Advent Talk
Issues & Concerns Category => 3ABN => Topic started by: childoftheking on June 13, 2015, 11:14:50 PM
-
The spring rain was given on the day or pentecost in New Testament times but now we need the latter or autumn rain. As the disciples needed to be united and of one accord in order to be ready to receive the Holy Spirit, so now we cannot be ready when we are divided in spirit.
When we came together in 1888 there were factions that favored differing positions.There was heatedness of spirit as each side fought for its legitamacy. Each side was convinced of the necessity of the acceptance of its own opinion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1888_Minneapolis_General_Conference_(Adventist) We are told that This prevented the unity that could/would have prepared the way for the latter rain.
Whatever our personal convictions about WO or any issue, since this may be our last and only opportunity for glory (no one knows) shall we perhaps let probation close without the visitation of the Holy Spirit in power? Is this not the devil's plan? Is this not the more important issue? The Holy Spirit is so yearnng to do His work. So Which history shall we repeat? Shall we humble ourselves (which ever side may be right) and repeat the day of Pentecost or shall we repeat 1888?
We so need to seek the Lord and come together. We all want the Lord's will to be done. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. John 13:35 That for sure is the Lord's will. More important to Him, I believe than whether we ordain women or whether we don't.
-
Thanks for bringing this to our attention. With all that's going on out there, this whole debate seems like a big distraction from our appointed work.
-
Amen, Bob. And I think that is the devil's planned strategy. He can always find points that would divide us. If we come together on one point, he will make us aware of another difference. On the other hand, we can defeat his plans by doing as the pioneers did when they anticipated the Lord's return in 1844 - making everything right with our brethren and repenting of our self assuredness, independence and self righteousness, humbling ourselves and seeking the Lord as our first duty.
-
Don't forget though that there are tares with the wheat, possibly, or probably even amongst the delegates at the upcoming GC Session, not to mention also in the church leadership.
-
But according to Jesus, it is not our job to sort them out. Open sin we are to deal with, yes. But let's not demonize people who are just as intersted as ourselves in doing the Lord's will but who have honest differences of opinion.
-
I wasn't saying anything about who they are or sorting them out, as I agree that it isn't our job to do that. I was simply stating that the tares are amongst us, even in leadership.
-
Well, that is a given, Daryl. Always have been tares, always will be until the final harvest. To tell the truth, I think there are usually many tares on both sides of any issue stirring things up and causing hard feelings. Because they seem like the genuine grain, probably only God knows who they are. They may not even consider themselves to be tares, In fact they probably don't -don't you think?.
-
You are probably correct as even Judas the Betrayer probably didn't consider himself a tare.
-
If I remember correctly, it was intense dissent over the WO issue that caused an administrative rift right here at AdventTalk. I observed people SO intent on being right that they tromped all over the opinions of their alleged friends. I am sure the Master sheds tears over that type of behavior. I still stand by my original thought on the matter. Obviously the Bible is not as clear on this issue as some seem to think, or we would not be in the situation we are now. Thank you, COTK, for the thought-provoking post.
-
Thank you all for considering this. I would like to quote the counsel that was given when one of the early believers advocated for discontinuing the use of swine's flesh which is now an accepted practice but at that time was a new and radical idea.
"God is leading out a people, not a few separate individuals here and there, one believing this thing, another that. Angels of God are doing the work committed to their trust. The third angel is leading out and purifying a people, and they should move with him unitedly. Some run ahead of the angels that are leading this people; but they have to retrace every step, and meekly follow no faster than the angels lead. I saw that the angels of God would lead His people no faster than they could receive and act upon the important truths that are communicated to them. But some restless spirits do not more than half do up their work. As the angel leads them, they get in haste for something new, and rush on without divine guidance, and thus bring confusion and discord into the ranks. They do not speak or act in harmony with the body. I saw that you both must speedily be brought where you are willing to be led, instead of desiring to lead, or Satan will step in and lead you in his way, to follow his counsel. Some look at your set notions, and consider them an evidence of humility. They are deceived. You both are making work for repentance." Testimonies for the Church Volume 1 p 207
So we can be so vehement about our beliefs that even when we are right, we are wrong in our spirit. I am not saying that change is bad. Is the Lord leading us as a people? Then let's move unitedly or not at all.
-
That was a very good quote.
-
Note where the discussion has gone of late.
1. A former conference president has publicly encouraged the idea that unions and conferences ordain women anyway, even if the GC Session votes No.
2. In the March issue of Adventist World, Dave Gemmell, after citing historian Stan Hickerson, stated that between 1879 and the Great Depression, we reached the point where we had one female pastor for every 5,000 members, a ratio never reached since. I called Stan and asked him whether we could identify any churches during that time period which had had women assigned to them as pastors, and he said there were none.
Let's have a discussion, but let's avoid misrepresentations, and let's avoid encouraging the disregarding of GC Session votes, unless there is a biblical mandate otherwise.
-
Maybe so but even when the facts are correctly represented there are still differences of opinion. It reminds me of the disciples bickering over who would be highest in the kingdom. Luke 9:26 I am sick of discussions of this type just as Jesus must have been.
Let's face it. This is a power struggle no matter how you spin it. Some of the old guys are afraid of men losing the dignity, reverence and power that traditionally belongs to them, especially belongs to clergy men, that they are very offended by the very thought of wo. What are we all pharisees? What would Jesus say to them? Some women are not content to quietly serve or have their sisters in the church serve without recogntion or compensation. Are we all Marthas or worse, needing to be in charge and wanting kudos for the value of our service? Or are we like Jesus, girding ourselves with a towel and taking the lowest jobs without complaint? Following the example set by our Lord who of all men was treated most unfairly and went quietly like a sheep to the slaughter without ever saying a mumbling word. Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth. Can you give up arguing even if the "other side" offends you? I don't care which side is right or worng. Both sides have supporters who just don't ever seem to want to give it up. And frankly that attitude offends me.
