Leaderboard

In the first place, I do not believe that it is in any way a form of being demon possessed; it is a physical, chemical issue. To add to what others have posted and most recently Deb's, it can not separate you from God's love; only you can do that. When we are ill, either mentally or physically it is often difficult to focus on Bible study, prayer or any type of spiritual meditation. That is one good reason to work to keep our mind and body in as good of condition ... health wise ... as possible. That being said, there are things we cannot control. Your bi-polar is one; no you did not deserve it but it is the result of our living on a sinful planet. Many of us here live with serious health issues, being in daily pain is difficult. However, as with bi-polar we must trust in the Doctors to treat us with the best possible medicines and advice. I understand that it is difficult ... sometimes I think I don't need that any longer and only make my issues more painful. God gave us the professionals to help us along in this life ... it is our choice to follow their advice, and continue our walk with our Lord. Tell the old devil to take a hike!

As some have already talked about and Stan I think meant, we as a church really need to better define and understand the NT gift of prophecy. It was a problem I think EGW herself was keenly aware of evidenced by her own strong preference to be known simply as a messenger. The words prophet and prophecy are terms that carry a lot of baggage, a considerable part of which do not really contribute positively to the understanding of the NT gift of prophecy. 1Co 14:3 But the person who prophesies speaks to people for edification, encouragement, and consolation. The NT doesn't speak so much about special select people who are designated as prophets, but more about any person who prophecies. The prophet Joel spoke of the gift of the HS being widely given on many people from various categories, old , young, men, women, etc. Peter at Pentecost affirmed that was taking place then and it is a hallmark of God's people for all time and the end of time. What are the sources of edification, encouragement and comfort for any one of us? We are beneficiaries of the gift of prophecy from many places, some quite unexpected and unusual. We seem to focused on the source though and not the result. Pin that light, I can affirm that EGW is a source of edification, encouragement and comfort.

those who went about to kill Jesus were demon controlled. they lead very responsible, successful lives, held positions of power and influence in their society, they were still controlled by demons. struggles with one's mental health is certainly an experience that can interfere with one's patterns of prayer, and devotion and lifestyle, but it cannot separate you from God's love, neither height nor depth nor angels no demons, ....nor anything else in all creation can separate you from the Love of God given to you in Christ Jesus. May God grow you through these trials, he is faithful who will never leave you nor forsake you. You are loved and perfectly understood by your redeemer and restorer. God bless.

It's probably worth noting a couple of things: 1. Belief that there is a gift of prophecy and that Ellen White was one prophet does not mean she is the only prophet or that there will never be another*. 2. The gift of prophecy does not confer inerrancy in all things: a prophet is not what the Pope claims to be. How many times, in the Bible, did God correct prophets? Many. * The fact that most of those who set themselves up as modern-day prophets are crazy notwithstanding.

