Print

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

[Murcielago]

Either a woman can be an authority or not. We can't have it both ways. And if not, then we have to consider walking away from EGW as an authority.

I'm confused.  Do you yourself consider Ellen White to be the church authority that you are presenting in your post?

And if not, why are you talking about the topic?

Absolutely! I certainly do! I advise looking at the SDA Church Manual.

I didn't ask what the Church Manual says, I asked if that's what you personally believe.

I certainly do.

[Gregory]

Church Aukthority:  Many statements have been made in regard to denominational authority. Citations have been made to 9t 26 & 261.  Those citations have actually been silmplistic and fail to reflect the denomilnational position in regard to authority.l  Here is the position that the denomination has actually taken on this subject:

Resolved, that the highest authority under God among Seventh-day Adventists is found in the will ofthe body of that people, as expressed in the decisions of the General Conference when acting within its proper jurisdiction; and that such decisions should be submitted to by all without exception, unless they can be shown to conflict with the word of God and the rights of indilvidual conscience.  Review & Herald, vol. 50 No. 14, p. 106.

Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual, 2005 Edition, Page 2.

So, that position of the SDA Church is that the GC in session is the highest earthly authority unless:
1) The General Conference is acting outside its proper jurisdiction.  That charge has been made in the statement that the Unions have th autority to decide who can be ordained and who cannot.
2) the GC is acting outside of Biblical teaching.  That is charged by those who support female ordination.
3) The GC violates the rights ofr individual conscience.  That is alleged by those who voted Sunday to ordain without respect to gender.


Folks, there is more to this than this.  The bottom line is:  Those who oppose female ordination raise points that must be considered.  They are honest people.  But, it is not a slam dunk.  Those who favor female ordination also raise points that must be considered.  They also are honest people.

Personally, I favor female ordination and do not believe that such violates Biblical teachings.

[Murcielago]

Church Aukthority:  Many statements have been made in regard to denominational authority. Citations have been made to 9t 26 & 261.  Those citations have actually been silmplistic and fail to reflect the denomilnational position in regard to authority.l  Here is the position that the denomination has actually taken on this subject:

Resolved, that the highest authority under God among Seventh-day Adventists is found in the will ofthe body of that people, as expressed in the decisions of the General Conference when acting within its proper jurisdiction; and that such decisions should be submitted to by all without exception, unless they can be shown to conflict with the word of God and the rights of indilvidual conscience.  Review & Herald, vol. 50 No. 14, p. 106.

Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual, 2005 Edition, Page 2.

So, that position of the SDA Church is that the GC in session is the highest earthly authority unless:
1) The General Conference is acting outside its proper jurisdiction.  That charge has been made in the statement that the Unions have th autority to decide who can be ordained and who cannot.
2) the GC is acting outside of Biblical teaching.  That is charged by those who support female ordination.
3) The GC violates the rights ofr individual conscience.  That is alleged by those who voted Sunday to ordain without respect to gender.


Folks, there is more to this than this.  The bottom line is:  Those who oppose female ordination raise points that must be considered.  They are honest people.  But, it is not a slam dunk.  Those who favor female ordination also raise points that must be considered.  They also are honest people.

Personally, I favor female ordination and do not believe that such violates Biblical teachings.

Who gave the GC that authority? The Church Manual cites Ellen White as their authority for it. This logically puts her on a level above the GC. And where does the church go for final authority on interpretation of scripture, Ellen White. Is there any source other than the Bible cited as final authority by the GC in laying out the operation of the church? Yes, only Ellen White. To deny her position in the church is dishonest, at best.

[Gregory]

As to the role that EGW played in the development of th SDA CHurch:

1)  The SDA Encyclopedia  states that James White was "Founder of the SDA Church,"  page 1598, 1976 edition.
2) The same book states that EGW was "Cofounder of the SDA CHurch, writer, lecturer, and counselor to the church. . .,"  page 1584.
My personal position:  I do not disagree with either of the above, but I personally would call James White, EGW and several others co-founders of the SDA Church.

Murcielgo has attributed administrative authority to EGW.  I agree.  That is my personal position.  As such, she clearly had authority over males.

It has been said that EGW was considered to be the final doctrinal authority by many SDAs.  I will agree that there is an element of SDAs, who considered her such and some to be a greater authority than the Bible.  I have personally known such.

That is not my position.  Neither I nor EGW considered herself to be an authority over the Bible.  I do not consider her to be cannonical.

In the development of Biblical doctrines, I do not beleive that EGW played a major influence.   I see our major doctrines being developed in the five, so-called Sabbath Conferences.  In those conferences, I see  men playing the major role which they based upon the Bible, as they understood it and did not primarily base them upon EGW.

Friends:  My personal position.

[Gregory]

Murcielgo, the Chruch Manual,  2005 Edition cites the following for Church Authority:

As Creator, Redeeemer and Sustainer, Lord and King of all creation, God alone is the source and ground of authority for the church.  He delegated authority to His prophets and apostles (2 Cor. 10:8).  They, therefore, occupied a crucial and unique position inthe transmission of the Word of God and the edification of the chruch (Eph.2:20).