-
I would agree that this seems to be a power struggle, given the fact that this whole controversy this time around started over whether women may serve as conference presidents. But on our local level here, among those who attend our church, the women are unitedly opposed to WO, and it isn't about men wanting to retain power at all.
I think that being weary of the debate is a feeling that is widespread. Yet people being able to freely share their views is something that was opposed in the 1888 era. So being able to share one's views is a must. But I'm uncomfortable with employing the methods of political campaigns when doing so.
-
I, too, am offended by the attitude displayed by many with regard to this issue. Here is an interesting article:
http://www.lightbearers.org/a-closer-look-at-womens-ordination/
-
It would be good if Ty published some corrections to that article.
- ¶ 17 of RH 4-4-1882 shows that the entire article is taken from an earlier testimony, and that material is in 4T 390, dated 1880. Thus, the quote really precedes the 1881 GC Session, rather than follows it.
- A more serious issue is the use of such quotes to say that Ellen White was calling for women to serve as pastors of established churches, when she instead stated that the general rule was for conference ministers to be out raising up new churches (Ev 382.2), with the laity keeping the established churches going (Ev 382.1). Ordaining women to hover over existing churches is just a further departure from the counsel God gave us.
- Ty quotes James White saying that women may preach, but that skirts the main issue entirely, since our Adventist pioneers maintained that women could preach but could not hold positions of authority in the church over men, such as "pastors or ruling elders," as J.H. Waggoner stated in ST 12-19-1878. To illustrate, while James White was editor, the following also appeared in the RH:
- "We think the second clause of 1 Tim. 2:12, explains the first: 'nor to usurp authority over the man.' One definition of the word teach is to direct, or appoint" (RH 3-30-1876).
- "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" (RH 4-22-1862).
So, like J.H. Waggoner, James White was all for women preaching while at the same time he was against women serving in positions of authority that would violate Paul's counsel.
- Regarding the 1881 GC Session resolution, it should be remembered that Uriah Smith was one of the three members of the committee on resolutions that proposed that resolution, and this is how he expressed his views in 1875:
- "The leadership and authority is vested in the man. 'Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.' Gen. 3:16. This order is not to be reversed, and the woman take the position which has been assigned to the man; and every action on her part which shows that she is usurping this authority, is disorderly, and not to be allowed. Hence Paul says plainly to Timothy, 1 Tim. 2:12, 'But I suffer not a woman to teach nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.' There is no doubt but it was the very same point, the usurping of authority over the man, that the same apostle had in view in 1 Cor. 14:34." (ST 8-26-1875)
So either Smith changed his views between 1875 and 1881, or he saw nothing contradictory between the above views and the 1881 resolution, or he was outvoted by the other two members of the committee. But his views as expressed above are clear.
- Back to 4T 390. What did Ellen White mean by "pastoral labor" in that statement? She meant doing personal labor while visiting in people's homes, not preaching from pulpits. In fact, she was quite plain that some ministers failed to do pastoral labor even though they were preaching. See Ev 440; GW15 337; 4T 465; 9MR 343-344.
- This is why 4T 390 says that literature work prepares one for pastoral labor, because it educates one in how to come close to the people in their homes and call for decisions. And the reason why men and women should learn how to do pastoral labor is because these older established members need to care for the new members "who have conscientiously withdrawn from other churches for the truth's sake, and thus cut themselves off from the pastoral labor to which they have been accustomed" (Ev 351).
- And why are new members "cut ... off from the pastoral labor" they are used to? Because our ministers are out raising up new churches rather than hovering over established churches.
-
Why clarify what Ellen White said? She was just a woman.
I refuse to get sucked in to this again. This spiritual bullying in the name of the Bible is not of the God I serve.
Thank you, Child of the King, for your perspectives.
-
I do not believe that I have been saying that the power struggle is always strictly divided along gender lines. I believe I used the words some of the women and some of the old guys (forgive me using slang when referring thus to "elders"). But I believe Daryl referred to some of the tares possibly being in leadership psitions. I hear you Daryl. And I do not believe that everyone opposed to wo is male or that the motives I mentioned are the motives of all. I do not believe that all the males in positions of authority want to hang on to status. I definitely know that the women I have talked with do not covet ordination for themselves. But some would not like it to be forbidden for other women depending on the circumstances. Some female workers may have been widowed or deserted and have families to support. They may not be able to devote their time without receiving a paycheck for instance and some are probably already doing the work without pay or ordination.
That does not mean that the power struggle is not a subconscious motive among those who do not even recognize it in themselves. It is. I know the disciples did not always know their own hearts until Jesus pointed out the problems with their attitudes. Note Peter wielding a sword at Jesus' arrest. Often zeal in a seemingly righteous cause has not always achieved what Christ intended at all. It is the pugnacious attitude that I am so tired of. If others have made misstatatements either deliberately or not, Bob, please in the spirit of Christ forgive! Do not assign bad motives to them or think they are on the wrong side. just because you can find flaws.
-
Why clarify what Ellen White said?
Because sometimes words change their meanings. The article in question made a point of Ellen White using the phrase "pastoral labor," and that phrase means something different today than how Ellen White herself used it.
-
If others have made misstatatements either deliberately or not, Bob, please in the spirit of Christ forgive! Do not assign bad motives to them or think they are on the wrong side. just because you can find flaws.
Dave Gemmell wrote to me on March 11, in part as follows: "I am well aware that the word ‘pastor’ as we use it today is somewhat different than in the 19th century. I did not have the space to get into the nuances of the definition of pastor in that short article. Perhaps another time."
Thus, I think he is saying that he knew that there wasn't one female pastor for every 5000 members at some point between the 1870's and the Great Depression. One female minister and/or Bible worker and/or literature evangelist, maybe, but not one female pastor.
