Leaderboard

Sorry Nan, the statement says (with my additions): I saw that she [Mrs. Hastings] was sealed and would come up at the voice of God [the special resurrection of Daniel 12] and stand upon the earth, and would be with [not one of] the 144,000. I saw we need not mourn for her; she would rest in the time of trouble.--2SM 263 (1850). {LDE 222.4} A major characteristic of the 144,000 is that they do not die. But I do believe that spiritual Israel is made up of women as well as men!!

As the Bible usually represents just men when counting people, most like 144,000 represents male. If this is true there would be a lot more numbers which would include women and children.

There are others that believe that the GC attempted action violated the advice of EGW (See a previous post of min which quotes her), and violates the rights given to the Unions by the GC.

When I was an ABC manager, did that for 20 years, 40 counting overtime , and I sold a lot of EGW to Catholic Priests who gave books like STC and Christ Object Lessons to the Church members at Christmas. BOTh in Oshawa, Canada and Los Angeles, we sold a lot to various Orthodox priests. Many ABC makers will tell similar stories.

I do not believe that God wants us to become more dependent on Him. I do believe that God wants us to trust Him more.

Interesting thought. I never really thought God wanted us to grow to be more and more dependent on Him. It's my opinion that He wants His children to love Him, follow His commandments...and learn through living that His way is best and eventually adopt His way as our own way as well.

It occurred to me.....If a person can be an Adventist and not believe she is a prophet, could a person believe she is a prophet, and not be an Adventist? Of course, this is all academia....and somewhat humorous.....somewhat......

NAY!! It's a mark of a unified Christian apostasy!!!

My early Sabbath keeping revolved more about what one could and could not do on Sabbath, especially the latter. Now it's more about the good I can/could do.

Yes, indeed, respondents answered with satire, to include myself in my post on "Whine." But, notice that the satire was directed against "Wham." IT wasn't against the SDA Church as the Church did not produce Wham. Although it might be said to speak to the thinking the resulted in the production of Wham.

Each of the words that you have listed have some differences in meaning. So, an answer to your question would require a much longer statement than I am prepared to write. However, a common dictionary definition of "satire" includes, along with other meanings, the following: Satire: A literary work in which irony is used to expose folly. From that perspective, the publication that I referenced challenges people to consider what it really important in ones life. It challenges people to consider the importance, or lack of it, of the legal decisions that we often trumpet when they are favorable. It challenges people to think through issues as to how finds given to support the ministry of the SDA Church should be used. This is not to say what is "folly." While satire may involve derision, it includes much more and it does not always involve derision. Satire can expose wickedness. As such, there may be times when it is appropriate in the Christian life as well as times when it is not appropriate. Satire may be ironic, which is an appropriate literary device. However, as you did not list Irony I will not discuss that. Anyway, thank you for asking your question. In short, satire may, or may not, have a place in Christian life and discussion.

8thdaypriest said; I prefer to let the Bible be its own expositor. I have many, many doubts (some grave doubts) concerning the "inspiration" of Ellen G. White. It is your privilege what to believe or not. To me Ellen White helps to understand the Bible better. No matter what Ellen White said there will be people who would not believe her. The very same thing happened in Jesus' day. No matter what Jesus did and said, there were people who would not turn their heart to Jesus.

I have acted on the suggestion of Stewart and moved this thread to my section on Church policy. Normally, I allow much debate. However, in accord with Steward's suggestion, I plan to limit this discussion to suggestions, questions, answers, etc.

According to our original understanding and position on the mark of the beast and seal of God the 144,000 are those who are left standing (for God) after the enforcement of the universal Sunday law and probation closing. According to the biblical definition of "man": Genesis 1:27So God created man in his own image... male and female created he them. Genesis 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. James White: They seem to forget that ‘man’ and ‘men’ in the Scriptures generally means both male and female." --(Review and Herald, Jan. 7, 1858, pp. 68-69)

I have been reading the EGW compilation Last Day Events and the other day came across a statement regarding a certain Sister Hastings, who had recently died.. The comment was made the company did not need to mourn for her, as she would be of the 144,000 I am just passing this on, not trying to argue who is in the group..

​Do you have the SOP reference where it says the incarnation was a "painful process"? I've tried doing a search on the EGW Estate website, and it didn't come up -- I recall either seeing it or hearing about it many years ago, but now I'd like to see where it is printed.

​Pnattmbtc, I agree -- they risked losing the relationship itself. But I am suggesting that their sacrifice involved a real, eternal, cost... something beyond "risk"... something was given up [for our sake] that could never be recovered. Yes, I believe they literally gave up something... not just temporarily, not just potentially, but eternally.

