brotherly love Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Brotherly love, I think we will have to agree to disagree. I think Mark Finley and Ty Gibson would disagree that the celibacy of Catholic priests and women's ordination are related, and I believe their theology to be sound. Further, this sounds close to saying that these men have apostatized, and they both are ordained ministers of the Gospel. If you believe this to be the case, you should go to them, and not accuse them behind their back. And I do not believe it for a moment. In relation to Deborah, while we do know that God asked 2 men to lead before Ellen White, nevertheless He chose her and ordained her to be a prophet in spiritual Israel. Pastoring is a lessor gift than prophecy Where did I come close to saying Mark Finley or Ty Gibson apostasized? Were did I accuse them behind their back? I dont even think the roman Catholic church has apostasized on a celibate male clergy. WO ordanation is also not apostacy. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/apostasy Apostacy 1. a total desertion of or departure from one's religion, principles, party, cause, etc. You claim that WO is a non issue in which you stand on neutral grounds, but your response does not show neutrality. You seem to speak for them on the issue of womens ordanation and a celibate priesthood and a connection between the two. The canary in the coal mine is that you never even asked me about the connection. Very disappointing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lauralea Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Brotherly love I can see we need to agree to disagree on this topic. In terms of apostasy, it is not a point by point matter, so if a church is said by inspired writings to have apostatized, and we compare the positions of others to their positions, it is close to saying they have apostatized as well. The OP was referring to the article written by Ty Gibson, which I read and commented on appropriately. I also expanded upon it to some extent with related thoughts. When posting, I prefer to keep my comments related to the OP. Even when I disagree, I try to disagree with concrete things they have said and not go off in a completely different direction. If anything, I should have brought my comments back earlier to the OP instead of getting off on the sidelight of a blanket review of his and others reasons for it as a response to others who were really not commenting on his writings. If you want to start an topic on your views on Women's Ordination, people can comment on them appropriately as they wish. It would be helpful to actually read the article if you want to comment on a post. If you want to post articles by those who do not believe women's ordination is not Biblical, I suggest Gerard Damsteegt. He is a respected Bible scholar who is conservative and uses well reasoned lines of thought. Quote Behold what manner of love the Father hath given unto us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LifeHiscost Posted June 25, 2015 Share Posted June 25, 2015 Not only that one but the one after: http://www.lightbearers.org/shall-angels-or-demons-guide-us/ These quotes from his discourse are especially telling re; whose leading the mind. I'm finding within myself as the spirit of this world continues its' downward spiral, the necessity of daily feeding on the Word and seeking through the Holy Spirit, Divine appointments for helping to cooperate in the fulfilling of the last great commission to be accomplished by the remnant church. “The grace of Christ must mold our entire being, and its triumph will not be complete until the heavenly universe shall witness habitual tenderness of feeling, Christ-like love and holy deeds in the deportment of the children of God” (Amazing Grace, p. 235). While we draw battle lines in the sand within the church, heaven would be full of joy if we would simply love one another in our political process: “The church of Christ, enfeebled, defective as she may appear, is the one object on earth upon which He bestows, in a special sense, His love and His regard. The church is the theater of His grace, in which He delights to effect transformations so wonderful that the angels look upon them with astonishment and joy. Heaven is full of rejoicing when the members of the human family are seen to be full of compassion for one another, loving one another as Christ has loved them” (Special Testimonies To Battle Creek Church, pp. 18-19). 14Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. 15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.....Matthew 28 God is Love! Jesus saves! Lauralea 1 Quote Lift Jesus up!