Certainly we can forgive such misrepresentations. However, if we are going to preserve Christian unity, and if we want a yes vote to be respected, then that yes vote has to be obtained through a fair presentation of truth. That is my concern.
Regarding Ty's article, I have seen nothing that would suggest that Ty was aware that "pastoral labor" meant something different than what we think of today. But I do think that he should issue some sort of correction to his article in the interest of Christian unity and fairness.
-
Why clarify what Ellen White said?
Because sometimes words change their meanings. The article in question made a point of Ellen White using the phrase "pastoral labor," and that phrase means something different today than how Ellen White herself used it.
Bob, you just eliminated the integral, second part of my question/statement and thus changed my meaning! You have a documented history of doing that!!
Why clarify what Ellen White said? She was just a woman.
-
Why clarify what Ellen White said?
Because sometimes words change their meanings. The article in question made a point of Ellen White using the phrase "pastoral labor," and that phrase means something different today than how Ellen White herself used it.
Bob, you just eliminated the integral, second part of my question/statement and thus changed my meaning! You have a documented history of doing that!! I think your posts are a prime example of the point the OP was trying to make. But, carry on. It is like banging one's head against a wall. Now I remember why I quit posting here!!
Why clarify what Ellen White said? She was just a woman.
-
Snoopy,
I'm not necessarily going to pick up on your meaning, and there are certain types of comments that I will try to overlook, which also goes along with what the OP was trying to say.
In the Bible, women could serve as prophets in both the OT and the NT. As such the divine messages Jesus delivered via the Holy Spirit could certainly be cited, and clarified if the hearers or readers needed that.
But I'm thinking you're driving at something else, and I'm unsure what it is.
-
Snoopy,
I'm not necessarily going to pick up on your meaning, and there are certain types of comments that I will try to overlook, which also goes along with what the OP was trying to say.
In the Bible, women could serve as prophets in both the OT and the NT. As such the divine messages Jesus delivered via the Holy Spirit could certainly be cited, and clarified if the hearers or readers needed that.
But I'm thinking you're driving at something else, and I'm unsure what it is.
My meaning was clear. If you did not get it, you are not as intelligent as I once thought you were.
You overlook those comments which do not support your own viewpoint, precisely what the OP was trying to say.
You know exactly what I am saying. Do not try to pretend you do not. That would be disingenuous on your part. As the Biblical scholar you present yourself to be, do not try to play games with me. We have too much history together. I kept copies of all of the case references you asked me for. And I would not hesitate to testify against you if asked.
-
You overlook those comments which do not support your own viewpoint, precisely what the OP was trying to say.
If it seems sarcastic, I may overlook it rather than respond to it. Especially if I'm trying not to upset someone.
No, I don't know for sure what you meant. "Why clarify what Ellen White said? Ellen White was just a woman." Why clarify? Because words may mean something different today than what they meant in her day. Just a woman? Well, in the Bible women could serve as prophets, and what they said needed to be respected because their messages were God's message, given by Christ through the Holy Spirit.
But I don't think I'm getting your meaning. I honestly don't think that you were raising the question of why I believe Ellen White had the gift of prophecy if she was just a woman, because that idea wouldn't really fit the first sentence. That's a question that gets raised outside, not within, Adventism, and is answered in any basic Bible study on the gift of prophecy. Thus I'm left wondering what you really did mean.
After all, I am a man, and men sometimes don't catch on to the implied meanings that women know are there.
And I would not hesitate to testify against you if asked.
The topic COTK started here is "1888." How familiar are you with that topic? They had a disagreement as to the law in Galatians and the identity of one of the 10 horns at the 1888 Minneapolis GC Session, and things got ugly. COTK is calling for us not to repeat the past at this GC Session by getting ugly over a theological disagreement.
Overlooking sarcastic comments in order to avoid getting into some sort of squabble, that would go along with the OP. Insults and threats do not.
-
I have a complete understanding of what COTK is saying.
Apologies if you were insulted. I know I have been quite insulted by some of your statements as well.
-
I have been out of the church for some time now, and the results of my departure have been eye opening. For once I have been able to look back and reflect on the abuse that I took and ask the question, why? I have come to the conclusion that my problem was that I confused the church with Jesus, in that I was making them one and the same.
I listen to one prominent minister discuss the issue of women's ordination and end with the remark that whatever the church at large decided that he would be faithful to the church. I have come to the conclusion after reading the pro's and con's on women's ordination that the bible and spirit of prophecy can be used to justify any action the church takes because the church has become God. Like Israel of old the people became confused by the leaders as to what constituted God and what the churches roll actually was. The real problem as I see it is that the church is no longer an entity design to promote the coming of Jesus but is now design to be self perpetuating. I realize that if the church was actually going about doing the work of the Lord that the question, in my opinion of women's ordination, would not be an issue at all. Women's ordination is an outgrowth of the church because the church is a business and those in positions of leadership by in large hold positions of power and a good living. Every single step from accreditation of our colleges by the world, to Adventist Hospitals that do not promote the health message have lead to the current condition and crisis that the church stands at currently. And the reason is that the people in the pews and pulpit have been fooled into believing that the church is not only a representation of God but is in fact God on earth and to leave her will in essence be to leave Jesus and God no matter how corrupt she becomes. It is clear that the issue of women's ordination is a result not of spiritual enlightenment but simply a reaction to the changing times of nominal religion as a whole. I have come to the strong conclusion that they will also be forced to except the gay agenda and will back it up with spirit of prophecy and bible text. I know there are those that will think me mad but remember it was the church, made God by its leaders, that killed Jesus. I don't believe that the people on both sides of this discussion are sane or capable since most see the church as God and that separation would mean they no longer have Jesus or heaven. The example of the parents that would not confess the deity of Jesus when he open the eyes of their blind son, who was born blind will be repeated by many in the Adventist Church.
