has already approved, than a few decades later challenge the decision. This is especially true in the fact that those have no opinion will always side with the original decision and thus, WO advocates will have these individuals on their side. It is much harder to correct what some may perceive as an error of the past, than to oppose it when it was in a developing stage.
Just as it will be difficult for those who want to support some type or form of evolution in the SDA church, when it has already been determined that a literal week is the biblical teaching and the church has supported this concept.
For those who oppose male headship, we may find it interesting that they must go all the way back to the creation story and deny the “kingship” of Adam over the whole human family. This is obviously necessary to affirm the ideal in the beginning was equality in authority in the Adam and Eve relationship, and thus, the ideal should be upheld in the Christian community.
This is not only difficult to support, but in fact, impossible. Nothing is more clear in scripture than the affirmation of the corporate head of Adam over the human family that he “sold out” and He has now been replaced by the “second Adam” who has made atonement for sin. Eve is never mentioned in this context and this should be a bit of embarrassment to those who advocate equality in authority.
For those of us who support male headship by way of scripture, this is simply one “proof” that is beyond challenge and more than obvious with a little research. And we have EGW on our side as well.
“When Satan declared to Christ, The kingdom and glory of the world are delivered unto me, and to whomsoever I will I give it, he stated what was true only in part, and he declared it to serve his own purpose of deception. Satan’s dominion was that wrested from Adam, but Adam was the vicegerent of the Creator. His was not an independent rule. The earth is God’s, and He has committed all things to His Son. Adam was to reign subject to Christ. When Adam betrayed his sovereignty into Satan’s hands, Christ still remained the rightful King. Thus the Lord had said to King Nebuchadnezzar, “The Most High ruleth in the DA 129.4”
Thus, we have affirmation by EGW that we have properly understood and interpreted the biblical concept of male headship. We didn’t really need EGW for this affirmation, but it nice to have her endorsement.
Yes, I agree with all comments, as to the fact this administratively has no value at the General Conference level. The item of ordination of women is a fact. The precedents have been approved by the votes of individual Conference constituency’s which have the authority to action. The GC SESSION in San Antonio would be a blessing, harmoniously, for all SDA’s, should any agenda item re: ordination, were shelved. God bless all lovers of Jesus Christ.
Darwin gave the world evolution, for the ungodly who did not believe in the Creator God, because that is what they want. The Israelites asked for a king to rule over them, like the other nations, because that is what they want. The Catholics give the people a Pope, in who lay their confidence and to make confession for sins, because that is what they want. The SDA church gave the people more reading material and EGW to interpret the Scriptures for them, because that is what they want. The SDA church gives the people Women Ordination, because that is what they want. Is all this wrong, or is that how things are, because that is what the people want?
The inventions of the world are the outward manifestations of the heart of man.
“5 Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord comes, who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the counsels of the hearts. Then each one’s praise will come from God.” 1 Cor. 4:5.
as I look at my historical timeline, it strikes me that Ellen White was called by God and was providing guidance BEFORE there was an SDA church, so the SDA church did not bring us EGW to give us more to read, she helped bring us the SDA church.
Life and times change, we no longer live in the 1st century, many things have changed, slavery is no longer legal and women are no longer property. Just as Eve labored beside Adam after they were sent out from the Garden, today men and women labor in God’s garden to spread his word about the incredible gift of salvation.
Trying to overstate things only serves to weaken anything else you might have to offer
JonPaul,
The Godly inspiration and humble beginnings of EGW are not disputed. There is no doubt God uses many people and I do not deny she may have been one of them. There have also been prophets mentioned in the Bible who God used but afterwards fell away; not to mention king Saul and Solomon, and many others.
The time line of events I described is insignificant to the reality the world now finds itself in.
“Trying to overstate things only serves to weaken anything else you might have to offer”
“10 Cursed is he who does the work of the LORD deceitfully, And cursed is he who keeps back his sword from blood.”