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lauralea Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 I hadn't read this before, it is quoted in the above passage by Ty Gibson, but I had read something like it, and I why I felt it necessary to defend those accused of teaching falsely. “A person who will allow any degree of suspicion or censure to rest upon his fellow workers, while he neither rebukes the complainers nor faithfully presents the matter before the one condemned, is doing the work of the enemy. He is watering the seeds of discord and of strife, the fruit of which he will have to meet in the day of God” (Counsels on Health, pp. 296-298). Naomi 1 Quote Behold what manner of love the Father hath given unto us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brotherly love Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Brotherly love I can see we need to agree to disagree on this topic. In terms of apostasy, it is not a point by point matter, so if a church is said by inspired writings to have apostatized, and we compare the positions of others to their positions, it is close to saying they have apostatized as well. The OP was referring to the article written by Ty Gibson, which I read and commented on appropriately. I also expanded upon it to some extent with related thoughts. When posting, I prefer to keep my comments related to the OP. Even when I disagree, I try to disagree with concrete things they have said and not go off in a completely different direction. If anything, I should have brought my comments back earlier to the OP instead of getting off on the sidelight of a blanket review of his and others reasons for it as a response to others who were really not commenting on his writings. If you want to start an topic on your views on Women's Ordination, people can comment on them appropriately as they wish. It would be helpful to actually read the article if you want to comment on a post. If you want to post articles by those who do not believe women's ordination is not Biblical, I suggest Gerard Damsteegt. He is a respected Bible scholar who is conservative and uses well reasoned lines of thought. We are within a point to point discussion, and that discussion is specifically WO, so I dont know how apostasy comes into play-nobody is turning their back on the faith. The comment that i should actually read the article before i comment on a post is totally unsubstantiated. How do you know I did not read the article? This is why attacking the person works-this unfounded accusation has been repeated by a couple of people, and know it is actually believed and repeated like a fact. The personal attacks on here make it almost impossible to gain traction on any given topic. Just in a couple of your responses you have accused me of claiming others with apostasy, then a type of apostasy, and now not actually reading the article. None of these claims come from anything I have actually said. Lets take a sneak peek at a glaring mistake Mr Gibson made in his article "The fact is, pretty much the whole Bible is written to men since nearly all ancient cultures, including Israel, did not regard women as equal with men, while Scripture indicates that God was leading to a correct estimation of women (Matthew 19:3-10). So as we read Scripture it becomes obvious that in addressing men, both men and women are included. Three examples should suffice to make the obvious point." This is not a fact. The fact is that very few men had the bible in their hands. In todays world we put educational emphasis on reading and writing because print is cheap as it is very common. In yesterdays world, the educational emphasis was on memorization and recitation because print was scarce and very very time consuming and expensive. The bible was formed in an oral culture, not in a written culture. it could not be written to men, because very very few men would have had the bible in their hands. It was spoken to all of Israel. All of Israel was to learn, understand and obey the Torah. Men and women Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hch Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 We are within a point to point discussion, and that discussion is specifically WO ... very few men would have had the bible in their hands. It was spoken to all of Israel. All of Israel was to learn, understand and obey the Torah. Men and women Ty's presentation is solid. Jesus said in Mat 18:18 " Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Was Jesus saying that man would set Heaven's standard by what man allowed on earth. But Abraham allowed multiple wives. Is that binding in Heaven? Christ answered that question "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh" (Mar 10:6-8). Which is to say that man's standard from the beginning was that a man could marry a woman. But that is not Heaven's standard for Jesus also states: "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven" (Mat_22:30). Clearly Jesus gave Heaven's standard which was not multiple wives and husbands or even having a husband or a wife. Thus Christ is not setting man's standard on earth as being binding in Heaven, but teaching that Heaven's standard is what should be binding on earth. But regarding marriage, not all living on earth could accept Heaven's standard at this time: "For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it" (Mat_19:12). Regarding WO, Heaven's standard is clear: "And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen" (Rev_1:6). "And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth" (Rev_5:10). The redeemed are not all male. Thus Heaven's standard is that men and women are Kings and Priests, but not all are willing to accept heaven's standard as the rule on earth. In the marriage relationship on earth, God has made allowance for hormonal activity; allowances that will not be necessary in Heaven. But in the matter of WO, God has given ample evidence in His word and the Spirit of Prophecy for us to understand His will. Thus it boils down to a matter of "rightly dividing the word of truth," which will be a salvation issue when all is said and done. How do you read Luke 12:47 "And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes"? Or Christ's prayer to God in Mat_6:10? "Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven." GayatfootofCross, Johann and Naomi 3 Quote His child Henry Bible student/Author https://www.loudcry101.