Do you think it an accident the church trademarked its name? The church is waiting and preparing to play the part of persecutor and murderer of the savior as in times past. History will repeat itself but in a more marked way.
-
christian,
I wonder if in some way you still identify as a Seventh-day Adventist, since you referred to "our colleges."
"The church may appear as about to fall, but it does not fall." That doesn't mean the church is God on earth.
-
christian,
I wonder if in some way you still identify as a Seventh-day Adventist, since you referred to "our colleges."
"The church may appear as about to fall, but it does not fall." That doesn't mean the church is God on earth.
And the rest of that statement says what? The lord will sift the wheat from the tare the real from the fake. These statements are not talking about the corporate church either that is why the bible says I have other sheep of my fold them too must I call. No I do not identify as a Seventh-day Adventist and that is the trap or brainwashing that has been so drilled into the minds of Adventist people. The fact that many think being an Adventist somehow makes them closer to God is a trap of satan. Adventist call the protestant churches Babylon because they don't follow all the commandments, yet in the same breath from the pulpit it is preached that you cannot keep the commandments. Actually, there is an ongoing debate which is crazy as to whether you can keep the commandment. Yet at the same time they say you must keep the Sabbath particularly in order to be saved. Yet if you break one you are guilty of all and the pastor will tell you in a minute that no one is keeping all of Gods law, sounds confusing doesn't it? The Adventist Church did something that Ellen G. White never intended, to trademark the sabbath and the second coming. The Adventist people are becoming like the followers Jim Jones, they are willingly drinking the cool aid. Where was the outrage and people in the pews withholding their tithe for the work of God?
-
Adventist call the protestant churches Babylon because they don't follow all the commandments, yet in the same breath from the pulpit it is preached that you cannot keep the commandments.
As far as preaching that you can't keep the commandments, even with he help of God, that doesn't get preached here.
The reason most Protestant churches are considered part of Babylon is because (a) they are teaching the same false doctrines, the same wine of Babylon, that Rome is, (b) they are considered her "daughters," even by Rome herself, which calls herself the "mother church," and (c) the Protestant churches rejected the biblical message that Christ's coming is near, because they preferred post-millennialism.
"The church may appear as about to fall, but it does not fall." I take it that you believe that Ellen White was not referring to the Seventh-day Adventist Church when she wrote that. What evidence do you have to support that conclusion?
An earlier portion of the same Letter 55, 1886 said, "Let the churches who claim to believe the truth, who are advocating the law of God, keep that law and depart from all iniquity. Let the individual members of the church resist the temptations to practice evils and indulge in sin. Let the church commence the work of purification before God by repentance, humiliation, deep heart searching, for we are in the antitypical day of atonement--solemn hour fraught with eternal results" (2SM 378; 12MR 320-321). Whatever we say that Ellen White meant by "church" in that later sentence must jive with what she meant by "church" in this earlier paragraph.
-
Adventist call the protestant churches Babylon because they don't follow all the commandments, yet in the same breath from the pulpit it is preached that you cannot keep the commandments.
As far as preaching that you can't keep the commandments, even with he help of God, that doesn't get preached here.
The reason most Protestant churches are considered part of Babylon is because (a) they are teaching the same false doctrines, the same wine of Babylon, that Rome is, (b) they are considered her "daughters," even by Rome herself, which calls herself the "mother church," and (c) the Protestant churches rejected the biblical message that Christ's coming is near, because they preferred post-millennialism.
"The church may appear as about to fall, but it does not fall." I take it that you believe that Ellen White was not referring to the Seventh-day Adventist Church when she wrote that. What evidence do you have to support that conclusion?
An earlier portion of the same Letter 55, 1886 said, "Let the churches who claim to believe the truth, who are advocating the law of God, keep that law and depart from all iniquity. Let the individual members of the church resist the temptations to practice evils and indulge in sin. Let the church commence the work of purification before God by repentance, humiliation, deep heart searching, for we are in the antitypical day of atonement--solemn hour fraught with eternal results" (2SM 378; 12MR 320-321). Whatever we say that Ellen White meant by "church" in that later sentence must jive with what she meant by "church" in this earlier paragraph.
Why do you not finish the quote “The church may appear as about to fall, but it does not fall. It remains, while the sinners in Zion will be sifted out—the chaff separated from the precious wheat. This is a terrible ordeal, but nevertheless it must take place.”
This conversation is a little unfair in that I know the ties that hold you. You have a doctrine that is no where mentioned in the bible and the writings of Ellen White have been distorted to keep you beholding to the corporation instead of to Christ. I suspect that you see the sin in the church and the utter disregard of the writings of Ellen White by the corporation but believe that despite a disregard for the truth they are still the chosen of God. You for the sake of unity practice the same sin as the Nominal first day churches and don't realize it. If I ask you personally if you keep the commandments you will say you do not, inwardly you understand that you do not have the power and frankly have been unable to obtain the power to live a sinless life, why? Because the organization you deem the church is a business by their own admission, but you hearing their own words denying they are a church, still call it the church. You call the headquarters and ask them are they a business corporation or a church and let me know what they tell you, okay? Why are you questioning me when the owners of the corporation the leaders of the business say they are not a church but a corporation. Why did they trademark the name given by God, why did they start a new organization when Ellen G. White told them not to?
And the seventh day Adventist corporation did not give homage to the Catholic church? Please be frank and honest, you are a student of the church and know what I am saying is truth.
Q: What is a corporation?
A: an legal entity whose purpose is to deliver economic value while turning a profit. They are often open to the public to invest in by purchasing bonds and stocks...
How can you use Ellen Whites writings to support something Ellen White does not support? How can you say the Adventist church is a church and use Ellen White writing to support it when they say they are not a church? Why question me in what Ellen White thought when they say they are not the church.