I am fully aware of the implications of my statements, and I also see how others are constantly criticizing the SDA church and its non-biblical doctrines throughout this web site; but they are not chastised in the way I have been. Why? Their criticism is not directed at the root of the problem. People want a Godly church without God. The church’s interpretation of Scripture is only to elevate their value in the sight of man, and does not glorify Jesus Christ.
So, to add to your comment against me, consider this, and prove whether or not this is the case: The church overstates the whole Scriptures through EGW and denies the Holy Spirit. Be very careful how you answer this.
That is great
Licensed pastors are paid less than ordained pastors
Never was a scripture more corrupted and misused than this one. “.”There is no longer Jew or Greek, slave or free, male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Paul simply tells us in contrast to the ceremonial law where there were various compartments for different people to worship, that all can approach God by way of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sin.
And yet the women lib movement tries again and again to tell us this means there is no distinction in church government between male and female, and then quote Gal. to support their agenda.
In the end, it is simply telling us the law has been done away by the cross and now are free to determine for ourselves under the influence of the Holy Spirit how to interpret and apply scripture.
That more than a few have been deceived by this false and misuse of this scripture, and many more as time goes along, is a fact and a certain reality.
It is what we may call “principle based theology” that ignores the non-negotiable objective givens and opts for spiritual enlightenment over and above clear bible revelations.
The majority may well be deceived as scripture has stated, but the elect of God will not “buy” this method of bible teaching and application. Of course, it simply prepares the way to abandon the bible Sabbath and opt for church authority led by the Spirit to inform us the church will decide and determine for us what the bible says and teaches. Some may deny this conclusion, but it is a fact of history when men opt for spiritual enlightenment over scriptural authority.
The convoluted theology of Adventism over law and gospel for several decades has prepared the way for where we are now, and points the way to where we will end up in the near future.
History is a reliable teacher. But only to those who see and understand the reason for past conclusions were the result of certain theological concepts outside God’s revelation.
God has ordained that man was created to hold a higher level of authority and accountability than the woman. All the talk of equality in this context is bogus.
Well said Brother Sorenson!!!
Raj, As always, you have found a thoughtful way to simplify the issue in favor of the spiritual growth of God’s Kids. I agree heartily and will share your words with the congregation Sabbath, and with many who are planning to participate in next weekend’s meeting of those who somehow have chosen to see this issue as the Omega of Apostasy. Thanks again for your wisdom.
Eld. Duerksen, you could also could share EqualOrdination.com with the congregation. It is a good resource center on this subject, and I saw a link to this editorial on that site.
“It has confirmed for the Church that the issue of ordaining women to the gospel ministry is not directly addressed in the Bible.”
Raj, I don’t understand how you can say that the study process has left us with this conclusion, when positions 1 & 3 both concluded that being male was a requirement for the biblical role of elder. Sure, they differed in what type of requirement they thought it was, but they both agreed that it was a requirement.
Secondly, it seems highly inappropriate to encourage open rebellion against votes of GC Sessions, given how Ellen White stated very clearly that GC Sessions are the highest authority under God on earth. Given that you have admitted that there is no Scripture that commands us to ordain women to the gospel ministry, there is no biblical reason to disregard GC Session votes against that practice.
Raj is simply pointing out that the GC session does not actually have jurisdiction over this issue. That is not a rebellious attitude; it is just stating the facts. The GC Session could vote that the moon is made of cheese. Does that make it so? Does the GC Session have authority to vote on that issue? No. Not on either of these issues.
I am encouraged Bob Pickle.!!!
It is ludicrous to say that divisions can make decisions about anything they want to. This is a church, not a masonic clubhouse. Divisions should be able to make decisions on protocol for their own meetings, or for secular things, but since this is a church, when it comes to doctrinal issues, there must be unity, otherwise there is no church. If a division doesn’t like the doctrine, it needs to get out of the SDA church and start its own sect.
Jeremiah, you have missed the point. Women’s ordination (or lack thereof) is not a doctrine. This is not a doctrinal issue; it is an operational issue. The divisions have authority to decide such issues.
Actually, Jeremiah is correct. The GC sets down guide lines for church administration and this is “doctrine”. It is a cop out to claim it is not doctrine and so the Unions can do as they please.