In the above the Church Manual clearly established 1st God as supreme authority and 2nd the Biblical prophets as being next in line.  If you were to follow on in the Chruch Manual, you would see Elders and Bishops in the early days following Christ as having authority.  That is then followed next by the general body of believers who had the authority to exercise discipline.

I believe that you have failed to properly cite the Chruch Manual and your comments that appear to describe the position of EGW to be in error.

[Murcielago]

Yet the manual quotes Ellen White as one of its only 2 sources.

[Gregory]

Do you wish that the Church Manual had quoted Billy Graham?

Any other source would be human.

[Murcielago]

So would you agree that Ellen White is considered an authority in the SDA church?

[Gregory]

Is EGW considered an authority in the SDA Chruch?  My asnwer:  Depends upon who you talk to.

My position:  God used EGW in a special way to give guidance to the developing SDA Church.  We would not be the church that we are today, if it were not for EGW.  She gave us a focus on Education, Publishing and Medical work.  I do not believe that we  would have that focus if it were not for her.

God used EGW to give  male leaders advice that they often did not wish to recieve.   She advised General Conference Presidents that they were in error.  Her own husband sometines had issues with her and she with him.

She was clearly an authority in the developing days of the SDA denomination.

As such, the principles that lay behind the advice she gave in the development of our denomination can serve us well today.  However, principles must always be applied.  The application of principles can be moderated by time, circumstances and culture.  EGW talked about modesty.  [NOTE: Modesty as she used the term meant more than female dress or even dress at all.]  Modesty differs in Korea from that in India and that in the United States.   The application of the principle of modest must be made in specific cultures.

In the time that EGW lived, she was an authority on some levels, to include authority over males.  In our time today, she has some authority, which is more than some think and less than others think.

[Murcielago]

Is EGW considered an authority in the SDA Chruch?  My asnwer:  Depends upon who you talk to.

My position:  God used EGW in a special way to give guidance to the developing SDA Church.  We would not be the church that we are today, if it were not for EGW.  She gave us a focus on Education, Publishing and Medical work.  I do not believe that we  would have that focus if it were not for her.

God used EGW to give  male leaders advice that they often did not wish to recieve.   She advised General Conference Presidents that they were in error.  Her own husband sometines had issues with her and she with him.

She was clearly an authority in the developing days of the SDA denomination.

As such, the principles that lay behind the advice she gave in the development of our denomination can serve us well today.  However, principles must always be applied.  The application of principles can be moderated by time, circumstances and culture.  EGW talked about modesty.  [NOTE: Modesty as she used the term meant more than female dress or even dress at all.]  Modesty differs in Korea from that in India and that in the United States.   The application of the principle of modest must be made in specific cultures.

In the time that EGW lived, she was an authority on some levels, to include authority over males.  In our time today, she has some authority, which is more than some think and less than others think.

Good points. My point being that a woman directed and steered much of the beginning of the SDA church, was a major force in molding it into what it is, and still influences, largely from behind the scenes, the operation of the church. She is quoted and used as the highest authority under the Bible among many Adventists, including many of those who oppose women in authority.

[Gregory]

In many ways I agree with you.

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

The entire premise is foundationally faulty:

By the word of the messenger herself, the Bible and the Bible only is the foundation of our Faith. The church manual was never endorsed or written by Ellen G. White and in fact was adopted after her death...an essential step towards the codifying of the Heirarchal Authority of the Church by mere weak political mortals. And they are expendable as well.

Further, to equate Ellen G. White with a mere man or woman is outrageously ridiculous. Mrs White was clearly recognized by church and political leaders in her day as a Messenger of the Lord, many publicly defining her as a "prophet". Here in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts she once spoke to a crowd that clearly exceeded 100,000 and most were turned back as they could not get anywhere near her. She spoke on "Christ our Righteousness" in the Groveland meetings, I believe it was in 1907. Then spoke to the packed Haverhill City Council in a special meeting at the noon hour. She clearly was anointed by the Spirit!!! You can challenge it nut the proof is irrefutable.

The church has codified her testimonies and writings in their various forms and many books in the conflict series have clearly been inspirational in the membership growth of the church. No man or woman, outside the King James Version of the Bible, has been similarly codified.

It also clearly established that the Lord approached at least two men and perhaps three, but they wavered in conviction and the gumption to simply repeat to mankind what the Lord revealed to them. She shivered and shook but spoke was given to her, regardless of the consequences. When was the last time ANY General Conference president did that? AG Daniels?  MAYBE, but I doubt even he was free of political persuasion!!!

Based on this faulty premise, we should completely disregard the Bible and the Biblical Standard, ONLY ORDAIN WOMEN and let the spineless men amongst us take up the role of women and all become househusbands. Clearly we should reverse the roles of men and women in the church!!!

However, since the messenger herself made it clear that the Bible and The Bible ONLY were to be the foundations of our Faith, it is the Biblical Standard that MUST BE UPHELD. Private opinion and interpretation and intellectual "maturity" have no standing in a church that's very existence
requires that we be a Bible Believing Church with it's theology soundly built one precept upon another giving us the most logical message in christendom, including the only clear and precisely defined history of the World and the purpose and conclusion of the Great Controversy.