-
A not-for-profit corporation does not seek to "turn a profit."
I don't understand why you are saying that a church cannot be incorporated. Here in Minnesota, a church must be incorporated in order to own property. An unincorporated association cannot own property. Are you saying that no church in Minnesota can legally own property, since churches cease to be churches as soon as they incorporate?
Here in Minnesota the Minnesota Conference was organized as both an association and a corporation, until these two entities were merged at the last constituency meeting. This was common, to have both a corporation and an association. Thus, I don't understand why you think having a nonprofit corporation is such a big deal.
http://www.adventist.org/copyright/legal-notice/ says that "General Conference" refers to both the nonprofit corporation General Conference Corporation of Seventh-day Adventists, and the unincorporated association General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. When exactly are you saying that there was a new organization? Are you objecting to the corporation, the unincorporated association, or both?
What significance did you see in the rest of the quote? What church do you think Ellen White was referring to if it wasn't the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and in what way does that other church appear as about to fall?
-
A not-for-profit corporation does not seek to "turn a profit."
I don't understand why you are saying that a church cannot be incorporated. Here in Minnesota, a church must be incorporated in order to own property. An unincorporated association cannot own property. Are you saying that no church in Minnesota can legally own property, since churches cease to be churches as soon as they incorporate?
Here in Minnesota the Minnesota Conference was organized as both an association and a corporation, until these two entities were merged at the last constituency meeting. This was common, to have both a corporation and an association. Thus, I don't understand why you think having a nonprofit corporation is such a big deal.
http://www.adventist.org/copyright/legal-notice/ says that "General Conference" refers to both the nonprofit corporation General Conference Corporation of Seventh-day Adventists, and the unincorporated association General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists. When exactly are you saying that there was a new organization? Are you objecting to the corporation, the unincorporated association, or both?
What significance did you see in the rest of the quote? What church do you think Ellen White was referring to if it wasn't the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and in what way does that other church appear as about to fall?
Once the bait has been taken, and the catch is reeled in, another church has been transformed into a "legal fiction" subject to the tyrannical control of the federal government. The truth is that "incorporated churches" are not, by definition, churches at all! They are merely "non-profit organizations" (or should I say "non-prophet organizations"). The truth is, any "church" that is incorporated has deposed Jesus Christ from His rightful position as Head over His own Body and has surrendered that Body to the dominion of the State.
The truth is, "incorporated churches" are subject to total governmental control -- whom they may hire, what they may and may not teach and preach, they cannot conflict with "public policy" nor assault the hearer's sense of mental well-being, self esteem, sexual orientation, etc. The IRS prohibits such organizations from "carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation" (26 USC 501-C-3). This prohibition extends, not only to the endorsement of a political candidate, but also any other attempts to "influence legislation," including taking a public stand against such government-protected abominations as abortion or homosexuality. Now, the church is discovering that favors from Washington, DC have strings attached. In this case, the string is a rope that is being used to throttle her once-powerful voice, to squeeze out her very life and, eventually, to hang her by the neck until dead!
As I have said before it is difficult to talk to people so brainwashed (not meant to be an insult) but just stating a fact. The same thinking goes into everything the corporation does and the brainwashed members except the lie. Your same logic was applied to accreditation of the schools and colleges too.
The reason for the entire quote is because Zion is talking about the true church (believers and imposters). The same thinking came from Jesus when he label the leaders of Israel as workers for Satan and not Him. But clearly the leaders at that time thought (like you) that they were the chosen vessels of God when in reality they were the workers of Satan. They had the truth (Israels Leaders) but did not practice what they preached, thus disqualifying them for the Job God had intended. Why are you defending deception? I Identified them for what they are and you justify them taking Satan and the world in their institutions and colleges etc... The reason you do that (I believe) is because you see salvation in the corporation.
You think if I keep the sabbath I must be an Seventh day Adventist corporation member or I am not legitimate. And the institution that you are defining as Gods ordained have become a corporation not to obtain and sell land, but to control the word and workers of God. You are too blind to understand that God is not dead and can defend the truth himself. Every step towards the world in their institutions have always been justified by them and upheld by those brainwashed into believing salvation comes by their institution instead of God.
If I ask you if the church during Israels time is the example for us today, you will tell me it is. But when I label them as thus you defend them when the bible and Ellen White says that we will repeat the sins of Israel but in a more marked way. You are like the men walking with Jesus after his resurrection thinking that all was lost because things did not go as they thought. Open your eyes guy, God does not need the corporation, he is not dead.
-
Actually, christian, I think you should consider the possibility that it is you who have been brainwashed. I suggest that because I just searched the EGW CD for incorporat* and found references to the use of the term when the church was considering becoming organized in the 1860's.
So I am left with this question: If incorporating is such a great evil, as you suggest, why was James White all for it?
Additionally, you misquoted that regulation against "carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation." The preceding words said that no substantial part of the activities of the organization could do that. It didn't say that none of its activities could do that. The IRS doesn't want to give tax breaks to lobbying organizations, but churches that might do some lobbying, that's a different matter.
If you're not a member of a church that may appear as about to fall, that may appear as about to become Babylon, you may be a member of the wrong church. Think about it.
-
Actually, christian, I think you should consider the possibility that it is you who have been brainwashed. I suggest that because I just searched the EGW CD for incorporat* and found references to the use of the term when the church was considering becoming organized in the 1860's.
So I am left with this question: If incorporating is such a great evil, as you suggest, why was James White all for it?
Additionally, you misquoted that regulation against "carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation." The preceding words said that no substantial part of the activities of the organization could do that. It didn't say that none of its activities could do that. The IRS doesn't want to give tax breaks to lobbying organizations, but churches that might do some lobbying, that's a different matter.
