Leaderboard

Why would they want membership if they didn't agree with the 28 fundamentals?

What is interesting is that EGW knew it was a false science. At the time when the practice was popular, she spoke out against it.

Let me use this as an illustration about the current situation of the argument. Lets say we have a group of Christians who love the Bible. Church tradition says that when people die they either go to heaven or hell. These Bible loving Christians have the text from Paul about being absent from the body is being present with the Lord. They have the words of Jesus saying to the thief on the cross "Verily I say unto you today, you shall be with me in paradise" and they have the story of the rich man and Lazarus. Thus they assume that the Bible teaches that you go to heaven or hell at death. They then hear atheists say "The Bible teaches that you go to heaven or hell when you die, But this is just a stupid pie in the sky idea of ignorant ancient men who did not know science and trying to explain from superstition. There is no heaven, there is no hell. We only have this life here and then we cease to exist after we die so just make the most of your life here, get what you can and do what feels good to you and look out for numeral Uno." Now some people studying the Bible starts to notice some problems with the idea of people going to heaven or hell right at death, they are starting to see that the Bible teaches death and resurrection and start to suggest that maybe we should give up the idea that people go to heaven or hell at death. So the Christians in our group who love the Bible now say "Ok, let's study this out" and they look I church history and find one theologian after another who believe that the Bible teaches that you go to heaven or hell at death, and they find atheists denying heaven and hell. And they have Paul talking about being absent from the body and being present with the Lord, and the text "Verily I say to you today, you shall be with me in paradise" and the story of the rich man and Lazarus. They study this again and find many Christians in church history believing that people go to heaven or hell when they die, many atheists who deny people going to heaven or hell when they die saying that the Bible is just nonsense, and untrue" and the Bible having Paul talking about being absent from the body and being present with the Lord, and the text "Verily I say unto you today, you shall be with me in paradise." and the story of the rich man and Lazarus. They study it over and over again and return to the same points. Many Christians over history believed that people go to heaven or hell at death. Atheists who believe the Bible is nonsense and that people don't go to heaven or hell when they die, and have the Bible passages where Paul talks about being absent from the body and being present with the Lord, read "Verily I say unto you today, you shall be with me in paradise" and the story of the rich man and Lazarus. Thus the group of Christians say "These people here who are trying to tell us that people don't go to heaven or hell at death are going against the Bible and are following what the atheists are teaching, if we let these people be members of our church they will destroy the Bible and we will no longer be a Bible believing church but we will become atheists. " and they demand that their members don't even question the idea that when you die you go to heaven or hell and that if anyone questions this point they must be severely punished. From this illustration you can see how they have studied the topic ad nauseam, but this is the type of study and thinking that has been done on the topic of women's ordination in our church, especially as from the perspective of those who are opposed to women's ordination. Elder A. G. Daniels wanted to postpone women's ordination a short time to first educate our members about the information that they are not seeing in their thoughts on the topic in the past. Elder Wilson wants the church to embrace this ignorance that Elder Daniels wanted to push out with education. I hope this illustration helps make it clearer as to what is going on.

1. On the one hand I agree with this. This is NOT one of the "pillars" and should not be that important. However on the anti-Women's ordination side, they are use to hearing the arguments by the liberal churches. These are people who do not take the Bible seriously. They have arguments that Paul was against women leading out in church, but that was because Paul was a victim of his culture so we are not to follow his advise. So they are afraid that if we start ordaining women that it would mean that we are no longer following the Bible and they want us to continue to be a Bible believing church. That is why they are willing to risk this. 2. Well, a bit over 100 years ago the church was going to ordain women. The General Conference President supported it but was worried that too many members would not realize that it was Biblical to ordain women and he requested the unions and conferences to maintain the status quo until the church could educate that women being ordained was indeed Biblical. Now the church leaders want to make the ignorance that Elder Daniels wanted to clear up to be official and permanent. There has been over 100 years of maintaining the status quo which was originally to clear up ignorance. How long do we have to maintain the status quo especially when the powers that be want to make the ignorance official dogma. 3. On the one hand it has been studied ad nauseam, but they have been following the same old study: namely what do we find in church history. How have the great theologians of church history interpreted these texts. The field that has been ignored in all these studies is what can we learn about the history of the text. The anti-ordination people need to learn that there are some very conservative Biblical arguments for women's ordination. Their head is stuck in the sand of thinking we have two choices, either follow they Bible which is against women's ordination or say that we need to reject that part of the Bible and start ordaining women, and the fear that if we start ignoring the Bible on this one topic it will lead to us ignoring the Bible on other topics. The anti-ordination people have not realized that there are some strong texts in the Bible indicating that it supports Biblical ordination.

One difference from most other sex scandals is that those are consensual affairs, Trump was talking about sexual assault of people against their will. As I saw it said on Twitter: "Don't judge me by what I did 10 years ago, but definitely judge Hillary by what her husband did 20 years ago". Bill Clinton is not running for office. As I also saw it said, though: "Apparently you can say whatever you like about Muslims and Mexicans, but when you start on white women it's all over". Trump's character has always been awful... I'm just pleased it has come out before the election, not after it. Oh, and by the way, lots of people are saying "As a father of daughters I'm appalled by Trump's comments". The heck with that: as a human being I'm appalled.