This is a really interesting article that I came across re response to a gay male who wrote to the Senior Minister at Ashland Baptist and asked if he would be accepted there as a gay man. I would like to put it up for critical review by the group here. --------------------------------------------------------------- “Will I be fully accepted at your church as a gay man?” Below is my response to an email I received that asked the following question: “I believe church should be for all of God’s children. No exceptions. I am a gay man. My question is, would I be fully accepted with no judgment and fully welcome and able to serve at Ashland Avenue Baptist Church?” I have changed all of the identifying information, but other than that, my response is in full below. I hope that it will be helpful to others facing similar questions. Dear D, Welcome home to the beautiful Bluegrass. It is great to hear from you and to hear of your previous connection with Ashland. What a ministry this church has had for almost 100 years. As to your question, it depends on what you mean by “I am a gay man” and what you mean by “accepted completely with no judgment and fully welcome and able to serve at Ashland Avenue?” If by “I am a gay man” you mean that you struggle with same-sex attraction, recognizing any sexual activity outside of a covenant marriage between a man and a woman is sinful and that you desire Christian discipleship to walk in line with the Gospel as you struggle with this temptation, then we would rejoice at your honesty and openness and receive you gladly at Ashland. We have faithful and accountable members right now in that very situation and attempting to live celibate lives to the glory of Christ. Of course, this is really no different than a man who struggles with heterosexual sexually immoral desires or any of the myriads of sinful desires we all struggle with as disciples of Christ. Sin is an equal opportunity offender and something that every Christian struggles with in unique ways. If by “I am a gay man” you mean that you embrace a lifestyle of homosexual activity and you refuse recognize it as sin no matter what the Scripture says and you are looking for a church that will affirm homosexual activity and/or same-sex marriage that would be a different matter entirely. But there is no uniqueness to homosexual sin in regard to this approach. The same would be true if a man came to us and said “I am a ‘name the sin’ man” and by that he meant he planned to keep on sinning in that way and embracing it as a lifestyle no matter what the Scripture says. There is a world of difference between struggling with a sin and embracing a sin. God saves us where we are, but loves us too much too leave us where we are. He is at work conforming his people into the image of Christ. As far as whether or not you would “be accepted completely with no judgment and fully welcome and able to serve at Ashland Avenue” that would depend on what you mean as well. We welcome all to attend our public worship services. Consider this your invitation to worship with us. We would love to have you in attendance. If you mean that you desire help in an accountable community of faith to struggle against sin then I would say that we are a community of believers whose hope is in the finished work of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of our sins—not our goodness. We are all struggling sinners attempting to follow our Lord and Savior and encouraging one another to do so. On the other hand, if you mean that you want a church where any behavior you participate in will be affirmed and accepted in the membership of the church then the answer would be “no.” I do not think you would want to be a part of a congregation would tolerate any behavior or action among its members. We are all broken in our sin and are in great need of acceptance by God through the atoning work of Jesus Christ. We are all guilty sinners who have rebelled against a holy God and who desperately need to respond to Christ in repentant faith. It is the awareness of our sin that reveals our need for redemption in Christ. Self-acceptance must not replace repentance and the liberating love of Christ that delivers us from bondage to our sins. Faith, sin and repentance are Christ-directed. Self-justification is man-directed and fashions God as a sort of divine therapist who helps us to accept ourselves. You are right that God’s gospel is about his “love, acceptance, non-judging, and forgiveness for all” but such is the fruit of believers who trust God and agree with God about their sin in repentant faith. The comfortable and convenient thing would be to do away with the notion of sin altogether but such an approach would abandon the biblical gospel and would not be a demonstration of Christian love. The apostle Paul told the church at Corinth, Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God (1 Cor. 6:9-11). Paul paints a beautiful picture of love, acceptance, and forgiveness for those who come to Christ in faith and repentance of sin. If we lose Paul’s grammar, we lose his gospel. If we shift his words to the present tense and say, “And such are some of you,” we are left with no one washed, no one sanctified, and no one justified. I hope this response provides you respectful and direct answers to your honest questions. I struggle with my own sins so I could easily remove “homosexuality” from this letter and put my sins in those spaces and apply this letter to myself. The good news is that I do not have to be defined by my sins and neither do you. We can be forgiven of our sins and have our identity rooted in Christ and his grace. I am thankful for the dialogue and your interest in my thoughts. I hope to see you soon at Ashland. Blessings in Christ, David E. Prince

Right. When someone drives the bus off the mountain pass and then gets off, that's not the guy you should blame, it's the guy who jumps behind the wheel and desperately tries to minimise the damage on the way down who is really to blame. What do you propose Obama do? More of the same thing that has been proven not to work? Seriously: what is your suggestion, aside from more war? Or even including war, if there's a clearly designed goal. It's a 'wicked problem' that goes right back to the CIA's overthrow of a democratically elected government in Iran to install the Shah, that then went so wrong that the US poured millions in funds and arms in Saddam's Iraq as a counter to it. It makes no sense to start the story at Obama, but neither does it start with Bush 2. It's a much longer story, and it starts with US meddling. What makes you think more US meddling is the solution?

​The accuser of the brethren doesn't care into which side of the ditch we fall. God is Love! Jesus saves!

There is much of value in the work and ministry of EGW. We would not be the denomination that we are today if God had not given her to us. We are indebted to her guidance for our work in education, healthcare, foreign missions and publishing, to just mention a few. Unfortunately just as some people undervalue her there are others who give her a role that is well beyond what she considered her ministry to be.

Bravus: The one word response that you quoted from Whbae was simply a cogent one word evaluation of his knowledge, understanding and position. He should be commended for simplifying it to one word. MOst os us writing her would put such into many words. But, he got it right with one word.

​Well, that's a detailed and cogent argument...

Well, Rachel, it sounds tome like your case is a bit more involved. There is a time and place for everything. In the Church that I attend, the adult Sabbath School classes will take about anything, but some more than others. People are different and they have different spiritual needs.

Whbae: The beliefs required to be a SDA are listed in the Baptismal vows. They are listed in the Church Manual and they were decided by a vote of the General Conference. Those are the official rules of the organization. They are not rules that you have decided. Further, you appear to clearly misunderstand the SDA Church. It is not an organization that is united in doctrine. Rather , as denominational officials have described it, the SDA Church today consists of five (5) distinct groups of people--people who have differing beliefs and life styles. The beliefs required to join the SDA Church are actually minimal.

​In Jesus name we thank You for listening and answering this prayer, according to your will. Amen! 10'Your kingdom come. Your will be done, On earth as it is in heaven....Matthew 6 God is Love! Jesus saves!

