Print

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

[Johann]

Some years back I made the life and teachings of Augustine of Hippo the theme of a special study. I read a few of his biographies, volumes of his own writings and of his sermons and the effects of Augustine on the Roman Catholic Church through the centuries. I discovered that the writings of Augustine had much greater impact on the church of Rome throughout the middle ages than Scripture or anything else. A preacher had to use about 75% of his material from Augustine. . .

Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk and he never discarded all of Augustine. Augustine might even have a greater impact on the teachings of some Seventh-day Adventists than we imagine. Even among the very elect. We have a tendency to adhere to traditions.

While Augustine was a professor of speech at the Universities of Carthage, Rome, and Milan he was still a pagan. He became a Christian by watching the Bishop of Milan, greatly impressed that the Bishop managed life without a woman. So he sent his own woman back to North Africa where she came from. For a while he had to have another woman, but he finally won the full victory over women in his life.

When Augustine joined the Church he discovered the Church had no theology to support infant baptism, nor the priesthood, nor the cloisters. So he started twisting Scripture to formulate the new theology and doctrine. And this is where Rome has its foundation which many protestant churches have accepted. It is amazing to discover how some otherwise solid Seventh-day Adventist are beguiled by these teachings of Augustin of Hippo and following it rather than Scripture. What will prevent them from taking the next steps in following Rome when they discover they have already clasped the hands of Rome across the gulf?

[Bob Pickle]

You are intelligent enough to know that I have never held the premise that we should set standards based upon contemporary cultural context.  That has not been my position at any time in the past and it is not my position now.

Then Gregory, I assume from this comment that you reject the making of none effect of Paul's instruction on this question, using the argument that it Paul was merely reflecting the culture of his day? I welcome hearing a more biblical, non-cultural approach to interpreting Paul's words that would still allow for ordaining women to the gospel ministry.

The Jesuits are still hard at work convincing the very elect to follow a thousand year old sanctified Roman Catholic tradition in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, as well as sections of other denominations.

Johann, are you suggesting that the Jesuits are the ones who want us to follow Paul's instruction on this question? It's the Jesuits that are telling us to follow the Bible?

[Bob Pickle]

Gregory and Johann,

Last fall the GC Annual Council voted down the NAD request to permit commissioned ministers to serve as conference and mission presidents. Then the NAD voted to do it anyway. Then by Jan. 31, the NAD had to backtrack since they didn't have authority to do that.

We have official GC Session votes in 1990 and 1995 against the ordination of women. According to 9T 261, Ellen White believed that GC Session votes have authority. How much authority? That statement was made within a discussion of whether the GC was the voice of God. NAD Working Policy states that GC Session votes are the highest authority under God.

Kevin Paulson claims that in the spring of 2010, 8 divisions did not want to revisit the issue of women's ordination, and 3 divisions did. At the 2010 GC Session, it was voted to have a worldwide study of the biblical theology of ordination, leading up to the 2014 Annual Council and 2015 GC Session.

Why did the NAD last fall vote to do what they had been told not to do? Why aren't these unions and conferences waiting until after the study commission process is completed? Why are they refusing to acknowledge and submit to the authority of the GC Sessions on this question?

If there was a clear biblical mandate to ordain women to the gospel ministry, it would be different. But there isn't. Instead we have Paul stating that women are not to take the leading positions because of creation-based and fall-based arguments.

Do you support the current rebellion, or do you support the world church?

[Bob Pickle]

Johann,

In what specific ways are Adventists today following the teachings of Augustine?

[Murcielago]

It seems that following Scripture is a precarious endeavor. SDAs, Catholics, Baptists, Amish, and many others are each more Scriptural than each of the others, and they each have powerful scriptural argument for their positions. Yet each, without exception, only follow the scriptures they choose to follow, brazenly ignoring or discounting those they choose not to. Where it suits them, they interpret various scriptures as literal, non-literal, subject to the culture, or no longer valid. This results in a fast increasing population of young, educated members viewing the corporately held beliefs to be without veracity, and rightfully so. The protection of traditional identity is traditionally far more important than the pursuit of truth.

[Johann]

I see it is the time for me to stand for TRUTH in this matter, since so many are completely blinded by Rome.

What is the reason why our leadership is spreading the Great Controversy with one hand while they bow at the altar of Rome with the other knee? That makes the Great Controversy of no effect?