Abraham fathered a child by his servant, Moses murdered a man and covered it up, David was a man of violence, committed adultery and sent her husband to die on the battle field, which he did, Solomon had more wives than an Mormon man ever dreamed of, Saul/Paul rounded up Jewish followers of Christ for jailing and death, etc, etc etc. Makes one wonder if they would get in church doors today let alone get voted into any office of the land. We believe God is in control of all, yet we all wail and nash teeth in responce to what out politicians do or are claimed to have done. Makes me wonder if we sometimes get waaaaaaaayyyy to worked up about things of this life!

1. This is not one of the "pillars" nor even one of the 28! So how important is this issue for some to dig in their heels at the risk of schism? 2. Do you know how difficult it is to reverse course from a practice once it has been allowed? Does it not make more sense to maintain the status quo as maintained by the world church while we wait either for greater light, a decision by the world church in session, or a revelation from above? 3. It has been studied ad nauseam. I doubt any more study will change anyone's mind.

As I previously stated, "We must understand that sin and mortality are linked as are righteousness and immortality." Here's evidence: 1 Cor 15:47 "The first man (Adam) was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man (i.e., "the last Adam" - see 1 Cor 15:45) is the Lord from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust (Adam) so also are those who are made of dust (i.e., his fallen, offspring); and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly (compare Eph 2:6). 49 And as we have borne the image of the man of dust (Adam), we shall also bear (future tense) the image of the heavenly Man (Christ)." Please note verse 49. We are now in the image of fallen, Adam. We are unrighteous and mortal. In the future, at the 2nd coming of Christ, we will then bear the image of the last Adam! When do we bear the image of the last Adam, Christ? verse 51 Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep (remain dead), but we shall all be changed— 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet (i.e., at the 2nd coming). For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this....mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when ... this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.” Please note the clear context: We are now mortal - body, soul and spirit. We must be changed into the image of Christ. Only then will this mortal, sinful life be immortal & righteous. Again, the teaching of an immortal soul is a self-righteous, anti-gospel doctrine.

If one believes that he has an immortal soul then he must also believe that something "good" resides in his fallen humanity. The question is do we have anything good in our fallen, humanity? Clearly not: Mark 7:21 "For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, 22 thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within and defile a man.” So "within" us there's nothing good and immortal. Paul agrees: Romans 7:18 "For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells..." Since nothing good dwells in our humanity then no component of us is naturally good. The whole man, body, soul & spirit has been polluted by iniquity. Therefore, "As it is written: 'There is none righteous, no, not one.'" Rom 3:10 We must understand that sin and mortality are linked as are righteousness and immortality. To say we have some component is us that is immortal is to say we have something good in us that doesn't need the righteousness of Christ. Hence the teaching of an immortal soul is a self-righteous, anti-gospel doctrine. Apparently SDA are not the only ones teaching subtle legalism.

My replies: I'm going to have to strongly disagree with the position of an immortal spirit/soul, that is, a position that insists that something lives on after the death of a believer and enters heaven itself shortly after the death of the body. But first let me look at your reference, 2 Cor 5:1-9 Verse 5 For we know that if our earthly house, the tent we live in (i.e., one's fallen "body" - see verse 8), is dismantled, we have a building from God, a house not built by human hands, that is eternal in the heavens. Please note that we already (present tense) have a new creation - i.e., "a building from God...eternal in the heavens". That is why Paul states, "Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation" 2 Cor 5:17 So we, as children of Adam, already have a glorified "building" in heaven itself. I'll give you some more verses to prove my position: "For He (God that Father) rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins." Col 1:13,14 NASB Note that according to Paul, God has already transferred "us" (our "new creation") into heaven itself. "God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus...." Eph 2:6 NIV God "raised us up with Him (Christ), and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus..." NASB So, I can conclude, that "in Christ" I now have a "new creation", holy & blameless before God. Since I already have a glorified life "in Christ" why does some component of my fallen life need to go to heaven upon my death? The answer is something doesn't go to heaven at death because the believer already has his new life residing "in Christ" right now as I write. Now lets turn to Col 1:22 "He (Christ, our High Priest) has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach..." Are we "holy and blameless"? No! We are sinners saved by grace. Then why does Paul state we are "holy and blameless" in Christ's "fleshly body"? Because at the resurrection Christ was raised, not as He was before (see 2 Cor 5:16), but with a glorified, sinless new creation. He took this corporate life to heaven where He represent our new lives "holy & blameless" before God Himself. Therefore "in Christ" we are complete by faith. See Col 2:10

Many secular folk have no problem with gay marriage... What they do have a problem with is hatred and judgment. That is the reputation that Christianity has in the eyes of many. Who is to blame for that? Is that how God changes people?