​I'm really sorry you're going through this. I think it is sometimes attacks by the devil. Other times it can be caused by imbalances in the body. I've been attacked over the years by the devil. It's not a pleasant thing to go through. Hang in there and keep in a constant attitude of prayer. What I would do is the second I felt the attack coming on I would go to God in prayer and tell Him this was beyond my power to fight and that this was His fight. The attacks would often end in a very short time. From having tears streaming down my face to being at peace in a matter of minutes. God is there for you. Never, Never, give up. I do believe that God can use you for when you come out the other side of this your faith and experience will be a mighty testimony for God. I will be praying for you.

My understanding, according to my friends who are in a position to know, the following is the current denomination position, which is not intended to be changed at the upcoming General Conference: NOTE: This has been the historic position of the Church for many years and existed when I was a denominational pastor.

Also, when it comes to the General Conference in session being the highest voice of God on earth: Don't forget that it was the 1923 General Conference that threw out or demoted Mrs. White's hand picked and trained leaders. They accepted views that Mrs. White fought against. They rejected views that she supported. The church in the 20th century had to suffer the consequences of that General conference in session. It lead to witch hunts through out the church, It set us up for both the Desmond Ford and Walter Rea crisis as well as the friction over women's ordination. Also, many of us have pointed out Biblical evidence for women's ordination but you act like an income tax lawyer looking for loopholes and straining out nats to not accept the Biblical evidence.

Rachel, I cannot challenge your experience. You went through it and I did not. However, I can challenge your understanding of denominational policy, even if people do not always practice it. Here in the U.S. the majority of SDA Congregations would likely, in my thinking, be willing to accept as a member a person who did not accept EGW as a prophet. However,. with the rise of fundamentalism, there is a growing voice in the SDA Church who would want to change that and make a belief in her as a prophet a requirement for membership. I acknowledge that.

Hi Femster, My hearth goes out to you with the hell you must be going through. My oldest son suffered from bipolar disease. As long as he stayed the course on his medication, he was controlled and coltrollable. However, after several months of feeling OK, he would think he was "cured"; stop his medication abruptly; and go off the deep end a few days later; only to be forced to take his meds again. Bottom line - TAKE YOUR MEDS - even when you feel under control. As far as deminic pocession and mental illness goes, I can't say whether or not mental illnes is the result of or the same as mental illness. However, I will propose that at the very least, mental illness provides a huge channel for satan to "enteq'r someone; and the disorganized mind may not be able to distinguish self-talk from the voice of satan. Father God, in the Name of Jesus, set up a fortress around Femster's mind that cannot be penetrated by the evil one! Quiet and calm her mind, Lord! Give her the conviction to keep on her meds; and to NEVER give up calling out to you for help. There is NO mental illness in heaven! We claim "Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven"! We pray the Kingdom over Fem; that there will be no mental illness where she dwells, either.

I believe that EGW had the NT gift of prophecy. I also believe that she did NOT have the gift of prophetic interpretation; and that she (maybe at the encouragement of some of the other pioneers) added some color to her visions by interpreting them in light of the culture of the times and of her peers. For example, she interpreted the main issue of her visions of the last days as "The Sabbath"; when it may have actually been more general than that - like "who do you worship - the God of heaven or the god of this world?" I know that some of you will respond that the Sabbath is a central issue of who we worship; and that's fine - it is also my personal belief for myself. But I don't see Sabbath vs. Sunday or the papacy as the antichrist as EGW sees it. IMO she was mistaken or misguided in how she interpreted her vision. So I guess what I'm saying is that EGW was indeed inspred by God and exercised the gift of prophecy. Was she infallible in her interpretation? No. Are her writings even close to being equal to scripture? Absolutely not. But hey - that's just my jaded opinion. Are some of her writings right on? YES! But I must go with the Bible first. Where her writings are not in accordance with my understanding of scripture, I discard them. It's kinda like eating chicken - I eat the meat and discard the bones.

What would need prophet defined better. Some of the prophets of old were rascals at times. Yet they were still prophets.

On target. Forgiveness does not relieve a person of the consequences of their actions. We should not put temptati0on in the way of a person who is tempted by it. IOW, a Church Treasurer who has stolen congregational money may be forgive, but, that person should never again be a church Treasurer. One who has molested children should not be places in a situation where that person is working with children. Forgiveness does not mean that we do not prosecute.

And women are ordained in those capacities now and have been ordained as local elders for many years with the blessing of the GC. So what is the issue? You and others keep trying to turn it back to an issue of authority. You speak in terms of headship. Understand that we are and have been since the beginning of the Adventist Church centered around the principle of servant leadership, not headship. That sort of headship thinking is precisely that which EGW warned against in speaking agains "kingly powers". Read the essays in the pinned reading assignment.

