Print

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

[Murcielago]

Is this justification of fairness authorized in Scripture? If it were, would not Christ have authorized and urged rebellion against the Roman government? The Zealots certainly did. And wouldn't Paul have promoted rebellion of slaves against their masters?

He may not have urged and authorized rebellion against the civil government, but he did engage in active and open rebellion against conservative church leadership and policy, encouraging people to break the laws of the church and disregard its policies.

How can you say that when He was the one who had originated the laws of the "church" (theocracy), Himself.

True, yet He did.

[Artiste]

Is this justification of fairness authorized in Scripture? If it were, would not Christ have authorized and urged rebellion against the Roman government? The Zealots certainly did. And wouldn't Paul have promoted rebellion of slaves against their masters?

He may not have urged and authorized rebellion against the civil government, but he did engage in active and open rebellion against conservative church leadership and policy, encouraging people to break the laws of the church and disregard its policies.

How can you say that when He was the one who had originated the laws of the "church" (theocracy), Himself.

True, yet He did.

"encouraging people to break the laws of the church"

It is my understanding that He didn't necessarily follow the traditional rules and regulations of the current Jewish practice, but that He followed the laws that He Himself had set up for the nation of Israel, and thus His "church".

Matthew 5:17-18   “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

[Bob Pickle]

I think Artiste is correct on this one. Jesus originated the church of those times, and if anything, the leaders of those times were the rebels, rebelling against His authority and Scripture. Christ was not the rebel. They were.

In contrast, no one in the Columbia Union can claim to have founded the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Thus far I know of no one who claims that the world church was in rebellion against Christ when in 1990 and 1995 it voted down requests to ordain women to the gospel ministry.

But I do know where Ellen White puts the GC Session on a level with the voice of God, and I do know where GC and NAD Working Policy state that a GC Session is the highest authority on earth under God, and that administrators who won't uphold church policy should not be put into office.

[Murcielago]

I think Artiste is correct on this one. Jesus originated the church of those times, and if anything, the leaders of those times were the rebels, rebelling against His authority and Scripture. Christ was not the rebel. They were.

In contrast, no one in the Columbia Union can claim to have founded the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Thus far I know of no one who claims that the world church was in rebellion against Christ when in 1990 and 1995 it voted down requests to ordain women to the gospel ministry.

But I do know where Ellen White puts the GC Session on a level with the voice of God, and I do know where GC and NAD Working Policy state that a GC Session is the highest authority on earth under God, and that administrators who won't uphold church policy should not be put into office.

God put the priesthood above the people, but when the priesthood became entrenched in conservatism he led a rebellion against them. Is it possible for God to lead someone, or a group in rebelling against rebellion?

[Johann]

I think Artiste is correct on this one. Jesus originated the church of those times, and if anything, the leaders of those times were the rebels, rebelling against His authority and Scripture. Christ was not the rebel. They were.

In contrast, no one in the Columbia Union can claim to have founded the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Thus far I know of no one who claims that the world church was in rebellion against Christ when in 1990 and 1995 it voted down requests to ordain women to the gospel ministry.

But I do know where Ellen White puts the GC Session on a level with the voice of God, and I do know where GC and NAD Working Policy state that a GC Session is the highest authority on earth under God, and that administrators who won't uphold church policy should not be put into office.

In another forum there is a discussion now between two Adventist workers, one of which was a delegate in 1990 and the other one in 1995. There seems to be some uncertainty among the delegates what they really had voted for.

I find it interesting that one of these tells that after the vote he interviewed about 50 delegates. At  least 50% of those he talked to indicated they had felt forced to cast the vote the way they did but had no choice since it was an open vote. They said their vote had been different if it had been a secret ballot.

I was not a delegate in Utrecht, but I was there, and I discovered there was a considerable unrest among the delegates the way the vote was forced through. Is this the right way of discovering what is the Lord's will? Also considering that Ellen White expressed several times it was not the Lord's will which had prevailed?

[Bob Pickle]

In another forum there is a discussion now between two Adventist workers, one of which was a delegate in 1990 and the other one in 1995. There seems to be some uncertainty among the delegates what they really had voted for.

Since we are human, there will always be some of that. In our constituency meeting in April I spoke a number of times against WO. I voted yes for a number of motions to amend motions. Then when it came time to vote for one of two main motions via secret ballot, I again voted yes.

After handing in my ballot, I then realized my mistake in not voting no for that main motion. But the vote wasn't that close that my one mistaken vote made a difference.

I find it interesting that one of these tells that after the vote he interviewed about 50 delegates. At  least 50% of those he talked to indicated they had felt forced to cast the vote the way they did but had no choice since it was an open vote. They said their vote had been different if it had been a secret ballot.

Then why didn't they ask for a secret ballot? And so what whether it was a secret ballot or not? The men should be a man.

[Johann]

In another forum there is a discussion now between two Adventist workers, one of which was a delegate in 1990 and the other one in 1995. There seems to be some uncertainty among the delegates what they really had voted for.

Since we are human, there will always be some of that. In our constituency meeting in April I spoke a number of times against WO. I voted yes for a number of motions to amend motions. Then when it came time to vote for one of two main motions via secret ballot, I again voted yes.

After handing in my ballot, I then realized my mistake in not voting no for that main motion. But the vote wasn't that close that my one mistaken vote made a difference.

I find it interesting that one of these tells that after the vote he interviewed about 50 delegates. At  least 50% of those he talked to indicated they had felt forced to cast the vote the way they did but had no choice since it was an open vote. They said their vote had been different if it had been a secret ballot.

Then why didn't they ask for a secret ballot? And so what whether it was a secret ballot or not? The men should be a man.

When I was a delegate in 1966 each Division had such a large number of delegates that they appointed just about anyone who was available to travel or happened to be in the vicinity. Later I was on the committee in two different countries so I could follow how the delegates were appointed. As our total membership increased the GC had to cut down the percentage of delegates, and were much more selective than before. I noticed that from then on a majority of the delegates were already members of the Division committee, and then a few more were hand picked, and the local conferences had no influence.

This is a strong indication that the Church is more and more ruled from the top, and not by the membership. The members elect their own church officers. The local church officers select the delegates to the conference elections, after getting an approval of the members. It is not easy to vote down the selection by the church officers in the average church.

The conference officers select the delegates to the Union session in all the geographic areas where I have worked.

Division officers are elected at the General Conference session, and are therefore, by some, regarded as officers of the General Conference.

In some areas there is no local conference any more, and in some instances a local conference is directly under the Division.

In a way each division has two presidents. There is the local one, who is  often regarded as a vice president of the General Conference. In addition to that, at least some of the vice presidents of the General Conference who have their office at Silver Springs, are each assigned a world area as their responsibility. I know that at least in certain cases, these vice presidents have earlier served as Division presidents in the area of their present responsibility. Then they have secretaries as their assistants.

It varies greatly how the various General Conference presidents use their mandate. Some presidents rule by proxy and leave most of the responsibility to the person they have put in charge of certain areas. Other presidents make most the decisions themselves. These ignore the counsel of Moses and Ellen White. Are they true leaders?