Print

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

[Dedication]

Which came out first? The pro-WO Welcome Table or Adventist Affirm's anti-WO book? Can anyone demonstrate that the anti-WO really was the first position being pushed in modern times?

I don't know --
Never heard of the "Welcome Table" before this.  Was it advertised?  Was it in ABC stores?

But I do know I've seen lots of Anti-WO information over the last 20 years.

 Spring 1995 Adventists Affirm Magazine was totally dedicated to ANTI WO articles.
Another one Spring 1996, again almost totally dedicated to ANTI WO articles.

[Dedication]

It really isn't an issue "who was first".
The all male church leadership, complete with considerably higher wages for men, even in positions women could occupy (like teaching school) -- all that was well established during the 1930-1950's.
Advances for women in ministry made during EGW's life time, were largely eradicated.

So of course as long as no one protested too loudly, the defenders of the status quo didn't speak too loudly either.

[Dedication]

...EGW speaking
When in my youth God opened the Scriptures to my mind, giving me light upon the truths of his word, I went forth to proclaim to others the precious news of salvation. My brother wrote to me, and said, “I beg of you do not disgrace the family. I will do anything for you if you will not go out as a preacher.” “Disgrace the family!” I replied, “can it disgrace the family for me to preach Christ and him crucified! If you would give me all the gold your house could hold, I would not cease giving my testimony for God. I have respect unto the recompense of the reward. I will not keep silent, for when God imparts his light to me, he means that I shall diffuse it to others, according to my ability.”  {ST June 24, 1889, par. 9}

[Johann]

The higher authority on earth is God Himself, who reveals His will in the Bible and SoP. GC and NAD Working Policy recognize this when they say that the GC Session is the highest authority on earth under God.
- - -
I would have difficulty with any vote that was unfairly influenced by political maneuvering.

We agree that the GC session is the highest authority. But do we have any statement that it has the same perfect infallibility as the pope when he speaks ex cathedra? Did EGW agree with every decision the GC ever made?

Do you prefer not to answer that question?

[Johann]

You must lay your preconceived opinions, your hereditary and cultivated ideas, at the door of investigation. If you search the Scriptures to vindicate your own opinions, you will never reach the truth. Search in order to learn what the Lord says. If conviction comes as you search, if you see that your cherished opinions are not in harmony with the truth, do not misinterpret the truth in order to suit your own belief, but accept the light given. Open mind and heart that you may behold wondrous things out of God’s word. {COL 112.3}

When I entered the ministry I had no idea that a woman could be ordained, and I was fully satisfied with the status quo. For the next twenty years I was a pastor/evangelist and Bible teacher in five different countries where only males were ordained. It was still unthinkable for me that a woman should be ordained for anything in the church.

Then one day as I stood there in the church reading from 1 Tim. 3 while ordaining a new church elder and deacons, the words leaped at me in a new dimension. I was reading from a new translation, and the words were different. As soon as I had the opportunity I read the text again and this time in my Greek New Testament.

Suddenly I saw the effects of King James ordering his theologians to make the new translation conform with the allready established doctrines of the Church of England.

For hours I kept praying and reading the Bible and the writings of Ellen White. The book Women in Ministry did not exist at that time. I wondered why we were not following Scripture and Ellen White by ordaining women, but I did not want to do something like that unilaterally, so I wrote down my findings and gave it to my Conference President, who unfortunately did not read Greek. So he sent my findings on to the Union, and they sent it on to the Division.

Several weeks later I was told the leadership had approved my understanding, so I told my church board and soon after that we ordained the first female deacons.

On this forum I have previously told my story, where I also quoted the texts. The twisting and turning and near ridicule I have met here have given me a suspicion  that someone is groping for support which is not easy to find without some twists and turns. Therefore every post I read here only confirms for me that there is but one way to go: Forward in the Lord and His word - in prayer and humility, and in gratitude that His word is so clear and forceful, if we are willing to follow Him.

I was not looking for this, and not either starting this discussion in a forum which was established for another purpose. But who am I to be disobedient to the heavenly vision when someone starts posting something here which is contrary to what God has revealed through His messengers?

Johann, you make it sound so plain, so simple, so noble. You make it sound as though the word of God is so plain on this.

