Print

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

[Bob Pickle]

James White was the editor at the time.

QUESTIONS BY BRO. McDONALD

FIRST QUESTION. “What does Paul mean in 1 Timothy 2:12?”

ANSWER. We shall better understand this passage by giving its connections. 1 Timothy 2:9-14. “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; but (which becometh women professing godliness,) with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, was in the transgression.”

We must regard this testimony as a sharp rebuke on those women who possess more self-esteem and haughty pride than religion or good sense, and who love to rule every body, their husbands not excepted. The apostle, to illustrate the fact that women may be deceived and mistaken quite as soon as men, refers to the facts in regard to our first parents.

But the passage in question - “I suffer not a woman to teach” - must be understood in a limited sense; for it is most assuredly the duty of mothers to teach their children. And the apostle in Titus 2:4, makes it the duty of aged women to teach the young women to be sober, and love their husbands and children. Hence we conclude that the teaching referred to bears a strong relation to usurping authority over the man, mentioned in the same verse.

SECOND QUESTION. “Will you please give an exposition of 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35?”

ANSWER. 1 Corinthians 14:34, 35, reads as follows: “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”

We judge it to be an easier task to show what this passage does not mean, than to tell just what it does mean. We shall not attempt an exposition of the passage, but merely say at present, that if it proves that women should not speak in meetings of religious worship, the declaration, “let them ask their husbands at home,” also proves that they should not attend meetings of worship, but learn the facts in regard to such meetings, of their husbands, when they return home. But as no one can suppose that Paul would exclude women from the place of public and social worship, the rational conclusion is, that in this passage, he does not refer to religious meetings, but to those meetings of the church where the judgment and wisdom of the sisters are not especially needed, therefore they can remain at home, “and if they will learn any thing” in respect to such matters, “let them ask their husbands at home.”

In support of some of the thoughts above, note that today "church" means multiple things:

• A denomination.
• A congregation.
• A building in which a congregation meets.
• A church service.

1 Corinthians 14:34  Let your women keep silence in the churches.

Really, that doesn't sound like Paul is using the Greek word for "church" to mean a church service.

Does speaking in a congregation refer to having some sort of position of authority rather than merely opening one's mouth and uttering sounds? That's what I'm thinking we have here.

If 1 Cor. 14:34 prohibits all sound coming forth from a woman's mouth, how could a mother ever correct her kids during a church service?

[Johann]

In another connection you  have made quite a point of if the leader who expressed himself knew and followed all SDA doctrines. This quotation of yours is still from before there was a GC of SDA. Had James White accepted the right doctrines of divinity by then?

Was he still indulging in the flesh of a swine? Was it still poisoning his intestines?

[Bob Pickle]

When specifically did James White not hold to "the right doctrines of divinity"?

[Johann]

When specifically did James White not hold to "the right doctrines of divinity"?

According to documented material handed out at GC in Utrecht. Can you prove them wrong? How about diet?

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

This is outright rebellion and private opinion supported by those with a rebellious agenda. Utrecht resoundingly struck down this challenge to the Word of God and upheld the biblical standard. And did so against what many thought were overwhelming odds, but the Spirit of the Lord clearly prevailed and the old school evangelists plead their case mightily and the Lord's Spirit prevailed.

The General Conference DID NOT APPROVE WOMEN"S ORDINATION IN 1881, and those who say it happened are clearly liars!!! And we all know the source of a lying spirit!!!

By 1862 the Spirit of a living God had already found a "prophet" and used that voice to speak it's purposes. Are we suddenly challenging the foundations of our Faith, preserving and promoting private opinion over "Thus Saith the Lord"?. And do so under the premise the Health Message was still four years away?

I see here the outspoken opinions regurgitating the falsehoods, rumors and innuendos of a group at Utrecht determined to have their way and to change the Seventh-day Adventist Church from a Bible Believing Remnant to a Laodicean vomit. And this premise that ordination  is a catholic origin is as blank as the premise that catholicism is the foundation of Christianity....When the Biblical Standard was clearly and definitively defined, there was no Holy Roman See, no Eastern Orthodoxy, not Russian Orthodoxy,  and no apostacy in the "Early Christian Church". The biblical writers of the King James Version have long since been clearly identified as "Messengers of the Lord". They gave to us the "INSPIRATION OFTHE AGES". That Inspiration clearly defined God's Ideal for HIS CHURCH and it did not end in 1862!!! Or 1881...or even in UTRECHT...Praise the Lord. AND IT CANNOT END IN AUGUST OF 2012!!!!

This outrageous stepping away and rejection of the Foundation of OUR FAITH must end here and now and those who choose another way need to consider adopting congregationalism and join a congregational church. The Seventh-day Adventist church must remain the home of BIBLE BELIEVERS. It must practice BIBLICAL STANDARDS and must reject modern Lutheran Thought, calvinistic theology and the abrogation of the Bible. THERE IS NO OTHER PATHWAY TO VICTORY OVER THE SATANIC REBELLION.

We know that there is a day of separation coming and we pray that it not be yet, but, if it must be, SO BE IT!!! The Faithful must uphold the Bible standard regardless of the consequences, OR BE LOST WITH THOSE SELF PURPOSED REBELS!!!.

Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter

[Bob Pickle]

When specifically did James White not hold to "the right doctrines of divinity"?

According to documented material handed out at GC in Utrecht. Can you prove them wrong? How about diet?

I don't think you answered my question. I asked when James White didn't hold to "the right doctrines of divinity." Utrecht is too late since James White was long dead by that time.

Can I prove them wrong? Perhaps. It depends on what they said. Unless I know what they said, I have no idea if they are right or wrong.

We can talk about diet after dealing with the Trinity.

[Bob Pickle]

Just to avoid misunderstanding, these unsigned articles in the Review are often attributed to the editor. There is no basis for assuming that it was written by Ellen White.

[Johann]

Just to avoid misunderstanding, these unsigned articles in the Review are often attributed to the editor. There is no basis for assuming that it was written by Ellen White.

Which articles are you referring to? 

[Bob Pickle]

Just to avoid misunderstanding, these unsigned articles in the Review are often attributed to the editor. There is no basis for assuming that it was written by Ellen White.

Which articles are you referring to? 

I should have said, "unsigned articles like this one."

[Johann]

When specifically did James White not hold to "the right doctrines of divinity"?

According to documented material handed out at GC in Utrecht. Can you prove them wrong? How about diet?

I don't think you answered my question. I asked when James White didn't hold to "the right doctrines of divinity." Utrecht is too late since James White was long dead by that time.

Can I prove them wrong? Perhaps. It depends on what they said. Unless I know what they said, I have no idea if they are right or wrong.

We can talk about diet after dealing with the Trinity.

This was material handed out on the street at Utricht by some people claiming to be the historical Adventists. I don't have the paper in my files now.

[Bob Pickle]

When specifically did James White not hold to "the right doctrines of divinity"?

According to documented material handed out at GC in Utrecht. Can you prove them wrong? How about diet?

I don't think you answered my question. I asked when James White didn't hold to "the right doctrines of divinity." Utrecht is too late since James White was long dead by that time.

Can I prove them wrong? Perhaps. It depends on what they said. Unless I know what they said, I have no idea if they are right or wrong.

We can talk about diet after dealing with the Trinity.

This was material handed out on the street at Utricht by some people claiming to be the historical Adventists. I don't have the paper in my files now.

Personally, I don't think those type of people, if they claim to be anti-trinitarians, have their facts straight on that topic.

[Johann]

When specifically did James White not hold to "the right doctrines of divinity"?

According to documented material handed out at GC in Utrecht. Can you prove them wrong? How about diet?

I don't think you answered my question. I asked when James White didn't hold to "the right doctrines of divinity." Utrecht is too late since James White was long dead by that time.

Can I prove them wrong? Perhaps. It depends on what they said. Unless I know what they said, I have no idea if they are right or wrong.

We can talk about diet after dealing with the Trinity.

This was material handed out on the street at Utricht by some people claiming to be the historical Adventists. I don't have the paper in my files now.

Personally, I don't think those type of people, if they claim to be anti-trinitarians, have their facts straight on that topic.

They had quotations by James White which indicated that James White was an anti-trinitarian at the early date.

[Bob Pickle]

When specifically did James White not hold to "the right doctrines of divinity"?

According to documented material handed out at GC in Utrecht. Can you prove them wrong? How about diet?

I don't think you answered my question. I asked when James White didn't hold to "the right doctrines of divinity." Utrecht is too late since James White was long dead by that time.

Can I prove them wrong? Perhaps. It depends on what they said. Unless I know what they said, I have no idea if they are right or wrong.

We can talk about diet after dealing with the Trinity.

This was material handed out on the street at Utricht by some people claiming to be the historical Adventists. I don't have the paper in my files now.

Personally, I don't think those type of people, if they claim to be anti-trinitarians, have their facts straight on that topic.

They had quotations by James White which indicated that James White was an anti-trinitarian at the early date.

The problem, Johann, is that those people are relying on the mere use of the word trinity to denote acceptance or rejection of the doctrine, rather than looking for the the acceptance or rejection of the concepts within that doctrine. In fact, they are confused on what those concepts really are.

For example, the so-called anti-trinitarians will advance the idea that Christ was begotten in support of their anti-trinitarianism. However, that is part of the classic Roman Catholic doctrine of the Trinity, at least going back to perhaps the 5th century. Meanwhile, those who say that they believe in the Trinity oftentimes deny that Christ was begotten, and thus the anti-trinitarians are on this point more Trinitarian than many or most Adventist Trinitarians.

In one anti-trinitarian newsletter, an author blasted Froom, I believe, for saying that God was homoousios, and then stated that he believed that the Father and Son were of the same substance or essence (I don't recall which word was used). He seemed oblivious to the fact that that is what homoousios means. I wrote him about the discrepancy, and he replied that he should have said similar substance or essence instead.

So when these folks assert that James White or anyone else was anti-trinitarian, I don't buy it unless they can positively identify the specific points of the Trinity doctrine that James White rejected. I don't take their word for it.

[Daryl Fawcett]

Yes, the Trinity is another issue, although not as prominent as the WO issue.