It is comparable to a pastor who has authority to baptize new members, and then claim he can baptize anyone he wants even if it is outside the stated guide lines and qualifications for baptism laid down by the church.
The Unions have authority, but outside the stated guidelines of the General Conference. And to claim they can do as they please is simply rebellion against church policy and authority.
“The Unions have authority, but (not) outside the stated guidelines of the General Conference.”
Oops, I left out the word “not”.
Thank you Bill. I truly appreciate your words if wisdom.
Are job descriptions within the church “doctrine,” or policies governing employee reimbursement “doctrine,” or the red NAD Employee’s Policy Book another “gospel” or “epistle”? Hardly so. Administrative structures developed in governance of the church are largely nothing more than a human construct. Where the Bible allows for a clear foundational principle, let it be brought forward and applied. Where the Word remains silent on an issue, then prayerful consideration and mutual assent guides in developing a construct and policy. The GC is no more God on Earth than the Pope is for the Catholic church. Let us not assume that terrible error in making decisions of governance, or assertion of authority for cherished positions on matters of practice in the faith.
Korah was thinking the same thing!!!
Korah lead a group in direct opposition to the person that God had chosen to lead Israel. I am not sure what were his thoughts as the ground opened-up and swallowed him and his household. Perhaps the people who lived over sink-holes in Florida could tell us?
Anyway, so far I am not aware that the ground has opened-up and swallowed any of the proponents of WO, or any of the opponents for that matter. Perhaps our individual beliefs regarding WO or Male headship are not the ultimate test of fellowship in the eyes of God?
In the Law of Mose If find stoning as a punishment for breaking the Sabbath, or blasphemy, or adultery. But I find no mention of a penalty for violation of Male Headship, other than a husband can divorce his wife or sell her into slavery for up to 7 years.
Some here seem to be advocating divorce as the penalty for advocating WO or violating Male headship. But Jesus Christ is the True Husband of His church, and so far as I can tell He has not served any WO advocates with divorce papers.
So well said Jeremiah.
Sir, it appears where Christians disagree you would settle the issue by having one or the other groups of believers to
give up their membership in your church. Should that occur you would very quickly have your church building all to your
self. Is that what Jesus Christ wishes for His children??
The question regarding ANY issue is “What sollution will hasten Jesus return?” Much discussion will probably generate more heat than light! Maranatha!
The only “solution” is to follow the biblical mandate and not make up our own agenda to “help God” in ways He has not ordained and approved.
We need to remember that the early church considered a need to abandon the bible Sabbath and thus “help God” bring more into church fellowship. Can we “help God?” Yes, but only as we follow the format He has outlined in His word. So, we can hasten the return of Jesus, but only if we follow His orders. “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.”
No room for human speculation and ideas manufactured by human reasoning. The method of presenting the truth in a biblical framework, is as important as the message we desire to communicate. A faulty method will always lead to a convoluted message.
This is what I believe from my years of study of the Bible, comparing scriptures. I also take seriously the interpretations of those who have studied much more than I. “Scholarship” and “intellectual” are not bad words. I have studied under a number of Adventist theologians, and a couple who were not.
They were godly persons who lived their faith. My conclusion is that we fail to understand the Bible in its historical context. In trying to make it all fit literally we undermine the meaning of scripture and the wonderful truths it tries to teach. We miss the principles (can’t see the forest for the trees) and the spiritual applications in our lives.
I sometimes wonder if that is why many members become so conservative and tend to be a bit feisty over the specifics. We need differing opinions, of course, but not to strain at gnats and swallow a camel. There is nothing in the Bible about ordination as we know it, and it does not speak to the issue we face today. It reminds me of the argument between the two apostles who wanted the seats next to Jesus–status seekers.
Check out the 5+ hour presentation that this ministry produced on this subject. http://www.sealingtime.com/ord There is a lot of Bible and EGW that is used.
Check out the powerful articles, videos, and other resources at http://EqualOrdination.com . It is full of Bible and Spirit of Prophecy quotes and bears the indicia of truth.