If you're not a member of a church that may appear as about to fall, that may appear as about to become Babylon, you may be a member of the wrong church. Think about it.
I can guarantee you there are many Christians that will vehemently disagree with you on that last statement. That statement is not a biblical principle but rather a diabolical statement that would qualify the corporation as the portal to heaven, whether doing right or wrong. That mindset is the one that allows those at the head of the corporation to control its members, and what eventually will allow them to prosecute those not deemed part of the corporation.
You use James White as a reason to become controlled by the state, mind blowing. Here is a riddle, when the blind son was cast out of the church doing Christ time was he actually cast out?
I would like to ask you this, do you believe it was right for the corporation to trademark the name Seventh day Adventist and then go to the state to prosecute those it demeaned using it unjustly?
If you noticed, I stated you are a student of the church, I stated that because I don't believe you to be an enemy, however I do believe that many true Adventist are being deceived. The logic you use is what kept many from confessing Jesus until after his death. I know you may be offended because I use the word brainwashed, but there is really no other word to use for people that will follow an institution that practices apostasy and still calls itself the leader of the people of God.
I have not lesson the requirements of submission to God and the Holy Spirits power to rule in my life. Nicodemus came to Jesus because he knew he lacked something. When Jesus told him he must be born again he was astonished because he thought he was a part of the institution of God already. But God told him that he that worshiped him must worship in (Spirit and in Truth).
-
I see that you and I are approaching these questions quite differently, if you think that Ellen White's statement, "The church may appear as about to fall, but it does not fall," is diabolical, a word that comes from the Greek word for "devil." In essence, you just said that what she wrote was demonic, and thus we are poles apart.
And if that is really what you meant, that would explain why you would so readily discount James White, and all the pioneers who sided with him regarding organization, including Ellen White.
I have no problem with the Adventist Church going against SDA Kinship for the misuse of the Adventist name.
-
I see that you and I are approaching these questions quite differently, if you think that Ellen White's statement, "The church may appear as about to fall, but it does not fall," is diabolical, a word that comes from the Greek word for "devil." In essence, you just said that what she wrote was demonic, and thus we are poles apart.
And if that is really what you meant, that would explain why you would so readily discount James White, and all the pioneers who sided with him regarding organization, including Ellen White.
I have no problem with the Adventist Church going against SDA Kinship for the misuse of the Adventist name.
We are poles apart in what and who we think constitutes the church. But I know how difficult it is to talk to individual who are brainwashed and cannot think for themselves. Some things are so outrageous as to not make common sense. The truth is what constitutes and makes up the church and Jesus is the head of the (true church) it really is not that complicated. But you see the corporation and its leaders and the General Conference as your guide and church and they will decide what you believe and where you stand. You think it the prerogative of the corporate church to protect the good Nature and standing of the church, though God has spared the sinner when he could have killed the likes of you.
Ellen White would say that the leaders were in a large part responsible for the peoples rejection of Christ. And when talking about the thief on the cross his situation for the most part was also a result of those feigning to the be church. And the wise men and shepherd that came to see Jesus at his birth were the true church of that time.
But it is your choice to be blind and follow the blind into the ditch.
-
To me, you're not making a bit of sense in your accusations and assumptions about what I believe. As a Seventh-day Adventist, I believe the Bible is the final authority, not the church, so you are just plain wrong. Any Adventist who believes otherwise is violating their baptismal vows.
Why didn't you retract your accusation that what Ellen White wrote was demonic?
-
To me, you're not making a bit of sense in your accusations and assumptions about what I believe. As a Seventh-day Adventist, I believe the Bible is the final authority, not the church, so you are just plain wrong. Any Adventist who believes otherwise is violating their baptismal vows.
Why didn't you retract your accusation that what Ellen White wrote was demonic?
Because you are the one that created the accusation, which is a tactic of most brainwashed Seventh day Adventist. It is very important to you that I appear to be against Ellen G. White, when in fact you are the one that is misrepresenting her writings. You are defending an institution which has long since left the precepts and guidelines of Ellen G. White and to some extent the bible. Do you have any idea the trash that is being taught individual attending the institutions of learning in the Adventist corporation? Do you not realize that the church of Christ day is an example of the institution today?
-
Let's try again.
I said, "If you're not a member of a church that may appear as about to fall, that may appear as about to become Babylon, you may be a member of the wrong church. Think about it."
You then called what I said diabolical, which means about the same as demonic. And yet all I was doing was quoting what Ellen White wrote, and making a possible application to your situation. She wrote, "The church may appear as about to fall, but it does not fall."
I don't see any other possible conclusion than that you were attributing what Ellen White wrote to the devil.
I first thought of this idea in 1996 or 1997, when trying to get off the Reformed Movement's mailing address. The fellow I was talking with at headquarters was unaware of the "may appear as about to fall" quote and asked for the reference. He then was telling me that God's people have to come out of Babylon and into the true fold. It dawned on me that he was calling the Seventh-day Adventist Church Babylon. God then gave me that thought, that if he thought his group didn't have any problems, it probably didn't qualify as being the church Ellen White was referring to.
I then told him, "Any group that doesn't appear as about to fall can't be the true fold." That hit home. He didn't accuse me of saying something diabolical. He instead said he would have to study that.
My guess is that it hit home for you as well. If the church you are a member of doesn't seem like it could be about to fall, it doesn't fit the church Ellen White was referring to in that statement.
Moreover, she went on to say that while the church remains the sinners are shaken out. Certainly you don't want to be in that group, right?
But the whole topic appears to be a sensitive one for you.
-
Let's try again.
I said, "If you're not a member of a church that may appear as about to fall, that may appear as about to become Babylon, you may be a member of the wrong church. Think about it."