Once again you insert the headship heresy into your thinking and interpretation of even the context. Your interpretation is based on the long male biased headship tradition of the Catholic church that gave us the flawed translation you keep insisting overrides the real original meaning of the Greek. Scholars of the Greek of the first century are very clear that "prostatis" does not mean "helper", but very much the opposite. It is that tradition that terribly strains the original meaning of the text as Paul wrote it in Greek. Your worry about Paul seeing her as a leader even of himself greatly misunderstands the reality of servant leadership. He is the one who admonished the believers to not see themselves as better than others. He also proclaim that we should be of the same attitude as Christ, explaining that Jesus set aside his rightful kingly robes and humbled himself to be a servant. Paul was in service of the One who proclaimed that the last shall be first and the first last and the greatest among you will be your servant. You do remember that, don't you? A servant leader has no problem recognizing someone among their fellow servants of the King as being a servant leader to themselves. That just highlights a huge obstacle of those who cling to the headship heresy as the foundation of their whole thinking on this issue of who should be a pastor or minister of the Church. It is plainly a hierarchical way of viewing the whole structure and relationships of people in the church. It introduced centuries of distinction between the laity and the clergy classes in the Church that has greatly clouded the reality of the the NT Church. If there is one thing that we as a Church have resisted is kingly power (very much a headship idea) and being a hierarchical Church. If you are a Seventh-day Adventist you should understand what I am talking about. The whole notion of why we go to huge expense (millions of dollars) to put on a world session of the General Conference is precisely because we are not driven by an elitist class of of those at the very top dictating to us what we should believe and do. The delegates are chose from the wide cross section of those in the church at least 50% have to be from the lowest levels of the Church. The last shall be first... This explains it a bit - http://www.adventistreview.org/church-news/story2776-discovering-the-delegates-of-gc-session . Read the article that I linked for you. If you did read it, read it again. Go to our resources (pinned at the top of the topic menu of this subform) and read more. Then we can talk.

Missing the point... Mixing and confusing points, etc... You are placing too much emphasis on the extended English wording of the translation that obscures the simple phrase in Greek. The phrase in Greek is literally "one woman man". (See it in the literal interlinear Bible - http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/tit1.pdf ) Read it as a compound word. The word "one" effectively applies to both "woman" and "man". The same essential phrase with the inversion of woman and man - "one man woman" is very similarly applied to what some have concluded was the office of widow, those virtuous widows that devoted themselves to the church, mentoring the young women, etc. It really just means one woman and one man together or as we would say in English - monogamous. Can you tell me the difference in meaning between saying "I am the husband of one wife" and "I am monogamous"? It conveys the very same concept. But the point you are missing is that in 1Timothy 3:12 he says deacons (diakonos) of the church are to be the husband of one wife. And in Romans 16:1 he refers to Phoebe, a woman, as a deacon (diakonos) of the church at Cenchrea. If "husband of one wife" in 1 Timothy 3:12 is to be taken as restricting the office of diakonos to men only, how can Phoebe be identified as a diakonos? Is Paul contradicting himself? Or is the idea of deacons being men only because of that "on woman man" phrase a misunderstanding of its meaning? The reasonable explanation that reconciles and harmonizes these passages to avoid conflicting meaning is that it is not intended as a male exclusive phrase as those opposed to WO would have us believe. And least you be tempted to go down the path that what Paul's really calling Phoebe was a "deaconess", let me emphasize that the word diakonos that he used in Romans 16:1 is the masculine form of the word. That further reinforces the point that the masculine form of a word is gender inclusive of both male and female.

Did you even read what I posted and actually spend any time studying carefully what both verses in total says about Phoebe!?!?! You missed the point entirely. It is really quite simple if you read carefully, understanding the meaning of the original Greek. The language of introduction and commendation of Phoebe to the believers, the instruction to them to do whatever she asked of them and the two key terms Paul, chose to identify her roles speak volumes of what is happening. Tradition also holds that Paul,entrusted the letter to Phoebe to deliver to them. That was not a simple letter carrier delivery like a mail carrier. The person delivering a letter of this sort in those days was to read it to them (many likely illiterate and there was only one copy) and to teach and explain it to them. As for the husband of one woman idiom ( literally "one woman man") the point is that Paul calls Phoebe a diakonos of a church. In another letter Paul includes that phrase to describe qualification for being a diakonos of the church. If it is a man only qualification, how can Paul say here that Phoebe, a woman is a diakonos of the church? It is because it is not a phrase that is gender specific only to men but is a Greek idiom that simply means monogamy which covers both the man and woman. The number "one" applies to both the man and the woman, just one of each. Read this - https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/2013/04/phoebe-was-she-an-early-church-leader

A VERY well-balanced letter showing love and concern for a struggling brother, yet true to God's principles. I especially liked the first few paragraphs asking what D meant by "I am a gay man" and "be accepted completely". I can think of several people here who would be blessed to read that letter - people on both sides of the discussion.