So what you are saying is that when God told Adam and Eve not to eat or even go near the Tree in the middle of the garden, He didn’t really mean NO, He really meant yes, it’s OK, just as the Satan in the form of the Serpent told Eve? That makes sense, NO doesn’t really mean NO, it really means YES! Oh, maybe it makes sense only if you don’t like the original command!
Well said Cameron. Many people who oppose scripture will say, “That is not what it means” concerning clear and obvious truth. They go on to give us some mystical spiritualistic interpretation that is the exact opposite of the clear revelation of scripture.
And the situation with Eve is classic. So Satan says to Eve, “Are you sure you understand what God said? I think you have misunderstood this issue.” And then goes on to state, “Ye shall not surely die.”
This is how those who defend WO use the bible to try to convince us that God did not mean what He said. In the end, the bible is undermined as being too convoluted as a clear revelation of truth to the average individual, and now we need some “expert” theologians to tell us what it means and what to believe.
And since many now claim they don’t know what it means, Rome is more than willing to take the final role of telling everyone what it means and point to Protestantism as a novelty interpretation of scripture. And of course, they can point to the fact that many now claim they don’t know what it means, and Rome will say, “Of course you don’t, but we do.” And then affirm that they are the one true church that God has ordained to explain and interpret scripture from the beginning.
All the ongoing confusion in Protestantism in general and Adventism in particular will be the evidence they point to as why it is necessary for them to take control. Protestantism is self destructing and Adventism has been doing this for years.
Small wonder millions will turn to Rome for some authority to explain and interpret scripture. We don’t have any authority in the SDA movement to even tell our own church what truth is and how it must be applied. Pluralism has destroyed bible Adventism. All Rome has to do is sit and wait.
“This is how those who defend WO use the bible to try to convince us that God did not mean what He said.”
This is how I use the Bible to try to convince you that God DID mean what God said:
“Let THEM (that is male and female in the immediate context) have Dominion”
And for those who like to quote Ellen as scripture:
“When God created Eve, He designed that she should possess neither inferiority nor superiority to the man, but that in all things she should be his equal”
“Christ, not the minister, is the head of the church”
“It is not always men who are best adapted to the successful management of a church”
Both Scripture and Ellen are very clear on this point, though some simply refuse to acknowledge the possibility they have yet something more to learn or unlearn. I was once a believer in Male Headship. I discovered from passages like these in the Bible and Ellen that I was WRONG.
Our difference in approach is that when I discover that I am wrong, is I have to seriously and not without struggle, consider changing my mind (or failing that, letting God change my mind).
Well reasoned and well said!
I agree with you EM. We woefully ignore the Bible in it’s historical context as well as the meaning of “man” in the original Biblical languages. We devalue half of the human race when Christ Himself while here on earth set the example of correcting some of the cultural wording of the Bible by elevating women to the equal position He intended. If I believed women are not equal to men in God’s eyes, then I would have to believe women are loved less by my maker. Cherry picking Biblical verses is destructive to individuals, families and the church. Do we say women shouldn’t cut their hair, women should be silent in church, women should set in a tent during her period? There are so many examples like this that are either ignored or realized they were cultural norms of the time so don’t apply today. As others have pointed out, there is nothing said in the Bible about ordination of either men or women. It seems to all come down to power and control and men want the control of who serves God in what way. Christ, not man, is head of the church. Therefore every child of God – male and female – is under Christ, not man. As a believer of the priesthood of all believers, I believe both men and women can and should minister together in whatever way the Holy Spirit calls them.
Well said!
Does it matter? The church has changed Biblical law in the past. It should be able to again. The SDA church has always been anti-slavery, but the Bible supports slavery from beginning to end. The church changed that to fit more modern times and ethics.
Where does the Bible support slavery?