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GayatfootofCross Posted June 26, 2015 Share Posted June 26, 2015 Ty's presentation is solid. Jesus said in Mat 18:18 " Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Was Jesus saying that man would set Heaven's standard by what man allowed on earth. But Abraham allowed multiple wives. Is that binding in Heaven? Christ answered that question "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh" (Mar 10:6-8). Which is to say that man's standard from the beginning was that a man could marry a woman. But that is not Heaven's standard for Jesus also states: "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven" (Mat_22:30). Clearly Jesus gave Heaven's standard which was not multiple wives and husbands or even having a husband or a wife. Thus Christ is not setting man's standard on earth as being binding in Heaven, but teaching that Heaven's standard is what should be binding on earth. But regarding marriage, not all living on earth could accept Heaven's standard at this time: "For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it" (Mat_19:12). Regarding WO, Heaven's standard is clear: "And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen" (Rev_1:6). "And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth" (Rev_5:10). The redeemed are not all male. Thus Heaven's standard is that men and women are Kings and Priests, but not all are willing to accept heaven's standard as the rule on earth. In the marriage relationship on earth, God has made allowance for hormonal activity; allowances that will not be necessary in Heaven. But in the matter of WO, God has given ample evidence in His word and the Spirit of Prophecy for us to understand His will. Thus it boils down to a matter of "rightly dividing the word of truth," which will be a salvation issue when all is said and done. How do you read Luke 12:47 "And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes"? Or Christ's prayer to God in Mat_6:10? "Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven." God is so Good Naomi 1 Quote For all Eternity God waited in anticipation for You to show up to give You a Message - YOUR INCLUDED !!! { a merry dance }?️? " If you tarry 'til you're better You will never come at all " .. "I Will Rise" by the late great saved Glen Campbell If your picture of God is starting to feel too good to be true, you're starting to move in the right direction. "My bounty is as boundless as the sea, My love as deep; the more I give to thee, The more I have, for both are infinite." Romeo and Juliet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lauralea Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 (edited) The OP is on Ty Gibson and the article he wrote. I was commenting on the article and position he had. Did not want or intend to rehash whole pro vs con WO thing. Sorry if it appeared otherwise and if you read the article but chose to not say anything about it at all. Saying a position an ordained Adventist minister has is of the same cloth as a position of the Roman church is saying he is in or on the verge of apostasy. Sevaral times i have said i guess we eill need to agree to disagree on this point. in person if i say that my friends understand i do not want to talk about it anymore but i guess it is hard to change the subject online. Anyway my hard drIve died today and I have the Sabbath School superintendants remarks on the health risks of alcohol with a paper I wrote on it and need to review. It was the last thing I printed before the hard drive died. Take care Edited June 27, 2015 by Tom Wetmore removed quote box... Quote Behold what manner of love the Father hath given unto us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brotherly love Posted June 27, 2015 Share Posted June 27, 2015 Regarding WO, Heaven's standard is clear: "And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen" (Rev_1:6). "And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth" (Rev_5:10). The redeemed are not all male. Thus Heaven's standard is that men and women are Kings and Priests, but not all are willing to accept heaven's standard as the rule on earth. I would like to thank you for using the bible to back up your stance, and having a well balanced conversation. I believe the thrust of your post was leading up to these two verses-so I will shorten this up a bit and respond to them. The verses state that we are to be kings and priests. A more correct translation would be " and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father" Men and women would be included in this kingdom and priesthood. Our Davidic King's blood is what brings us into this kingdom and priesthood. The problem with relating this to womens ordination is that it has little to do with the subject. The message to the faithful of the New testament is shared with the faithful of the old testament. In Exodus 19:6 all of Israel was set apart to be a kingdom of priests. this also would have also included men and women. Exodus 19:3-6 “This is what you are to say to the descendants of Jacob and what you are to tell the people of Israel: 4 ‘You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. 