Leaderboard

each slice is one day of the year...

That can be a slightly difficult question. I do believe in the Bible alone and in it is more than enough to have sufficient knowledge for salvation. I also believe EGW was a chosen instrument of God. However her writings should not be considered canon. I feel she only wrote in support of the canon instead of trying to add to it. In all honesty I would prefer to never use her in an argument or discussion but if she is a messenger of God then her writings do have some weight to it.

Rossw, said below: Your questions are valid and worthy of discussion. I do not want to make light of them. But, carried to their logical conclusion, one would decide that there was no way that one could escape the bias that resides in all of us and therefor one could never be certain as to what was true. To start to respond to you: Consider an English dictionary with me for a minute: When you reference a word in an English dictionary, do you begin with the assumption that those who write the definition of the word you are looking at were biased and therefor suspect? If you tell me that you do begin your review of a word in a dictionary with the assumption that it reflects a bias, I will have little to say to you in response. The same is true for Biblical lexicons which in one sense are dictionaries. But, the academic lexicons go beyond what you see in an English Dictionary. The Biblical Lexicons will give the secular (when used) source and date. If you wish, you can check it our to see the extent to which a bias exists. Again, Rossw, you ask some valid questions, for which there is not a perfect answer. But, I suggest you think about the above that I have said and give it some thought.

Does Green forget that he was made of a woman?

equal adjective 1 being the same in quantity, size, degree, or value • (of people) having the same status, rights, or opportunities. • uniform in application or effect; without discrimination on any grounds • evenly or fairly balanced What we have here is failure to understand the dictionary.....or not!! (...could have sworn I saw that signpost talking....)

You do realize that the Hebrew that is translated as the traditional proper name "Adam" is in fact the Hebrew word "man". It also means "mankind", "human being". The use of the Hebrew "adam" is most frequently used in the OT to mean or refer to "mankind". That would be the meaning in Genesis 1:27 that precisely says that God created both male and female "adam". No Biblical evidence that God named the man, or the woman. He called them both "adam" or "man" saying "let's make "adam" and proceeds to make "adam" male and female. As for the order of creation, that which is created first in time is not necessarily in order of importance or rank. Do not forget that God created fish and birds and animals before he created man. As for your number 6, the meaning of the word translated as "helpmeet" is the whole point of the article linked in the OP, if you would read it. It strongly infers an equal relationship, not one of subservience. As for you number 7, read EGW's explanation of that carefully. She says a rib from the man's side to mean the she should stand beside him as his equal.

The law of God is self sacrificing love/ self renouncing love. No more and no less. We may ask what this means so we have the two great principles; to love God supremely and our neighbor as ourselves. How do we do this? we get the 10 commandments. In the Exodus 20 version breaks into 3 thirds: The first third is 3 commandments telling us how to love God supremely. The last third is 6 commandments telling us how to love our neighbor as ourselves. The middle third is one commandment that tells us that the only way we can love God supremely and our neighbor as ourselves is by resting in a relationship with God. (the three thirds also corresponds to the 3 aspects of the trinity). The foundation of Seventh-day Adventism is that the law is the reflection of God's character. It is a reflection of his very nature. The foundation of sin is that God is a tyrant in imposing upon others a law that does not apply to himself. That the law is outside of him and that he is simply arbitrary that we all submit to him and to each other while he is alone at the top. God is the only self existent one and life only comes from him so we need to submit to him for life. However with in the trinity the law of self sacrificing love/self renouncing love is practiced. For the trinity their neighbors are the other members of the trinity. They all submit to each other and thus live in a righteousness by faith relationship with each other. Each relates to the other as the other is their head. God is NOT the papacy which is how Satan likes to picture the role of God and the rest of us. This new teaching "Headship Theology" is simply Roman Catholicism filtered through Calvinistic philosophy. Seventh-day Adventism is more Methodist, not Calvinistic. If headship theology is true then Mrs. White's thought is not true. We have no reason for being Seventh-day Adventists. Satan wins the great controversy and the Sabbath becomes nothing more than an arbitrary imposition.

I think you are making that up. Do you have any evidence other than Romans 7:1-4. Romans 7 goes with Romans 6. The chapter break that some man inserted in the middle of Paul's discourse gets people mixed up about what Paul was saying. Paul is telling individuals who had been bound to sin that when they "die" with Christ they are free from the natural law that binds them to sin, so they can be joined to Christ and live in righteousness. The discourse is not about Israel's covenant as a nation with God. Maybe you could provide references when you talk about specific provisions of Torah, so people could more easily test your teachings. According to Deut. 24:1-4 it was forbidden for a divorced woman to re-marry her husband if she had married another man after being divorced. I haven't found a prohibition against the first husband remarrying his divorced wife if she hadn't been married to another man in between.