There are enigmas in Genesis. Does God know everything?? Does God know the end from the beginning?? If so, God set up Adam and EVE for the fall, knowing they would be unable to resist the wiles of Satan. Supposedly God also set up Job, for heart wrenching family happenings. The logic is impossible to fathom. Obviously the Godly pair were not equal to the test although they were specially fashioned for it by God. Adam and Eve were unable to pass the test of obedience. Did God know of their failure before the trial?? Adam was never in the heavenly realm as was Jesus Christ, who defeated Satan in the wilderness. What was, and “why” was EDEN????. Why create a paradise on Earth and then destroy it???????? God is LOVE. GOD, the ALMIGHTY KING OF KINGS, AUTHOR OF PERFECT LOVE, CREATED His treasured creatures on Earth, then spent the following billion (or approx. 6000) years annihilating His treasured (mankind) creation. Billions have had horrible, ghastly lives, and deaths, supposedly because of God’s perfect love for Lucifer???? We don’t have half of the story. We are totally in the dark of the final outcome of Earth’s history. The world is not anticipating other GODLY prophets in these last days. Even should they appear we are expecting evil spirits, why would we accept or believe another prophet with God’s final instructions????
It is possible that in the end, the PERFECT LOVE of God will accept Lucifer’s return on bended knees, to His Graces. The PRODIGAL, of the universes. And there will be joy in Heaven over the ARCH SINNERS return. And all the Universes will sing heavenly praises to the KING OF KINGS, OUR ALMIGHTY GOD.
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Earl, to play off the sovereignty of God against the historical process can only lead to error and confusion. Human reason can not make rational sense out of this enigma.
But we can know by way of scripture, that just because God knows everything that will happen in the future, does not make Him responsible for it.
God knew that Lucifer would sin. And a rational question could be, why did He create Him then? and, If God created him, knowing he would sin, isn’t God then responsible for what Lucifer did?
These kinds of questions plague the human mind and it has done so for many centuries. But the reason God is not responsible for sin is because Lucifer had more than adequate knowledge to make a viable decision not to sin and since he had adequate information, the responsibility is his own.
The same with Adam and Eve in the garden. The only way God could be held accountable for sin, is if He did not communicate adequate information and knowledge for them to make the right decision. And this is no small issue, since many are willing to accuse God of not giving them enough information, and thus, sin was inevitable.
This is so important, that our own salvation is dependent on this issue. Do we have adequate knowledge to make the right decision? All the lost will say, no. And all the saved will say, yes. If we are saved, we will acknowledge our responsibility in sin and repent. If we are lost, we will deny it. Lucifer has accused God of sin. And the lost agree. The righteous reject this lie of Satan and join God’s side that He is not responsible, but we are and in need of repentance.
This is why it is critical to affirm the bible is an adequate revelation of truth without all the ambiguity many are advocating in many of the issue confronting Adventism today. If people are “sold” on the idea the bible can not be understood, then they can equally claim they are not accountable to be judged by it.
We see this is no small issue in the present discussions about all the issues in the church today.
Why? Because the Son of God, The Word of God, was slain, and God’s vengeance and wrath will be unleashed! That is LOVE! And how that LOVE works is incomprehensible, just like this: “33 Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out! 34 “For who has known the mind of the LORD? Or who has become His counselor?” 35 “Or who has first given to Him and it shall be repaid to him?” 36 For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen.”
The Word of God, the Creator of all things, was slain, because of sin and because He accepted His responsibility, and took it all upon Himself!
If we have questions regarding God’s Awesome plan, then we need to ask the One and Only Almighty God, not man. Don’t you agree?
Jesus Christ took up His Cross (responsibility), and He tells everyone to take up their “cross”. What is our responsibility? Acknowledgement of our sins and acceptance of the One and only Sacrifice to atone for our sins. There is no other way of gaining our salvation other than through Jesus Christ. We are transgressors of God’s perfect Law and we need the Perfect One to save us. Attempting obedience to God’s perfect Law is a futile attempt without His Holy Spirit in us.
Here is some humor with a good point, to put things in perspective:
Top Ten Reasons Why Men Should Not Be Ordained
https://OrdinationFacts.wordpress.com/reasons/
It’s a good thing someone can see the humor in all this. Because it’s all starting to look like one great circus; and I think I’ve become one of the clowns!