Do we need to make it complicated?

[Gregory]

I am endebted to Raj Attiken for the following comments which were published in an ADVENTIST TODAY artiacle entitled "Unity and Authority in the Chruch," September-October 2012 edition.

1)  In 1875, EGW stated to a specific person that the General Conference in session was the highest authority that God had on earth and private judgement should be surrended.  3T492

2) In 1876 EGW wrote that the General Conference was no longer the voice of God.  See in Manuscript Releases, vol. 17, page 216.

3) On April 1, 1901, EGW wrote that the voice of the General Conference was not the voice of God.  MS 37, cited in "Sermons & Talks, Vol 2, Page 159.  NOTE:  This was published by the EGW Estate  in 1994.

4) In 1909 EGW Srote that the General Converence, meeting in session had authority.  This was a change from a previous statement that such was the highest authority and the voice of God.

On a slightly different aspect of this subject.  It has been stated that females ordained in China are not recognized as ordained.  This is false.

In article published in ADVENTIST WORLD, entitled, "Finding Faith in China,:  August 1, 2009, page 19, Jan Paulsen said:  "The fact is we have at least half a dozen women pastors who are ordained as ministers in China.  We recognize them as ordained ministers."

[Gregory]

Johann said:

We agree that the GC session is the highest authority.

No there is not agreement on that.

Bob has clearly stated that the General conference is the highest authority that must be obeyed only as long as it is in compliance wiht the clear teaching of the Bible.  He mentioned Sunday observance as an example and informed us that if the GC in session were to advocate Sunday observance it would be wrong and should not be obeyed.

Bob is correct in that.

All of us must follow our conscience and the leading of the HolySlpirit.


As I have posted earlier, the GC was not always considered to be correct by eGW.

Bob may come back and say that my post here is a public advocacy of rebellion.  O.K.  Then Bob potentially advocates rebelllion.

[Johann]

“People long to do something to cleanse the church… But it is the spirit of Satan not the Spirit of Christ, that inspires such acts.”  EGW in COL

[Dedication]

Divide and conquer --
I agree that is something we need to be concerned about.
I hope and pray the church will not be split over this issue. 

In Acts 15 we have a contentious issue. How was that issue resolved? Representatives from all the churches came together to discuss the matter and decide the question, and their decision was expected to be followed.

"The entire body of Christians were not called to vote upon the question. The apostles and elders--men of influence and judgment--framed and issued the decree, which was thereupon generally accepted by the Christian churches. All were not pleased, however, with this decision; there was a faction of false brethren who assumed to engage in a work on their own responsibility. They indulged in murmuring and fault-finding, proposing new plans, and seeking to pull down the work of the experienced men whom God had ordained to teach the doctrine of Christ. The church has had such obstacles to meet from the first, and will ever have them to the close of time." (LP 70-71)

A union that refuses to recognize the 1990 and 1995 GC Session votes is falling into the same error as the "faction of false brethren" referred to in the above quote.

There are a few interesting points here:
1) "the decree, which was thereupon generally accepted"
Generally ...

Now I realize there were "false brethren" who followed Paul around and brough contention into the churches he raised.  Paul would tell the people their salvation was in Christ, and these Judizers would come along and say "before you are accepted by God you must preform certain rituals and ceremonies."   The thing to remember however, is that these "false brethren" felt they had the authority of the scriptures and long established Mosaic  policies on their side.
The meeting in Acts 15, in their minds,  was only a small group, when compared to the whole Jewish Biblical heritage and authority.

On the other hand, even Paul wasn't that strict on the "decree" which included "refrain from things offered to idols and from blood."
He didn't seem too worried about people eating meat sacrificed to idols as long as they didn't think of it as paying homage to the idol.  And the meat bought in the markets-- was the blood drained from it?  Yet Paul didn't seem too worried about people eating meat from the market.

The church was basically split over THAT issue, and it probably played a role in Gentile Christians moving away from Jewish Christians in many ways.

The key question is whether God has made the issue plain. Regarding who should be the next king, even Saul admitted that David would be king, and Jonathan knew it too and didn't mind. Regarding whether a union can go contrary to a GC Session vote without a Scriptural mandate to do so, God has similarly made the issue plain in Acts 15 and 9T 260-261. Therefore, for a union to go contrary to a GC Session vote is rebellion just like Abner's actions were rebellion, irregardless of what that union's constitution allegedly permits.

