Print

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

[Snoopy]

Kind of like Danny Shelton, founder of 3ABN, and Linda Shelton, co-founder.

LOL!!  Yes, Artiste!!  I guess it just depends on who you talk to...who the founder is.  Maybe the SDA church has more in common with 3ABN than we thought!!

[Gregory]

According to the arguments of many SDAs on the topic of WO, Mrs. White comes out looking like a false prophet.

I agree that this is how she looks, according to the arguments of some SDAs.

I deal with non-SDA clergy who are astounded that we, as a  church with a female co-founder, could have members who argue against female clergy.

NOTE:  To be clear, I do not believe that EGW was a false propher.  And, I support females in leaadership roles in spiritual nuture.  I beleive that God has clearly shown us in China that God supports such.

[christian]

According to the arguments of many SDAs on the topic of WO, Mrs. White comes out looking like a false prophet.

I agree that this is how she looks, according to the arguments of some SDAs.

I deal with non-SDA clergy who are astounded that we, as a  church with a female co-founder, could have members who argue against female clergy.

NOTE:  To be clear, I do not believe that EGW was a false propher.  And, I support females in leaadership roles in spiritual nuture.  I beleive that God has clearly shown us in China that God supports such.

   We are talking about ordination here, but more and more I see you are talking about leading the church. How do you know God has clearly shown us in China that God supports such? I knew that leadership is what is at the basis for this topic and conversation, not merely ordination, but that the woman should lead the church? You know the garden had plenty of trees but God said don't eat that one. I know where this is leading to a none gender church leadership to include lesbians and eventually Gay men.

[christian]

According to the arguments of many SDAs on the topic of WO, Mrs. White comes out looking like a false prophet.

I agree that this is how she looks, according to the arguments of some SDAs.

I deal with non-SDA clergy who are astounded that we, as a  church with a female co-founder, could have members who argue against female clergy.

NOTE:  To be clear, I do not believe that EGW was a false propher.  And, I support females in leaadership roles in spiritual nuture.  I beleive that God has clearly shown us in China that God supports such.

    Don't give credence to snoopy, Ellen G. White nor Her husband are the founders of the Adventist Church, Christ is. It is amazing when you listen to people closely you can better understand where they come from and what their motives really are. I have probably said this a million time, Christ is not in the grave he is risen and alive. The statements made about Ellen White are like those taught in the public school for years as truth. "Columbus discovered America" what about the Indians (Native Americans) already here? Herein lies the problem with many that are in the church they view the church just like any other denomination, man founded. Many see the church as a club or an organization that they are connected too. But the God of Heaven founded the Adventist Church and used the mouthpiece of a little girl who would become a woman to express his will. Men like her husband were put at the forfront of the work but the founder of the church was God.

[Gregory]

Christian, when we talk about the founder of the SDA Chruch, we are, of course, talking on the
human level, that is to say, people whom God used.

[Gregory]

When we talk about the founder and  the co-founders, we are in part talking about word definations.  When I say that EGW was a co-founder, I am saying that her role was equal to that of others, although different in some respects.

Our foundational, in my thinking, doctrines grew out of the so-called Sabbath conferences, of which there were five.  As I understand them, EGW did  not play a major role in these.  I do not give her equality in the development of our foundational doctrines of which there were five.  Some will probablydiffer withme on this.  So be it.  I see those Sabbath Conferences as being Biblically based and not based upon EGW in any knd of a major way.

However, there are three areas in which I see EGW a playing a major role in the development of the SDA Church.  These are:  Education (schools), Publishing and medical (hospitals & sanitoriumns).  We would not be the church that we are today if it were not for the role that EGW played inthese three areas.  Yes, she clearly played an administrative role.

Her role differed from that of her husband and other co-founders.  but, I give it equality to that of James.

[Gregory]

If eating a piece of fruit could keep Adam and Eve out of Eden, why couldn't wearing jewelry keep a man or woman out of heaven? Why not?

On one level, in a specific case, most anything could keep someone out of heaven.  But, to equate Adam & Eve eating the fruit with wearing a piece of jewelry is beyond belief to me.

God directly informed Adam & Eve that they had a choice as to their relationship with Him and the Garden of Eden.  They could exercise that choice by choosing to eat of the fruit of  that tree.   The Serpant followed that same line of reasoning wth the statement that by eating the fruit they would be able to leave their role as children of God and assume a new role equal to God Himself. 

Dress, adornment & jewelry have never been elevated to this level.  These are not at the center of  the Christian faith.

Further, dress, adornment   & jewelry have a cultural aspect.  The rules are not the same in every culture.

Yes, it is of interest that a male may find it O.K. to wear a $100+  Jerry Garcia necktie and yet criticize another person for wearing a $30 wedding ring.

[Bob Pickle]

If eating a piece of fruit could keep Adam and Eve out of Eden, why couldn't wearing jewelry keep a man or woman out of heaven? Why not?

On one level, in a specific case, most anything could keep someone out of heaven.  But, to equate Adam & Eve eating the fruit with wearing a piece of jewelry is beyond belief to me.

Both are what many people would consider very little things.

And there are explicit instructions in the Bible concerning both.

Sometimes the consequences of unbelief manifested in disobedience are not always laid out ahead of time.