I think all of us must prayerfully leave the vote for the GC session 2015 and hope that whatever come out this session is what God has approved.
So my question to either faction in this protracted wrestling match is this: What will your response be, after the vote has been taken, if the vote should end up not supporting your position? Either of the suggested responses that I have been hearing, that is – to continue ordaining women in spite of a supportive vote, or to leave and form a new “purer” organization, would appear to be rebellion of the highest order, which really is THE bigger issue (bigger than the issue of WO). I, for one am daily in prayer that my heart will be open to the Lord’s leading in this session, to help bring healing rather than continued conflict.
“to continue ordaining women in spite of a supportive vote” should have been “an unsupportive vote”
I loved Ty Gibson’s post regarding this:
“I can imagine that when we get to heaven, and all the resurrected prophets are told how the world finally ended, they will be surprised to hear that while they had foretold that the law of God and the gospel Christ would be the issue to divide humanity into two groups and determine each ones destiny, the Adventist church turned the whole eschatological plan off course and brought the world to an end, rather, over women’s ordination.”
Ty Gibson is a real novice in theology and wouldn’t have a clue of what the issue will be in the end. In fact, he is helping prepare many to abandon the bible and opt for spiritual delusions. And the fact that many can’t see this reality about Ty Gibson only confirms what I have stated. His doctrine of “love” is so antichrist it has no affinity to the bible teaching on justice and grace. He is part of the moral influence theory that denies that Jesus bore the wrath of God and appeased His anger over sin. He makes God into some kind of “sissy” who is too impotent to deal with sin and evil.
Ty Gibson is no help to bible Christanity, even though he is given time on 3ABN and other ministries. Modern Adventism is one confused church community. And we call the Catholic church Babylon? Kind of like calling the kettle black.
All men (and perhaps women?) will know you are My disciples because you love one another.
Might it be possible that Jesus died for multiple reasons? Some of which we know and some we have yet to learn?
Might not all “theologians” truly be novices who like blind men groping an elephant, are trying to explain the parts of God they have found? And none of them having found more than small portions of a much larger whole?
Didn’t Jesus once say something about the planks in our own eyes?
Didn’t Paul once say something about dim reflections in a tarnished mirror?
Of course you can say this Jim, which implies we really don’t know anything we can defend as being scriptural since we don’t know everything, so we don’t know anything.
I doubt this will get anyone off the hook when the day of judgment comes and God holds us accountable to the teachings of the bible. It implies that God is a very poor communicator, and therefore, it is His fault if we don’t understand.
Myself and some others reject this “cop out” for determining what is truth and on what level we are held accountable to know it and respond. But I admit that your argument is held by more than a few who are involved in the various differences in the SDA church today.
By the way, if you think Adventism is not mass confusion, all you have to do is read the posts on Spectrum, ADvindicate, A-today……etc and see total confusion on every level. And you can be sure our leadership is no less confused than the general over all membership.
All we have is polarization on every level and possible “unity” only in the various factions. The SDA church has abandon the bible and EGW. Now all we can opt for is some false “unity” based on church authority.
Everything that can be shaken, is being shaken. And no genuine biblical unity is about to happen in modern Adventism.
The world is looking to Rome for unity, because Protestantism is self-destructing and the church God ordained to create a final bible church doesn’t have a clue and this is so obvious and evident to any viable evaluation we have to have our head in the sand to deny it.
And you seem to be eagerly anticipating the moment when you can proclaim to one and all “I told you so”!
Well, I guess Jesus could have said that to the Jews, or the wicked at the end of the world.
“I told you so” is not relevant in the final outcome. The purpose is to wake people up to a reality in the near future that affects their life and life’s outcome. The “head in the sand” mentality will not be acceptable in any given situation concerning salvation and all the factors involved.
Amen, amen, amen! What more can I say?
Ty Gibson released a thoughtful and insightful analysis recently: http://EqualOrdination.com/a-closer-look-at-wo/ . It is definitely worth a careful read.