Excellent thought whbae

we are only joined to Christ if there has been a death to the old man. The new covenant is being joined in a new relationship. If the old man is still the ruling relationship in your life you are committing adultery to attempt to be joined to Christ without the death of the old man. So Israel was called an adulterous nation when they still worshipped the old gods while saying they wanted all the blessings of serving the living God.

No women should be a head over men! It is very interesting. Those men who oppose women being a pastor or elder but let them allow women to be a principal of a school where many male teachers working under her. A woman can be are head of a department in a college such as English or Nursing where many males work, but she cannot be an elder or a pastor or a conference president. This is a dubious idea, not consistent standard.

Kevin H said below: I would make one correction to what Kevin H has said: Green will accept what Ellen White has said, but only if it agrees with his understanding of what she said. This along with what Kevin said in # 2, below essentially makes Green the ultimate authority over what the Bible teaches.

You have to remember that Green Cochoa has made his stance clear. He rejects things such as history and culture and archaeological studies and linguistic studies. He will only accept as evidence 1. a proof text, and 2 the proof text has to agree with his reading of the proof text. All other evidence, no matter how valid or credible is acceptable to him.

a question for you, Rossw (and I'm not trying to be snarky... ) ... in saying that the Bible is complete enough in itself to understand what it means, why do you refer to Ellen White's writings? I guess I'm wondering if you're one of the folks who consider the EGW writings to be on par with scripture — there are some here that do, though I'm not one of them.

What are you talking about? What extremes or abuse in those quotes? Here is a fine example of how understanding the context is important. Look those quotes up and read the full context of EGW's counsel from which they were taken. Hardly what you are suggesting...

I disagree. I've always found satisfactory contextual meaning by just reading the Bible and supporting Scriptures. To go outside Scripture is to essentially apply a constant eisegetical hermeneutic.

No lording it over the wife in those quotes....

Consider these statements by EGW: “The spirit that Christ manifests toward His church is the spirit that the husband and wife are to manifest toward each other” (Adventist Home, 95). “Neither husband nor wife is to make a plea for rulership. The Lord has laid down the principle that is to guide in this matter” (Adventist Home, 106-107). “Do not try to compel each other to do as you wish. You cannot do this and retain each other’s love” (Adventist Home, 107). “Remember that your wife accepted you as her husband, not that you might rule over her, but that you might be her helper” (Testimonies, 7:48).

Opponents on both sides of this debate have good arguments, but again I do not see it as a salvation issue. Years ago I was very against women as pastors. Now I really do not care either way because it doesn't fall within what the SDA church main purpose is and that is to present the Three Angels' messages of Revelation 14

Strange understanding of equal. If A equals B, B equals A. Can you grasp that God made them for each other? To be as one? That created oneness concept of the equal union of a married man and woman is something that Jesus strongly affirmed.

I don't think believers should have to be linguistic experts to rightly understand the Good News. Rachel says that Ezekiel could be symbolic rather than literal. I submit that it could also be literal rather than symbolic. The precision with which Ezekiel describes and measures the temple implies to me it is a literal description. Sometimes scripture becomes much clearer to me if I read it literally rather than trying to spiritualize everything. In the end, it doesn't much matter whether we're vegans or omnivores in the Kingdom, as long as we're in the Kingdom. Who knows? Steak and sushi might grow on trees!

The former prime minister David Cameron, who is a conservative, wanted to stay in the EU as did many other conservatives. Are you saying they are want socialism? The biggest issue was immigration actually.

Green, have you ever read the book "A thousand may fall" the story about the Hasel family during World War II? The boy, Gerhard Hasel grew up to become one of our most conservative leaders. He also held a view of inspiration not quite like Washburn and Wilkinson, but more like Elder Haskell's and what Elder Haskell tried to get Mrs. White to believe about her works. Dr. Hasel first started out supporting women's ordination. However after a while he was convinced of headship theology and turned against it and wrote against it and even his son follows in his footsteps in opposing women's ordination and supporting headship theology. But shortly before he died, as he was studying this and using his studies to oppose women's ordination, he came to the realization that headship theology was too Calvinistic and does not fit our Methodist roots and he again changed his mind and began teaching his colleagues that headship theology is a heresy and that he had again changed and had come to the conclusion that women's ordination is indeed Biblical and agrees with the historical Adventist faith. He died before he could write about this and before he could change his son's view.