No other Church has anything similarly endowed and it is a SPECIAL TRUST.

If we adopt this one clear breach of the Biblical Standards, soon many others will be similarly challenged by the secularists now fully entrenched as pretenders to Seventh-day Adventism. As a church we now let adulterers pretend to be televangelists. Adulterous ministers are able to continue in their roles as "the annointed of the Lord" when they are nothing but "defrocked" pretenders. And prophessors  in our schools entrusted with a special message teach heresy and non-biblical science as though it is the truth. Mere pretenders all!!! They must be caste aside and the church must be purified lest the Loud Cry be relayed yet further.

So, if you are not happy with the straight message and want to be congregational, go be congregational; if you want to be a calvinist, move on, if you want to be Lutheran, secede from Adventism and join the Lutheran Church,  so we can get back to preaching the GOSPEL to a dead and dying world. Our focus must be upon a REMNANT Message and we must caste aside all those that are no longer similarly focused. AND GIVE THE MESSAGE!!!

"And that is all I have to say about THAT!!!"

Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter

I am fully aware that there are straws to split and points to be made that Ellen White had/has no authority in the SDA church, but the reality is very different. She is regularly cited as the final authority in Adventism, she is considered by most Adventists as the defacto founder and author of our church and it's doctrines, she is cited as the final authority in the Church Manual along with the Bible... It seems very inconsistent to hold a woman as the final spiritual authority in the SDA church, yet deny women ordination to authority in the lowest field on the totem pole: the congregation, simply because they are women. This issue is a white elephant in the room and must be addressed in a realistic manner. Denying the authority of Ellen White is burying one's head in the sand. It is fact. It now remains for those who respect her authority but oppose WO, to avoid playing Peter in denying their faith in her, and demonstrate that they are not being inconsistent.

[SDAminister]

Church Aukthority:  Many statements have been made in regard to denominational authority. Citations have been made to 9t 26 & 261.  Those citations have actually been silmplistic and fail to reflect the denomilnational position in regard to authority.l  Here is the position that the denomination has actually taken on this subject:

Resolved, that the highest authority under God among Seventh-day Adventists is found in the will ofthe body of that people, as expressed in the decisions of the General Conference when acting within its proper jurisdiction; and that such decisions should be submitted to by all without exception, unless they can be shown to conflict with the word of God and the rights of indilvidual conscience.  Review & Herald, vol. 50 No. 14, p. 106.

Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual, 2005 Edition, Page 2.

So, that position of the SDA Church is that the GC in session is the highest earthly authority unless:
1) The General Conference is acting outside its proper jurisdiction.  That charge has been made in the statement that the Unions have th autority to decide who can be ordained and who cannot.
2) the GC is acting outside of Biblical teaching.  That is charged by those who support female ordination.
3) The GC violates the rights ofr individual conscience.  That is alleged by those who voted Sunday to ordain without respect to gender.


Folks, there is more to this than this.  The bottom line is:  Those who oppose female ordination raise points that must be considered.  They are honest people.  But, it is not a slam dunk.  Those who favor female ordination also raise points that must be considered.  They also are honest people.

Personally, I favor female ordination and do not believe that such violates Biblical teachings.

Not everyone is being honest in all this. Lies have been told about Ellen White; so-called "ordained" pastors in China; votes about the 1881 GC session etc...

[Gregory]

The Church Manuaal, when was it written?

1)  The 1st attempt to produce such, under the name The Chruch Manuel, was in 1931, well after the death of EGW.  However, it can be argued that such ws not the actual 1st puclication.
2) In 1907, J. N. Loughborough pubolished a 184 page book, THE CHURCH, ITS ORGANIZATION, ORDER
AND Discipline.   This was well before the death of EGW and that book basicly covered the material which in later publications under the direction of the General Conference Committee became The Church Manual.
3) The 1st actual publication of instructions to church leaders occured in 1882 when the General Conference meeting in session voted that such be preparaed and published by the Review.
4) However, the General Conference meeting in session in 1883 rejected the idea of a Church Manual.

Perhaps the actions of the 1882 and the 1883 General Conference has something to say about the permanacency of General Conference Session votes.    Perhaps they may tell us that what is is the will of God for us at a specific point in time may not be the will of God for us at a later point in time.  It clearly tells us that votes of a General Conference Session may be re-visited at a later time, such as the next year, or the next session.

Thank you Galion for stimulating me to post informationfrom our past that clearly shows us that if a General Conference meeting in Session were to vote not to ordain females, it would be appropriate to re-consider that vote at the next session for as long as peole wished to re-consider it.  And in that re-consideration, it would be appropriate to overturnt hat previous vote.l;

[Gregory]

SDA Minister:  I agree that a lot has been posted that is either false or partial truth.  But, that does nto mean that they are lies.

Honest people may differ on their understanding of the facts.  Honest people may be ignorant of the facts.