Now it's true there is no explicit mandate in scripture that specifically comes out and says, "Ordain women to the ministry".

But let's think of it in another (probably not the best) illustration.

Slavery in the USA
The Southern states could make a pretty good case from scripture supporting their supposed right to own slaves.
The is no explicit mandate in scripture that specifically comes out and says, "Holding another person in subjection as your slave is an abomination"
The Bible outlines rules for how to treat ones slave, but fails to say anything definite against it.

Even Paul, with his wonderful passages on everyone being of equal value to God through Christ, does not do or say anything that changes society which has slaves, to one that doesn't.
Philemon is the most troubling account of Paul's social conservatism, for here he had the opportunity to tell his friend Philemon that slavery was inconsistent with the gospel and that his Christian duty obligated him to liberate Onesimus and any other slaves he might have. Unfortunately, Paul doesn't do that, he just tells Philemon to treat Onesimus kindly.

So -- there was no explicit command in scripture that slaves should be liberated, and slavery stopped.

Yet, in America, when war broke out between the North and the South, and the focus of the war was mainly about unity, the north was losing many of their battles.   Ellen White wrote strong articles that as long as there was no decided objective to free the slaves, the war would only bring much needless disaster to America.  God could not help the North.
True, abolitionists were lobbying for the freedom of the slaves as well, but they were considered more as trouble makers.
While this state of affairs was going on, many needless soldiers died as  neither side was really making any headway.

EGW makes it plain -- It wasn't until Lincoln made the public statement that the slaves would be free when the North won the war, that suddenly the North began to win, and it wasn't long before the war was over.  (See 1T 255...264...365...)

So obviously we know it was God's will that the slaves be freed.
Even though there was no explicit Biblical command.   However, "all are one" there is no Greek or Jew, slave or master, male or female before God.   Each and everyone is of equal value to the Lord.




 

[Bob Pickle]

The higher authority on earth is God Himself, who reveals His will in the Bible and SoP. GC and NAD Working Policy recognize this when they say that the GC Session is the highest authority on earth under God.
- - -
I would have difficulty with any vote that was unfairly influenced by political maneuvering.

We agree that the GC session is the highest authority. But do we have any statement that it has the same perfect infallibility as the pope when he speaks ex cathedra? Did EGW agree with every decision the GC ever made?

No, GC Sessions do not have infallibility.

And neither do I, nor any parent. But when my kids didn't want to do something they were asked to do, I asked them, "Is there anything in the Bible or the SoP that says you shouldn't do it?" and they would say, "No," I'd say, "Then you have to do it."

Our government certainly isn't infallible either, but I think that the same principle applies.

As far as Ellen White and GC Sessions, can you think of any GC Session decisions that she opposed?

[Bob Pickle]

I am endebted to Raj Attiken for the following comments which were published in an ADVENTIST TODAY artiacle entitled "Unity and Authority in the Chruch," September-October 2012 edition.

Raj Attiken is the gentleman that reportedly falsely stated at the CUC constituency session that the 1881 resolution was adopted, and you are citing an article from the same organization that keeps publicly promoting evolution, as if it is some sort of hobby horse for them. Have you personally verified the references he gave to make sure they were accurate, since he got it wrong before, and since it is known that AToday promotes heresy?

1)  In 1875, EGW stated to a specific person that the General Conference in session was the highest authority that God had on earth and private judgement should be surrended.  3T492

2) In 1876 EGW wrote that the General Conference was no longer the voice of God.  See in Manuscript Releases, vol. 17, page 216.

Why cite an 1898 letter and then claim that it was written in 1876?

3) On April 1, 1901, EGW wrote that the voice of the General Conference was not the voice of God.  MS 37, cited in "Sermons & Talks, Vol 2, Page 159.  NOTE:  This was published by the EGW Estate  in 1994.

Did Ellen White mean "General Conference" when she said "conference"? Maybe she did. But if she is, let's be clear: She's not talking about a GC Session.