The Ellen G. White Estate answered this question in a 2007 reply. Did Ellen White say anything about the rise and threat of militant Islam? There is only one reference to Moslem, Muslim, Mohammed, or Mohammedanism (as the Islamic faith was referred to in her day) in her writings. It is found in The Home Missionary, September 1892, Article A, paragraph 4: “The Saviour has said, ‘He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.’ He says again, ‘And this is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.’ “Mohammedanism has its converts in many lands, and its advocates deny the divinity of Christ. Shall this faith be propagated, and the advocates of truth fail to manifest intense zeal to overthrow the error, and teach men of the preexistence of the only Saviour of the world? “O how we need [men and women] who will search and believe the Word of God, who will present Jesus to the world in His divine and human nature, declaring with power and in demonstration of the Spirit that ‘there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.’ O how we need believers who will now present Christ in life and character, who will hold Him up before the world as the brightness of the Father’s glory, proclaiming that God is love!” The prophets do not seem to receive messages regarding every political, or even religious, movement that may arise. There is nothing in the Bible or Ellen White’s writings about Nazi Germany, for instance, even though it had a major impact on the world in the mid-twentieth century. The same may be said for Communism, which added a direct challenge to religion and certainly the Seventh-day Adventist faith. The messages of the prophets, it seems, focus on the core issues and players for the great controversy that is now going on. Ellen White was shown a different power at the core of the conflict in the last days. It was not Islam (see ellenwhite.org/ content/file/islam#document). http://www.adventistworld.org/2016/february.html

I was once in your shoes, Dave. Yes, the chart is mine. The first six in your list along with, 10, 11, 13 -15 are all directly related with the AoD. Hence, for me, since there is only one unique AoD referred to by Jesus and its setting up will occur shortly before the 2nd coming, all prophecies directly related with the AoD will likewise find fulfillment shortly before the second coming. For me, the 2300 days are not years but literal days (see the chart). They are yet to be fulfilled in the future. The 2300 days of Dan 8 and the 70 weeks of Daniel 9 did not simultaneously start, nor did the 70 weeks start in 457 BC. Why? Because the Bible specifies that the start will be from the issuance of the command to restore Jerusalem. The 457 BC decree of the Achaemenid ruler Artaxerxes Longimanus was NOT for restoration of Jerusalem but for BEAUTIFICATION of the temple in Jerusalem. Explanation of Josiah Litch as per #8 re: Rev 9:5 is easily proven unsound by the very next verse, v6. I can point out more but I don't mean to overwhelm you. You may reconsider your position comparing Scriptures with Scriptures.

We must humbly pray for those who are blinded by the headship theology.

I don't think Ellen ever intended for females to take over church leadership. She was perfectly happy with male conference presidents etc... I am friends with her great great great grandson - was at 3ABN with him. He said she wouldn't speak until after James spoke if he was present at a meeting. i like that. It is nice to see a gentle and quiet spirit in our sisters - we see so little of that in western countries nowadays. The Bible is clear in 1 Peter and Colossians that men and women have different roles. God asks for five qualities in His daughters, and six qualities from his sons. Different and complimentary qualities, they are. Rejoice always, Gerry

2 John reads (to me) as referencing a church, and the "children" are the members the church--the church's offspring. The "elect sister" and her "children" would be a sister church and its members. I'm not sure why this is such a problem for people. To try and make this into a case for apostolic endorsement for women's ordination (or, at the very least, the undisputed claim of women's importance in the church) seems rather absurd (to me)...

It would be wonderful, CoAspen, if you could show analysis rather than merely make sarcastic remarks.

You first need to show evidence that John is writing to a woman rather than to a church.

There are a good number of things about this letter that indicate it was written to a congregation and not to an individual. First of all, much of 2 John is written in the second person plural-- i.e., "you all" or "you people." For instance, see verses 6, 8, & 10. If John were writing to a single indivdiual woman, he wouldn't say, "you [plural] have heard... that you [plural] walk in love...You [plural] watch out that you [plural] do not lose what you [plural] have worked for... If anyone comes to you [plural]... you [plural] do not receive him..." Second, 1 John 5 asks that the recipient of the letter and the writer "love one another." This is something that the apostle John is more likely to say in the context of a congregation than to say to a particular female Christian. The phrase makes better sense if addressed to a church. Third, the word "church" in Greek is feminine in gender, and "lady" would harmonize well with that. Fourth, elsewhere in John's writings, the church is depicted as a "bride" (Rev. 21: 2,9; 22: 17). Fifth, the Greek word kyria ("lady") referred to a social subunit in the Greek city-state. John may use this word for a local congregation instead of the more common feminine word ekklesia. Finally, the last verse of 2 John suggests that John writes from one congregation to another, which he terms "your elect sister."