Yes, you have the words of Paul - as interpreted by the ancient Roman tradition while there is, as far as I have seen, not the slightest support for this in any of Ellen G White's writings.

The history of how this has been handled by the various sessions of the General Conference only indicate how deeply our church is infiltrated by the teachings of Rome, and it indicates that, except by the strong work of the Holy Spirit, our church will remain in this deception for years to come. I will not condemn you for remaining within the ties of Rome, but I think it is my duty to warn, because the end of our history is at hand.

Pray about it!

[Snoopy]

It seems that following Scripture is a precarious endeavor. SDAs, Catholics, Baptists, Amish, and many others are each more Scriptural than each of the others, and they each have powerful scriptural argument for their positions. Yet each, without exception, only follow the scriptures they choose to follow, brazenly ignoring or discounting those they choose not to. Where it suits them, they interpret various scriptures as literal, non-literal, subject to the culture, or no longer valid. This results in a fast increasing population of young, educated members viewing the corporately held beliefs to be without veracity, and rightfully so. The protection of traditional identity is traditionally far more important than the pursuit of truth.

Excellent post, Murcielago.  In my opinion, the GC is most certainly NOT the voice of God!!  I don't pretend to be a Biblical or SOP scholar, but if EGW were here now I am quite certain she would agree with me!!

[Johann]

Johann,

In what specific ways are Adventists today following the teachings of Augustine?

By following his teachings on the role of women. He seemed to tie this all together, so if Rome gains your little finger they will try to catch the whole hand as well. The next step could be infant baptism. Why not just sprinkle a few drops of holy water as you have your child dedication? Not too many at first, it should not create a suspicion right at the beginning.

[Alex L. Walker]

The Apostle Paul in the book of Timothy, clearly states that a pastor a deacon is to be a man of one wife.

It is also understood that a man represents the head of a family. Same is true within the church.

There is no biblical grounds to support women clergy. The Bible is clear.

[Alex L. Walker]

And Snoopy, YES, as long as they are not engaging in sex.

[Murcielago]

The Apostle Paul in the book of Timothy, clearly states that a pastor a deacon is to be a man of one wife.

It is also understood that a man represents the head of a family. Same is true within the church.

There is no biblical grounds to support women clergy. The Bible is clear.

There is biblical support for any position a person cares to take on almost any subject. Paul implies that he supports the position you take on this subject. He is also equally clear in his support for positions that you disagree with. The Bible is equally clear to you, Johann, Gailon, Bob, Gregory and Horsethief.

[Snoopy]

And Snoopy, YES, as long as they are not engaging in sex.

Huh?  YES what?  I don't remember the question - sorry...

[Johann]

The Apostle Paul in the book of Timothy, clearly states that a pastor a deacon is to be a man of one wife.

It is also understood that a man represents the head of a family. Same is true within the church.

There is no biblical grounds to support women clergy. The Bible is clear.

Not at all, Alex. You are basing your "faith" on a translation which is an interpretation in tune with the Roman Catholic view. Most modern translations make it clear that this could apply to both male and female deacons.

The Roman mark has left its impression everywhere around us - just to make sure that fhe whole world shall worship it. To me this is a clear mark of deception.

[Johann]

The Apostle Paul in the book of Timothy, clearly states that a pastor a deacon is to be a man of one wife.

It is also understood that a man represents the head of a family. Same is true within the church.

There is no biblical grounds to support women clergy. The Bible is clear.

There is biblical support for any position a person cares to take on almost any subject. Paul implies that he supports the position you take on this subject. He is also equally clear in his support for positions that you disagree with. The Bible is equally clear to you, Johann, Gailon, Bob, Gregory and Horsethief.

And it does not force you to make your own decision if that is against your "nature"!

[Murcielago]

The Apostle Paul in the book of Timothy, clearly states that a pastor a deacon is to be a man of one wife.

It is also understood that a man represents the head of a family. Same is true within the church.

There is no biblical grounds to support women clergy. The Bible is clear.

There is biblical support for any position a person cares to take on almost any subject. Paul implies that he supports the position you take on this subject. He is also equally clear in his support for positions that you disagree with. The Bible is equally clear to you, Johann, Gailon, Bob, Gregory and Horsethief.

And it does not force you to make your own decision if that is against your "nature"!

Very true. One can choose a dogma or not. But most people tend to stay with whatever they were raised with in religion and politics, as that forms the foundations of their long-term identity.