"Yet we hear that the voice of the conference is the voice of God. Every time I have heard this, I have thought that it was almost blasphemy. The voice of the conference ought to be the voice of God, but it is not, because some in connection with it are not men of ... elevated principle"  (2SAT 159-160).

Certainly then, we cannot consider CUC leadership to be the voice of God if they are going to not be men of principle and are instead going to violate the 1990 and 1995 GC Session votes.

4) In 1909 EGW Srote that the General Converence, meeting in session had authority.  This was a change from a previous statement that such was the highest authority and the voice of God.

I don't understand this. How in the world is 3T 492 supposed to be talking about GC Sessions? "After you had taken your own time, and after the work had been much hindered by your delay, you came to Battle Creek in answer to the repeated and urgent calls of the General Conference." GC Sessions rather than the GC made repeated calls? I don't think so.

On a slightly different aspect of this subject.  It has been stated that females ordained in China are not recognized as ordained.  This is false.

In article published in ADVENTIST WORLD, entitled, "Finding Faith in China,:  August 1, 2009, page 19, Jan Paulsen said:  "The fact is we have at least half a dozen women pastors who are ordained as ministers in China.  We recognize them as ordained ministers."

Not sure why you are claiming that it is false:

"While the worldwide Seventh-day Adventist Church acknowledges the fact of women’s ordination in China, it neither recognizes it nor endorses it" (http://www.adventistworld.org/article/598/resources/english/issue-2009-1008/finding-faith-in-china).

[Bob Pickle]

Johann said:

We agree that the GC session is the highest authority.

No there is not agreement on that.

...

All of us must follow our conscience and the leading of the HolySlpirit.

What you mean to say us that all of us must follow the Bible and SoP, correct?

Or are you instead jettisoning our fundamental beliefs about the authority of the Bible and SoP, and are instead advocating that we follow some sort of inner enlightenment similar to the Zwickau prophets?

[Gregory]

No, I did not mean to imply that we could throw out any inspired writings.

[Daryl Fawcett]

I am endebted to Raj Attiken for the following comments which were published in an ADVENTIST TODAY artiacle entitled "Unity and Authority in the Chruch," September-October 2012 edition.

Raj Attiken is the gentleman that reportedly falsely stated at the CUC constituency session that the 1881 resolution was adopted, and you are citing an article from the same organization that keeps publicly promoting evolution, as if it is some sort of hobby horse for them. Have you personally verified the references he gave to make sure they were accurate, since he got it wrong before, and since it is known that AToday promotes heresy?

1)  In 1875, EGW stated to a specific person that the General Conference in session was the highest authority that God had on earth and private judgement should be surrended.  3T492

2) In 1876 EGW wrote that the General Conference was no longer the voice of God.  See in Manuscript Releases, vol. 17, page 216.

Why cite an 1898 letter and then claim that it was written in 1876?

3) On April 1, 1901, EGW wrote that the voice of the General Conference was not the voice of God.  MS 37, cited in "Sermons & Talks, Vol 2, Page 159.  NOTE:  This was published by the EGW Estate  in 1994.

Did Ellen White mean "General Conference" when she said "conference"? Maybe she did. But if she is, let's be clear: She's not talking about a GC Session.

"Yet we hear that the voice of the conference is the voice of God. Every time I have heard this, I have thought that it was almost blasphemy. The voice of the conference ought to be the voice of God, but it is not, because some in connection with it are not men of ... elevated principle"  (2SAT 159-160).

Certainly then, we cannot consider CUC leadership to be the voice of God if they are going to not be men of principle and are instead going to violate the 1990 and 1995 GC Session votes.

4) In 1909 EGW Srote that the General Converence, meeting in session had authority.  This was a change from a previous statement that such was the highest authority and the voice of God.

I don't understand this. How in the world is 3T 492 supposed to be talking about GC Sessions? "After you had taken your own time, and after the work had been much hindered by your delay, you came to Battle Creek in answer to the repeated and urgent calls of the General Conference." GC Sessions rather than the GC made repeated calls? I don't think so.

On a slightly different aspect of this subject.  It has been stated that females ordained in China are not recognized as ordained.  This is false.

In article published in ADVENTIST WORLD, entitled, "Finding Faith in China,:  August 1, 2009, page 19, Jan Paulsen said:  "The fact is we have at least half a dozen women pastors who are ordained as ministers in China.  We recognize them as ordained ministers."