5 Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, 6 you[a] will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites.” The words were given to all of Israel, male and female. Was everyone to be part of the priesthood? Was this a prooftext that women could be part of the priesthood? No, only men were allowed to be part of the priesthood. The message in both testaments uses the priesthood as an example for the faithful to follow. The kingdom of Israel was to be set apart from the world, as the priest was set apart from society. The emphasis is on the faithful followers relationship with the Lord, not a functioning priesthood and his duties. Our relationship with the Lord also bears witness to the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hch Posted June 29, 2015 Share Posted June 29, 2015 The message in both testaments uses the priesthood as an example for the faithful to follow. The kingdom of Israel was to be set apart from the world, as the priest was set apart from society. The emphasis is on the faithful followers relationship with the Lord, not a functioning priesthood and his duties. Our relationship with the Lord also bears witness to the world. If using men and woman in God's service is good enough for God, I say with Christ "Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven" (Matthew 6:10) Naomi 1 Quote His child Henry Bible student/Author https://www.loudcry101.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Kevin H Posted June 30, 2015 Moderators Share Posted June 30, 2015 (edited) Then turn to the bible and we can have a discussion. Except that you demand that we only use the Bible via your rules, otherwise you do not allow it. Edited June 30, 2015 by Kevin H rudywoofs (Pam), CoAspen and phkrause 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hch Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 (edited) Except that you demand that we only use the Bible via your rules, otherwise you do not allow it. Some folks have demanded to see an example of Woman's Ordination being sited in the Bible before they would accept it. (They will not accept prophetess Deborah and Elder Phebe). I would like them to show where WO is forbidden in the Bible. Edited July 1, 2015 by hch left out a word or two phkrause and Kevin H 2 Quote His child Henry Bible student/Author https://www.loudcry101.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hch Posted July 3, 2015 Share Posted July 3, 2015 Just came across this EG White quote: "Sunday, August 27. Today we are to...speak to those who want to hear the words of truth. I have thought how profitable it would be to have minute men, laborers together with God, who would be instant in season and out of season. The Lord's work is not to stand on ceremony, with a precise time to be observed for every line of work. When a great and decisive work is to be done, God chooses men and women to do this work, and it will feel the loss if the talents of both are not combined." {17MR 218.1} Tom Wetmore, phkrause, Johann and 1 other 4 Quote His child Henry Bible student/Author https://www.loudcry101.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brotherly love Posted July 21, 2015 Share Posted July 21, 2015 Except that you demand that we only use the Bible via your rules, otherwise you do not allow it. Your response is completely meaningless in a conversation! It is evidence of a lack of a response...kinda like a kid in a sandbox argument Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoAspen Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 So.....is his observation in correct? If not, than defend your point of view instead of complaining about his response. GayatfootofCross 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brotherly love Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 So.....is his observation in correct? If not, than defend your point of view instead of complaining about his response. This is more of the same. In a normal conversation or dialogue, two or more people make their points and counter-points on a given subject. This is called bouncing the ball back and forth. I made my counter-point to a post supplied by HCH. Kevin H made the decision not to bounce the ball back and forth and resorted to a meaningless and vague personal attack instead of dealing with the subject matter. It is not my responsibility to defend myself from unsubstantiated personal allegations. This would be off subject, and is evidence the other person does not have a substantial counter-point. It is just that simple..