What they were willing to sacrifice was not simply something in their relationship, but they risked losing the relationship itself. "God sent His Son at the risk of failure and eternal loss" (something like DA 29). The fact that the life of Christ was risked was what made the decision difficult.

Rev 6:17 asks a question. "For the great day of His wrath has come, and who is able to stand?" WHO ???? The ANSWER to the question is the 144,000 - "from all the tribes of Israel". These are sealed, and will STAND in "the day of His wrath". When is "the day of His wrath" ? I believe that DAY will be the glorious second coming. That is the DAY the 7th trumpet sounds, when "the kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our LORD and of His Christ" (11:15), when it is "time to reward your servants", and time to destroy those who destroy the earth. It will be the day when the 7 wrath plagues are poured out. In 14:1-5, the 144,000 stand with the Lamb on Mt Zion as the last wrath plagues are poured out on the earth - just as the "great harlot" is burned and Babylon falls. The 4 angels hold back the winds UNTIL the "servants of our God" are "SEALED" "on their foreheads". 7:4 "And I heard the number of those who were sealed. 144,000 "of all the tribes of the children of Israel". First you would have to define "Israel" in Rev 7:4. Personally I do not believe the "Israel" referred to here, is the literal geopolitical nation today called Israel. I don't believe it refers to those who are DNA descendants of Jacob. I believe that ISRAEL, in this passage, is spiritual Israel - faith Israel. She is those who have "prevailed with God" through Jesus Christ. In 14:1-5 John sees the 144,000 standing with the Lamb on Mount Zion. The Father's name is written on their foreheads. They sing "a new song" that no one else can learn. They were "not defiled with women" (false harlot churches) because they have a pure doctrine. They follow the Lamb. They are "firstfruits" of the Lamb. They are without fault before the throne of God. At each "harvest" the "firstfruits" were brought to the Temple and offered to the LORD. Jesus was the "firstfruits" of the "harvest" which was gathered from the earth WHEN the "saints" were resurrected just after Christ was resurrected. That was the Spring harvest. (The Spring harvest was barley. The story of Gideon and the dream of one enemy soldier wherein a "barley cake" rolled thru the camp and knocked down all the tents" is symbolic of Christ.) There was also a Summer harvest, and a Fall harvest. So the question: Of which harvest are the 144,000 the firstfruits? It seems that the "great multitude" are the bulk of that same harvest. v. 9 "After these things I looked, and behold a GREAT MULTITUDE which no one could number of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands." This great multitude is made up of those who "come out of the great tribulation". They have washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb. AND "they are before the throne of God, and serve Him day and night in His temple. SO THESE ARE PRIESTS. Is this "great multitude" the SAME as the 144,000? Or is the "great multitude" in addition to the 144,000? This "multitude" appear to have been delivered at the SAME as the 144,000, and they become priests who "serve Him day and night IN HIS TEMPLE. THE FIRSTFRUITS were always PRESENTED FIRST !!! Which "fruits" are presented first, when Jesus returns? Are they not "those who have fallen asleep"? Paul said, "we who are alive and remain" "will not preceded those who have fallen asleep". Right?? Which makes me wonder whether the DEAD will be the firstfruits, and the rest will be the "great multitude" who will "come out of great tribulation". Just wondering...... If the firstfruits, with the "great multitude", together make up the harvest at the Second Coming - will there not be ANOTHER HARVEST - one presented at a future Tabernacles? Personally, I believe that "harvest" will come from "the rest of the dead". Zechariah 14 has them coming up to Mt Zion for the Feast of Tabernacles. Also - after each harvest, the chaff was burned. Jerusalem and Judea were destroyed by the Romans. The earth will be destroyed and burned by the 7 wrath plagues. And the chaff from "the rest of the dead" will be consumed at Gog/Magog.

Teresaq(SDA), What a deep subject this is! I suggest that the "painful process" of the Incarnation was not so much a physical "pain". "Said the angel, "Think ye that the Father yielded up His dearly beloved Son without a struggle? No, no." It was even a struggle with the God of heaven, whether to let guilty man perish, or to give His darling Son to die for them." (Early Writings p.127) Yes, even though we must think in terms of the Father "sending" His Son, the actual 'suggestion' or 'proposal' [for want of a better term,] came from the Son : "Three times He was shut in by the glorious light about the Father... He then made known to the angelic choir that a way of escape had been made for lost man; that He had been pleading with the Father, and had obtained permission to give His life as a ransom for the race..." (ibid. p.126) The Son pleads that He might go, and then it is that the Father "sends" Him! But I think we have so little comprehension of what it really cost Them! It was not only a horrendous struggle of 6 hours on the Cross; it was not only 33 years of poverty and trials. The plan of salvation cost Them something that they will miss forever. I believe They were willing to sacrifice something in Their relationship that would mean an eternal loss for Them both. It was "He [the Son of God that] proposed to take upon Himself the guilt and shame of sin -- sin so offensive in the sight of God that it would necessitate separation from His Father..." (That I May Know Him p.18)

my mom thought this edition was hysterical!!