You then called what I said diabolical, which means about the same as demonic. And yet all I was doing was quoting what Ellen White wrote, and making a possible application to your situation. She wrote, "The church may appear as about to fall, but it does not fall."
I don't see any other possible conclusion than that you were attributing what Ellen White wrote to the devil.
I first thought of this idea in 1996 or 1997, when trying to get off the Reformed Movement's mailing address. The fellow I was talking with at headquarters was unaware of the "may appear as about to fall" quote and asked for the reference. He then was telling me that God's people have to come out of Babylon and into the true fold. It dawned on me that he was calling the Seventh-day Adventist Church Babylon. God then gave me that thought, that if he thought his group didn't have any problems, it probably didn't qualify as being the church Ellen White was referring to.
I then told him, "Any group that doesn't appear as about to fall can't be the true fold." That hit home. He didn't accuse me of saying something diabolical. He instead said he would have to study that.
My guess is that it hit home for you as well. If the church you are a member of doesn't seem like it could be about to fall, it doesn't fit the church Ellen White was referring to in that statement.
Moreover, she went on to say that while the church remains the sinners are shaken out. Certainly you don't want to be in that group, right?
But the whole topic appears to be a sensitive one for you.
Only in your mind does the topic appear to be a sensitive one for me. You do not understand that sinning is not appearing as though it is about to fall. You have a misunderstanding about what the church is and who constitutes the church. I started off the topic about women's ordination and the fact that many are choosing between the church and God, because they have been confused by the corporate church. You are stuck on the belief that what constitutes the Church is the Seventh day Adventist corporation. Because you are afraid to except God over sin you see any attack on the corporation as an attack on the church of God whether it is truth or not. So if the church locks up people or approves and excepts the gay life style as being normal. Or if the church preaches and teaches to its pastors about bestiality and disregards the health message you must remain in it in order to be saved. Even though you understand that the true church will be maintained in the mountains and in the desolate places and in the hearts of men.
-
Only in your mind does the topic appear to be a sensitive one for me.
If it wasn't a sensitive subject for you, then I don't think you would be responding this way.
You do not understand that sinning is not appearing as though it is about to fall.
How does that mean that you don't need to retract your accusation that what Ellen White wrote was diabolical? All I did was use the very same words she used, and you know that those were the words she used, and you said it was diabolical. I didn't say that appearing as about to fall meant sinning or didn't mean sinning. All I did was connect "about to fall" with "Babylon is fallen."
You are stuck on the belief that what constitutes the Church is the Seventh day Adventist corporation.
You're the one who brought in this stuff about the Seventh-day Adventist corporation, not me. And I already addressed this in part when I mentioned about unincorporated associations. But my guess is that you don't even think that a Seventh-day Adventist unincorporated association is a Seventh-day Adventist Church. And that would leave us all wondering what you do believe would constitute a Seventh-day Adventist Church if it's neither an unincorporated association nor a corporation. Or maybe you think Ellen White was referring to some other church other than the Seventh-day Adventist Church? Then which one?
But we in effect already dealt with that one too, if I recall correctly. The same Lt 55, 1886, as can be seen from 12MR 326, says, "Salvation is not to be baptized, not to have our names upon the church books, not to preach the truth." What church is she talking about in this sentence? Some mystical thing that has no church books? Clearly not.
Because you are afraid to except God over sin you see any attack on the corporation as an attack on the church of God whether it is truth or not.
My complaint was that you called what Ellen White wrote "diabolical," and you want to turn that around into my saying that you were attacking the church of God? No. My complaint was that you attacked the Spirit of Prophecy by calling what it said "diabolical."
It's not often that I hear someone use such a strong term to denounce Ellen White's counsel.
-
Only in your mind does the topic appear to be a sensitive one for me.
If it wasn't a sensitive subject for you, then I don't think you would be responding this way.
You do not understand that sinning is not appearing as though it is about to fall.
How does that mean that you don't need to retract your accusation that what Ellen White wrote was diabolical? All I did was use the very same words she used, and you know that those were the words she used, and you said it was diabolical. I didn't say that appearing as about to fall meant sinning or didn't mean sinning. All I did was connect "about to fall" with "Babylon is fallen."
You are stuck on the belief that what constitutes the Church is the Seventh day Adventist corporation.
You're the one who brought in this stuff about the Seventh-day Adventist corporation, not me. And I already addressed this in part when I mentioned about unincorporated associations. But my guess is that you don't even think that a Seventh-day Adventist unincorporated association is a Seventh-day Adventist Church. And that would leave us all wondering what you do believe would constitute a Seventh-day Adventist Church if it's neither an unincorporated association nor a corporation. Or maybe you think Ellen White was referring to some other church other than the Seventh-day Adventist Church? Then which one?
But we in effect already dealt with that one too, if I recall correctly. The same Lt 55, 1886, as can be seen from 12MR 326, says, "Salvation is not to be baptized, not to have our names upon the church books, not to preach the truth." What church is she talking about in this sentence? Some mystical thing that has no church books? Clearly not.
Because you are afraid to except God over sin you see any attack on the corporation as an attack on the church of God whether it is truth or not.
My complaint was that you called what Ellen White wrote "diabolical," and you want to turn that around into my saying that you were attacking the church of God? No. My complaint was that you attacked the Spirit of Prophecy by calling what it said "diabolical."
It's not often that I hear someone use such a strong term to denounce Ellen White's counsel.
It would be foolish for me to go back and explain to you exactly what I was calling diabolical because then you would simply be just as dull of understanding as you are now to hear what I am saying. You are so set on defending the corporation that you justify their existence as a prophecy of God and your allegiance as mandatory for heaven. Then you feign some indignity at my perceived attack on the Spirit of Prophecy when it is the Seventh day corporation that is the one really attacking the Spirit of Prophecy with people like your endorsement. You are like the lawyers that came to Jesus because they were offended at his words. You don't really care about the Spirit of Prophecy at all because if you did you would not defend those that go against it. There is no biblical model for salvation through the corporation in the bible. The bible through Jesus words make it clear, He said "I am the way the truth and the light, no man commeth unto the father but by me."