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hch Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 (edited) If using men and woman in God's service is good enough for God, I say with Christ "Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven" (Matthew 6:10) How should we understand passages like this from the Spirit of Prophecy? "While my husband lived, he acted as a helper and counselor in the sending out of the messages that were given to me. We traveled extensively. Sometimes light would be given to me in the night season, sometimes in the daytime before large congregations. The instruction I received in vision was faithfully written out by me, as I had time and strength for the work. Afterward we examined the matter together, my husband correcting grammatical errors and eliminating needless repetition. Then it was carefully copied for the persons addressed, or for the printer." {PH116 4.2} "Oh, that I could command language of sufficient force to make the impression I [EGW] wish to make upon my fellow laborers in the gospel! My brethren, you are handling the words of life; you are dealing with minds that are capable of the highest development, if directed in the right channel. But there is too much exhibition of self in the discourses given. Christ crucified, Christ ascended into the heavens, Christ coming again, should so soften, gladden, and fill the mind of the minister of the gospel that he will present these truths to the people in love and deep earnestness. The minister will then be lost sight of and Jesus magnified. The people will be so impressed with these all-absorbing subjects that they will talk of them and praise them, instead of praising the minister, the mere instrument. But if the people, while they praise the minister, have little interest in the word preached, he may know that the truth is not sanctifying his own soul. He does not speak to his hearers in such a manner that Jesus is honored and His love magnified." {4T 399.2} Edited July 22, 2015 by hch left out a word Quote His child Henry Bible student/Author https://www.loudcry101.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Gregory Matthews Posted July 22, 2015 Moderators Share Posted July 22, 2015 I disagree with the statement that I have quoted below. No Christian denomination is 100% wrong in everything. No Christian denomination is 100%, fully correct in everything. The Roman Catholic Church is correct on some issues that Adventists hold. We may not be in total agreement as to what issues the RC Church is correct. But, any informed person would say that the RC Church and the SDA Church do hold common agreement on some issues. Therefore, it cannot be correct to say that a statement that a SDA ministers holds a position held by the RC Church is to suggest that the SDA minister is on the verge of apostasy. Saying a position an ordained Adventist minister has is of the same cloth as a position of the Roman church is saying he is in or on the verge of apostasy. Naomi 1 Quote Gregory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrators Tom Wetmore Posted July 22, 2015 Author Administrators Share Posted July 22, 2015 This is more of the same. In a normal conversation or dialogue, two or more people make their points and counter-points on a given subject. This is called bouncing the ball back and forth. I made my counter-point to a post supplied by HCH. Kevin H made the decision not to bounce the ball back and forth and resorted to a meaningless and vague personal attack instead of dealing with the subject matter. It is not my responsibility to defend myself from unsubstantiated personal allegations. This would be off subject, and is evidence the other person does not have a substantial counter-point. It is just that simple..... Administrative Note: No, you are the one continuing more of the very same non-responsiveness as you accuse others of. You response to anything of substance in opposition to what you post is met with whining and complaining about others. Stop it. Just stop it. If you have a problem with another member do not hijack a topic with such diversionary complaints and arguments. Send that person a PM or contact a moderator or Administrator by PM. And no, a "normal conversation or dialog" does not play point vs. counter-point on a given subject. That is called a debate. Debates have structure and rules. Conversations, not so much. Save "bouncing the ball back and forth" for basket ball. And yes, it is that simple. You don't seem to get it that you are driving this off subject by your evasion of engagement in the substance of the topic. Back to the topic, please. Kevin H 1 Quote "Absurdity reigns and confusion makes it look good." "Sinless perfection is such a shallow goal." "I love God only as much as the person I love the least." *Forgiveness is always good news. And that is the gospel truth. (And finally, the ideas expressed above are solely my person views and not that of any organization with which I am associated.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GayatfootofCross Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 (edited) Administrative Note: No, you are the one continuing more of the very same non-reposinveness as you accuse others of. You response to anything of substance in opposition to what you post is met with whining and complaining about others. Stop it. Just stop it. If you have a problem with another member do not hijack a topic with such diversionary complaints and arguments. Send that person a PM or contact a moderator or Administrator by PM. And no, a "normal conversation or dialog" does not play point vs. counter-point on a given subject. That is called a debate. Debates have structure and rules. Conversations, not so much. Save "bouncing the ball back and forth" for basket ball. And yes, it is that simple. You don't seem to get it that you are driving this off subject by your evasion of engagement in the substance of the topic. Back to the topic, please. Edited July 22, 2015 by GayatfootofCross Quote For all Eternity God waited in anticipation for You to show up to give You a Message - YOUR INCLUDED !!! { a merry dance }?