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

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.

What kind of question is this? Of course, not. When one joins a fraternity club or any kind organization one swears to abide by the rules set up by that organization. There is no difference for any church. If you want to join the church whether be catholic, methodist, or SDA, you must believe and abide by the doctrine set up by the church. You may call yourself anything but you may not join that organization. SDA church believes that Ellen White was a prophet, a lesser light.

I'm sure that many believers prayed for escape from death or torture at the hands of the Romans. But they had to be ready to suffer for Christ's sake. Today, we're not put into burning oil, or stretched on the rack, or burned alive, or crucified. Here in the West, we have life pretty good - compared with the rest of the world. But we are tormented in OTHER WAYS. I wonder if we can think of our sufferings, as a testing. I was born without a C1. It's called Chiari Malformation. I've had chronic headaches and neck and shoulder pain for 37 years. When I get to feeling too sorry for myself, I try to think of others who have it worse off. I'm not in a wheelchair. I'm not living in a mud hut, or forced into marriage to a Muslim who beats me 4 times a day with a switch. I wasn't born with one of the terrible disfiguring birth defects, you see on the ad's for children's hospital. I have access to medical care and medications. My Mom had Alzheimer's. We finally had to put her into assisted living. She could not be left alone, and my husband and I both worked. (She microwaved a muffin for 30 minutes. Next thing the fire department was calling me from my house.) Anyway, I prayed and prayed that the LORD would just take her before she disintegrated further. My husband believed, but wasn't fully "settled" into it. One weekend he came over to see me, where I was covering at a hospital 2 hours away. He said the prayer before he left to go home. He told the LORD that if it was OK with HIM, and if HE would let Momma go, that he would continue to go over to the Sterling House to visit the folks there. The NEXT MORNING Mom had a massive stroke. She died 4 days later. My husband STILL visits the Sterling House to serve breakfast coffee every weekday morning on his way to work. Since 2002. He has to let them know if he's going to be gone for a few days. The ladies will worry. TALK ABOUT A WITNESS!! The night Momma died, two of the staff sat with us. One of them began asking questions about death and the afterlife. After 5 hours of Bible study by Momma's bedside, it was midnight and the staff suggested we needed rest. I kissed Momma, and whispered, "Your work is done Momma." "It's OK to go now." We barely made it to the car, and they came out to say she had passed. She will be very happy to learn about her last Bible study.

​First let me say I'm sorry you're having to go through the things you're going through. Pain is not a fun thing. I suffer from chronic pain. I have for more than a decade. I'm barely able to walk anymore. I'm unable to put my own shoes and socks on anymore. I can't walk 50 feet some days without having sweat break out on my forehead because of the pain, and that's with a bunch of hydrocodone in me. Without the pain killers I can't sleep, and even then the pain is so bad I can't sleep even with them. What is trust based on? For me it's based on a combination of God's word and what He has done in my life. Has He answered every prayer in a way that I thought He should? Nope. However, I do know, from painful experience, that not everything I want or ask for is in my own best interest. So, should God give me what I ask for when it's not in my best interest? I don't think so. The second reason I can see for God not answering a prayer the way I think He ought to is because of how the outcome of what I see as a non-answered prayer affects someone else. Do I humbly submit or do I get mad at God? How will someone else see that? What witness will it be if I get mad, or what witness will it make if I submit to something i can't understand? How does that third person see things and what it is they need to see? Am I capable of knowing these things? I don't see how I can possibly know this. You ask how confident I am about the promiser and the promises. I'm very confident that the very best outcome will come from the situation even if my prayer is not answered word for word. I'll ask you this... Is this life more important than eternity? If I die from some disease that I ask to be cured of but make it to heaven because I kept my faith and trussst in God has God kept His promises to me? I would say yes, yes, yes, a thousand times yes.

In the matter of EGW, as is well known, humans did not lay hands upon her and ordain her. Humans believed that God had ordained her. So, the question becomes: Is one ordained because humans decided to ordain a person, or is one ordained because humans, in recognition that God had ordained that person, issued the credentials of ordination.