We are right back to my opening remarks the issue of women ordination is not an issue created by some spiritual awakening. The Seventh day corporation has simply taken its agenda from its leaders and created an atmosphere where it can now promote a principle not of spiritual origin. And if they rule in session that women ordination is acceptable, then the brainwashed individuals like you will simply except it and move on because your salvation is connected to the corporate Seventh day Adventist (the one that trade marked its name) and not Jesus.
You lack the ability to truly debate a topic of this type because you have a vested interest in the outcome instead of the truth. You have yet to even mention the departure from the spirit of prophecy by the corporate church, except to imply we should except it because they are the church. You really don't care about the Spirit of Prophesy do you?
-
It's like I said, christian. It must be a sensitive subject for you, since you don't seem to be able to discuss it in an objective manner, without resorting to making various accusations.
Are you a member of a church that appears, has appeared, or may appear in the future as about to fall? Yes or no. If you answer no, how do you justify that given Ellen White's fairly clear statement?
-
I found christian's perspective to be well thought out, very articulate and quite objective.
-
Snoopy, I'll try to explain.
It would be foolish for me to go back and explain to you exactly what I was calling diabolical because then you would simply be just as dull of understanding as you are now to hear what I am saying. You are so set on defending the corporation that you justify their existence as a prophecy of God and your allegiance as mandatory for heaven.
And christian's response went on. Calling me dull of understanding, saying I'm so set on defending the corporation, those kind of personal attacks are unnecessary. It would have been much better to simply show that I was somehow mistaken in my understanding of that EGW statement. But I don't think christian can do that, or else some sort of attempt would have been made by now.
To some extent, I have been left to guess as to what christian's understanding of that statement might be, and have then shown how those guesses can't be correct.
Therefore, the response seemed more emotional than a calm, objective reponse to my understanding of that statement.
-
I did not ask you for an explanation. I simply stated my opinion on christian's perspective after you attacked it. I agree with christian - I think you are dull of understanding and you often come across with an arrogant, holier-than-thou attitude. I have experienced it myself on more than one occasion. Christian made a valiant, page and a half attempt to explain what you still don't get, and most likely never will. You consider yourself an expert on EGW, and when someone disagrees with your views on her or her writings, you hide behind the "I have been left to guess" argument and whine about personal attacks and insults. Good luck with that. I don't think it has been working well for you thus far.
-
The bottom line remains:
"The church may appear as about to fall, but it does not fall. It remains, while the sinners in Zion will be sifted out--the chaff separated from the precious wheat" (2SM 380).
If christian is not a member of a church that may appear as about to fall, christian is not a member of the church Ellen White was referring to in this statement. That is simple and easy to understand, and really has nothing to do with my views on Ellen White's writings. The statement is clear and plain without anyone's interpretations being added to it.
-
The bottom line remains:
"The church may appear as about to fall, but it does not fall. It remains, while the sinners in Zion will be sifted out--the chaff separated from the precious wheat" (2SM 380).
If christian is not a member of a church that may appear as about to fall, christian is not a member of the church Ellen White was referring to in this statement. That is simple and easy to understand, and really has nothing to do with my views on Ellen White's writings. The statement is clear and plain without anyone's interpretations being added to it.
Interesting, Bob.
And in the same paragraph.... "We must be divested of our self-righteousness and arrayed in the righteousness of Christ."
That statement is also "clear and plain."
-
Sure, that is very true.
-
Reading through these last few pages is a classic demonstration of a
1)left brain dominate person (very logical and focused on one topic) trying to converse with
2) someone who mixes many things together and adds a heavy dose of personal putdowns to make their point.
Person 1 would find person 2's arguments rather illogical and evasive of the point in question and frustrating to reason with.
Person 2 would find person 1's arguments as rather "dull of understanding" (as they rather emphatically declared), and also frustrating as they don't want to follow the argument but deal with a larger picture that avoids that particular argument.
However, it seems to me that person 2 is so intent on proving the Seventh-day Adventist Church, as a recognized church, will not go through, that he evades the question asked.
I do believe he has some very valid points -- however, those points address the LEADERSHIP and problems in the church, not the church itself.
EGW makes several statements of the "bright lights" going out, and that few who are in leadership today will be in leadership during the last crises, etc.
The church APPEARS to fall, but it will not. What does that mean?
In vision I saw two armies in terrible conflict. One army was led by banners bearing the world's insignia; the other was led by the bloodstained banner of Prince Immanuel. Standard after standard was left to trail in the dust as company after company from the Lord's army joined the foe and tribe after tribe from the ranks of the enemy united with the commandment-keeping people of God. An angel flying in the midst of heaven put the standard of Immanuel into many hands, while a mighty general cried out with a loud voice: "Come into line. Let those who are loyal to the commandments of God and the testimony of Christ now take their position. 8T.40
It's because there is so much compromise and outright sin in the church that it will look like the church will vanish when the crises hits.
What clouds of chaff will then be borne away by the fan of God! Where now our eyes can discover only rich floors of wheat, will be chaff blown away with the fan of God. Every one who is not centered in Christ will fail to stand the test and ordeal of that day.{RH, November 8, 1892
So there is NO question on that point -- to be in the church now is NOT a sure ticket to heaven.
However, the question remains --
What church is EGW talking about when she says:
"The church may appear as about to fall, but it does not fall. It remains, while the sinners in Zion will be sifted out--the chaff separated from the precious wheat" (2SM 380).
-
Dedication, thank you for your thoughtful post.
I've been wondering if it was in part due to the differences between men and women, and your point about left brain individuals seems to support that suspicion.