Not sure why you are claiming that it is false:

"While the worldwide Seventh-day Adventist Church acknowledges the fact of women’s ordination in China, it neither recognizes it nor endorses it" (http://www.adventistworld.org/article/598/resources/english/issue-2009-1008/finding-faith-in-china).

How would we interpret the following from the above link?

The fact is we have at least half a dozen women pastors who are ordained as ministers in China. We recognize them as ordained ministers; they are in our records in the statistics in the Yearbook.

[Bob Pickle]

Divide and conquer --
I agree that is something we need to be concerned about.
I hope and pray the church will not be split over this issue.

It's too late. The Pacific Union and the Loma Linda University Church are already trying to split off from the church.

The thing to remember however, is that these "false brethren" felt they had the authority of the scriptures and long established Mosaic  policies on their side.

While this may be the common opinion of what was going on, it does not stand up to scrutiny. The false brethren were trying to say that no Gentile could be saved unless he first became a Jew by being circumcised. And yet you can read the entire Mosaic code and you won't find any such requirement or sentiment. Descendants of Abraham had to be circumcised, but Gentile strangers never had to be unless they wanted to observe the Passover.

On the other hand, even Paul wasn't that strict on the "decree" which included "refrain from things offered to idols and from blood."
He didn't seem too worried about people eating meat sacrificed to idols as long as they didn't think of it as paying homage to the idol.  And the meat bought in the markets-- was the blood drained from it?  Yet Paul didn't seem too worried about people eating meat from the market.

Could it not be that Paul was instead acknowledging the arguments some of the Corinthians were making, that the idol was nothing really, and then telling them that they still weren't supposed to eat it? Do you have some references where you think Paul was not taking seriously the decision of Acts 15?

But let's think of it in another (probably not the best) illustration.

Slavery in the USA
The Southern states could make a pretty good case from scripture supporting their supposed right to own slaves.
The is no explicit mandate in scripture that specifically comes out and says, "Holding another person in subjection as your slave is an abomination"
The Bible outlines rules for how to treat ones slave, but fails to say anything definite against it.

In the case of the Dred Scott decision re: the Fugitive Slave Law, we do have an explicit example of the U.S. Supreme Court directly contradicting the Bible, and thus we had a moral obligation of disobeying a law of the land in order to be true to God's law.

Even Paul, with his wonderful passages on everyone being of equal value to God through Christ, does not do or say anything that changes society which has slaves, to one that doesn't.
Philemon is the most troubling account of Paul's social conservatism, for here he had the opportunity to tell his friend Philemon that slavery was inconsistent with the gospel and that his Christian duty obligated him to liberate Onesimus and any other slaves he might have. Unfortunately, Paul doesn't do that, he just tells Philemon to treat Onesimus kindly.

So -- there was no explicit command in scripture that slaves should be liberated, and slavery stopped.

Yet, in America, when war broke out between the North and the South, and the focus of the war was mainly about unity, the north was losing many of their battles.   Ellen White wrote strong articles that as long as there was no decided objective to free the slaves, the war would only bring much needless disaster to America.  God could not help the North.
True, abolitionists were lobbying for the freedom of the slaves as well, but they were considered more as trouble makers.
While this state of affairs was going on, many needless soldiers died as  neither side was really making any headway.

EGW makes it plain -- It wasn't until Lincoln made the public statement that the slaves would be free when the North won the war, that suddenly the North began to win, and it wasn't long before the war was over.  (See 1T 255...264...365...)

So obviously we know it was God's will that the slaves be freed.
Even though there was no explicit Biblical command.   However, "all are one" there is no Greek or Jew, slave or master, male or female before God.   Each and everyone is of equal value to the Lord.

EGW also wrote extensively about the South being in "rebellion" against the principles of the republic. So it would be interesting to see just how closely the current entities in rebellion parallel the Southern slave states.

Another parallel would be, I think, the type of church government those in rebellion are advocating. They want more of a pro-state's rights confederacy than a unified republic, where each "state" can do as it pleases. We know which side of that issue EGW was on.

We also know which side of the issue of the roles of men and women in the home EGW was on.