1 Kings 20:35  And a certain man of the sons of the prophets said unto his neighbour in the word of the LORD, Smite me, I pray thee. And the man refused to smite him.

1 Kings 20:36  Then said he unto him, Because thou hast not obeyed the voice of the LORD, behold, as soon as thou art departed from me, a lion shall slay thee. And as soon as he was departed from him, a lion found him, and slew him.

1 Kings 20:37  Then he found another man, and said, Smite me, I pray thee. And the man smote him, so that in smiting he wounded him.

So I agree with you that any unbelief manifested in disobedience could have very serious consequences. They certainly did in the slain man's case in the verses above.

[Gregory]

The objective part of eating the fruit was a very minor issue.  The subjective part which involved wanting to assume the role of God and to reject God's counsel that they would die if the chose to eat was major.

Wearing jewelry has not had that level of subjective part attached to it and does not generally have such today.

As I have said:  There is a cultural basis for issues regarding dress, adornment and jewelry.  What is considered appropriate in one culture may not be considered appropriate in another culture.  I will suggest that both Scripture and EGW suggest that the Christian will not flaunt the cultural values of the society in which one lives.  E.G.  In the area where once a SDA would be disciplined for wearing blue jeans that might have been appropriate if one could establish that in that time and place blue jeans had a very negative value that violated Christian norms.

Neither my wife or I wear wedding rings.  However, we would do so if we were in a culture where we thought that we brought disrepute upon our faith by not wearing such.   IOW, if we thought that our culture required it for married people who intended to live chaste lives, we would both do so.

[Bob Pickle]

The objective part of eating the fruit was a very minor issue.  The subjective part which involved wanting to assume the role of God and to reject God's counsel that they would die if the chose to eat was major.

Regarding the motive for eating, that would be true for Eve, but not for Adam.

Wearing jewelry has not had that level of subjective part attached to it and does not generally have such today.

I don't know. When you have Peter and Paul telling us not to decorate our outward appearance, and we decide we're going to do it anyway, that's pretty audacious.

Note: I didn't say "jewelry" in the above sentence. The counsel is against more than just that.

Would you agree that Is. 66 does connect "that level of subjective part," or something comparable, to the eating of swine, the abomination, and the mouse?

[christian]

The objective part of eating the fruit was a very minor issue.  The subjective part which involved wanting to assume the role of God and to reject God's counsel that they would die if the chose to eat was major.

Wearing jewelry has not had that level of subjective part attached to it and does not generally have such today.

As I have said:  There is a cultural basis for issues regarding dress, adornment and jewelry.  What is considered appropriate in one culture may not be considered appropriate in another culture.  I will suggest that both Scripture and EGW suggest that the Christian will not flaunt the cultural values of the society in which one lives.  E.G.  In the area where once a SDA would be disciplined for wearing blue jeans that might have been appropriate if one could establish that in that time and place blue jeans had a very negative value that violated Christian norms.

Neither my wife or I wear wedding rings.  However, we would do so if we were in a culture where we thought that we brought disrepute upon our faith by not wearing such.   IOW, if we thought that our culture required it for married people who intended to live chaste lives, we would both do so.

 You think way to hard, I mean way to hard. The act of eating the fruit was indeed the major part of the transgression. And I already express to you that the issue surrounding the wedding ring was a smoke screen for the introduction of jewelry in general. I have seen plenty of baptisms that include the individual in makeup and jewelry being baptise.

[Murcielago]

I recently heard a religion professor from an SDA university say that the sin is not in the action, it is in the rebellion. He said that if a person believes that God has commanded something, even if He hasn't, and they act out of line with their belief, they have sinned. Yet, another person who holds no such belief can perform the same act and not sin. He used a donut as an example. If Peter believes that God has forbidden the eating of donuts, yet he goes down to the local cop hang-out and eats a donut, he has placed his will above God's. Maybe eating the donut was not a sin, but in eating the donut he still sinned against God. Now Mary doesn't believe Peter's assertion that donuts are forbidden food, and she also eats one. Has she sinned? Peter asserts that God wants us to be healthy and in eating something unhealthy we are in direct disobedience, thus, in sin. He believes that donuts, although not specifically mentioned in the Bible, are fundamentally wrong. Is it possible that when they go out for a donut, Paul is truly sinning, and Mary is not?

[Bob Pickle]

It's a good thing we are not the judge. It can get complicated for us human beings to figure out.

Romans 14:23  And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

Yes, the principle the professor was sharing is true.

Hosea 4:6  My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.

If there is something definitely forbidden by God, and someone doesn't know about it and doesn't think doing it is sin, the question is also whether or not that someone had opportunity to know, and rejected that opportunity.

Another thing we can be glad about, besides that God is our judge, is that He postpones the judgment so that if I goof today I still have opportunity to confess, repent, and make amends. However, I can't procrastinate without risk since I don't know how long I will have to do so.

[Artiste]

I agree with that explanation and the texts you shared.

[Gregory]

In fact, ordination is not really a Bible teaching. It is a tradition which developed over centuries in the Catholic Church and then was adopted by Protestants, including Adventists. Ellen G. White held the credentials of an ordained minister for decades and orthodox, loyal Seventh-day Adventists in China have ordained 17 women as ministers, starting in the 1980s.