️? " If you tarry 'til you're better You will never come at all " .. "I Will Rise" by the late great saved Glen Campbell If your picture of God is starting to feel too good to be true, you're starting to move in the right direction. "My bounty is as boundless as the sea, My love as deep; the more I give to thee, The more I have, for both are infinite." Romeo and Juliet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lauralea Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 It is true that not all positions of the Roman church are incorrect, but the specific one Gibson's position was compared to was according to Paul. Here is how he describes it, and how he describes those who hold it. I would not want to hold views "of the same cloth," because if I did it appears I would be in apostasy. 4 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. I Tim 4:1-3 Quote Behold what manner of love the Father hath given unto us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hch Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 It is true that not all positions of the Roman church are incorrect... Unfortunately, the incorrect Roman church position that a man is the vicar of Christ appears to be the one that headship theology advocates are trying to bring into the SDA Church with their opening wedge that only a man can be Christ's representative as an ordained minister. Some trash has entered the church since 1844 and it's still trying to enter today. Would Satan try to corrupt all the churches except ours? "The message of the fall of Babylon, as given by the second angel, is repeated, with the additional mention of the corruptions which have been entering the churches since 1844. The work of this angel comes in at the right time to join in the last great work of the third angel's message as it swells to a loud cry. And the people of God are thus prepared to stand in the hour of temptation, which they are soon to meet. I saw a great light resting upon them, and they united to fearlessly proclaim the third angel's message." {EW 277.1} Kevin H 1 Quote His child Henry Bible student/Author https://www.loudcry101.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brotherly love Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Unfortunately, the incorrect Roman church position that a man is the vicar of Christ appears to be the one that headship theology advocates are trying to bring into the SDA Church with their opening wedge that only a man can be Christ's representative as an ordained minister. Some trash has entered the church since 1844 and it's still trying to enter today. Would Satan try to corrupt all the churches except ours? Those who oppose womens ordination in protestant denominations have nothing in common with the catholic views of the papacy. This would be a gross misrepresentation. To call your brothers and sisters trash on non essential doctrine is the height of a dogmatic worldview. What worse for your own words is that it is the womens ordination camp that is trying to enter the church. Not the other way around. To make claims of satan with those who you disagree with on non essential doctrine is yet again the height of a dogmatic worldview gone wild. Those who embrace individualism, materialism, relative morality, and cultural values over the wisdom of God will learn the hard way. This is already hapenning with the emptying of the pews in the west. It creates a weak nuclear family, and church family. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rudywoofs (Pam) Posted July 23, 2015 Members Share Posted July 23, 2015 To call your brothers and sisters trash on non essential doctrine is the height of a dogmatic worldview. to wrongfully accuse someone of something he didn't do, isn't exactly a charming Christian virtue.. hch quite obviously is referring to various dogmas, NOT people, as "trash".... Quote Pam Meddle Not In the Affairs of Dragons; for You Are Crunchy and Taste Good with Ketchup. If we all sang the same note in the choir, there'd never be any harmony. Funny, isn't it, how we accept Grace for ourselves and demand justice for others? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hch Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Those who oppose womens ordination in protestant denominations have nothing in common with the catholic views of the papacy. This would be a gross misrepresentation. To call your brothers and sisters trash on non essential doctrine is the height of a dogmatic worldview. What worse for your own words is that it is the womens ordination camp that is trying to enter the church. Not the other way around. To make claims of satan with those who you disagree with on non essential doctrine is yet again the height of a dogmatic worldview gone wild. Those who embrace individualism, materialism, relative morality, and cultural values over the wisdom of God will learn the hard way. This is already hapenning with the emptying of the pews in the west. It creates a weak nuclear family, and church family. My how you have twisted my words from what I thought I was writing. Hard to imagine how what I said could have been read as you have given it back to me. If anyone else reads me as you read me, I'd have to rewrite it to clear up the muddy water. Quote His child Henry Bible student/Author https://www.loudcry101.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.