A Curse Is Not An Ideal

[Bravus]

In the recent (now locked) discussions on the ordination of women, much has been made of the curse pronounced after the Fall, in Genesis. Here are the relevant texts from Genesis 3:

16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

The key point I want to make here is two-fold:

1. The curse was descriptive, not prescriptive. God was not saying 'this is what I want', he was saying 'these are the consequences of what you have done'. He was describing how life would be from then on because of the entry of sin to the world, not ordaining (heh) how He planned the world to be.

2. The curse is not the ideal. God's ideal had been an equal partnership, but the consequences of sin broke that ideal and led to an inferior outcome (hence the name 'curse'). It's not what God wanted, and since God never changes, it's not what he wants now.

The fact that men *do* use their strength and position to rule over women doesn't mean they *should*, and doesn't mean that God wants them to.

[Woody]

Excellent thoughts in that post Bravus.

[Gail]

I like it, too!

[phkrause]

I agree Bravus. Here are a few other readings of this passage:

From the Tanakh/Torah:

Genesis 3:16. To the woman He said, "I shall surely increase your sorrow and your pregnancy; in pain you shall bear children. And to your husband will be your desire, and he will rule over you." 17. And to man He said, "Because you listened to your wife, and you ate from the tree from which I commanded you saying, 'You shall not eat of it,' cursed be the ground for your sake; with toil shall you eat of it all the days of your life. 18. And it will cause thorns and thistles to grow for you, and you shall eat the herbs of the field. 19. With the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, until you return to the ground, for you were taken therefrom, for dust you are, and to dust you will return."

From the Complete Jewish Bible:

Genesis 3:16 To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pain in childbirth. You will bring forth children in pain. Your desire will be toward your husband, but he will rule over you." 17 To Adam he said, "Because you listened to what your wife said and ate from the tree about which I gave you the order, 'You are not to eat from it,' the ground is cursed on your account; you will work hard to eat from it as long as you live. 18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat field plants. 19 You will eat bread by the sweat of your forehead till you return to the ground - for you were taken out of it: you are dust, and you will return to dust."

Pretty much these seem to say the same thing. Just wanted to put a Jewish prespective on the version you posted Bravus. Hope you don't mind.

[miz3]

In the recent (now locked) discussions on the ordination of women, much has been made of the curse pronounced after the Fall, in Genesis. Here are the relevant texts from Genesis 3:

16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

The key point I want to make here is two-fold:

1. The curse was descriptive, not prescriptive. God was not saying 'this is what I want', he was saying 'these are the consequences of what you have done'. He was describing how life would be from then on because of the entry of sin to the world, not ordaining (heh) how He planned the world to be.

2. The curse is not the ideal. God's ideal had been an equal partnership, but the consequences of sin broke that ideal and led to an inferior outcome (hence the name 'curse'). It's not what God wanted, and since God never changes, it's not what he wants now.

The fact that men *do* use their strength and position to rule over women doesn't mean they *should*, and doesn't mean that God wants them to.

Bravus you and I certainly agree that the relationship between a man/woman should be one of mutual benefit/growing. We certainly agree that women have been denied their rightful place in the Church as leaders.

Having said that I am not sure that I agree with your view on the curse. Maybe I am quibbling, I hope not but I see a different view in the Words of the Bible.

When God speaks to the woman He says, "I will .......". It is that "I will" part that tells God is doing something. It appears that something is a punishment rather than allowing a natural consequence.

Again, maybe I am quibbling and I await further discussion as to whether my view (at this time) is correct or does miz3 need to alter his current view.

[Gail]

Quote:

Again, maybe I am quibbling and I await further discussion as to whether my view (at this time) is correct or does miz3 need to alter his current view.

What a neat statement! Thank you!

((( miz3 )))

[John317]

1. The curse was descriptive, not prescriptive. God was not saying 'this is what I want', he was saying 'these are the consequences of what you have done'. He was describing how life would be from then on because of the entry of sin to the world, not ordaining (heh) how He planned the world to be.

2. The curse is not the ideal. God's ideal had been an equal partnership, but the consequences of sin broke that ideal and led to an inferior outcome (hence the name 'curse'). It's not what God wanted, and since God never changes, it's not what he wants now.

The fact that men *do* use their strength and position to rule over women doesn't mean they *should*, and doesn't mean that God wants them to.

The fact that some men abuse their strength and position to rule over women doesn't mean that the curse was not intended by God to be a blessing under the circumstances brought about by the Fall.

For instance, hard work was intended to be a blessing for man after the Fall. Before the Fall, work was also a blessing but it wasn't hard labor.

The Fall brought up about a situation where it was necessary that someone in the marriage be the head, and the Bible is clear that God chose the husband to be the head of the wife.

1 Cor. 11:3--

[3] But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

As long as sin continues in our world, the arrangement of God is intended to apply for the good of society as a whole and for the good of the family in particular.

Both the Bible and the SoP show that it was God's plan for the husband to be the head of the wife.

The prophet of God wrote:

Quote:

Eve was told of the sorrow and pain that must henceforth be her portion. And the Lord said, "Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." In the creation God had made her the equal of Adam. Had they remained obedient to God--in harmony with His great law of love--they would ever have been in harmony with each other; but sin had brought discord, and now their union could be maintained and harmony preserved only by submission on the part of the one or the other. Eve had been the first in transgression; and she had fallen into temptation by separating from her companion, contrary to the divine direction. It was by her solicitation that Adam sinned, and she was now placed in subjection to her husband. Had the principles joined in the law of God been cherished by the fallen race, this sentence, though growing out of the results of sin, would have proved a blessing to them; but man's abuse of the supremacy thus given him has too often rendered the lot of woman very bitter and made her life a burden.

Eve had been perfectly happy by her husband's side in her Eden home; but, like restless modern Eves, she was flattered with the hope of entering a higher sphere than that which God had assigned her. In attempting to rise above her original position, she fell far below it. A similar result will be reached by all who are unwilling to take up cheerfully their life duties in accordance with God's plan. In their efforts to reach positions for which He has not fitted them, many are leaving vacant the place where they might be a blessing. In their desire for a higher sphere, many have sacrificed true womanly dignity and nobility of character, and have left undone the very work that Heaven appointed them. {PP 58, 59}

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

1. The curse was descriptive, not prescriptive. God was not saying 'this is what I want', he was saying 'these are the consequences of what you have done'. He was describing how life would be from then on because of the entry of sin to the world, not ordaining (heh) how He planned the world to be.

2. The curse is not the ideal. God's ideal had been an equal partnership, but the consequences of sin broke that ideal and led to an inferior outcome (hence the name 'curse'). It's not what God wanted, and since God never changes, it's not what he wants now.

The fact that men *do* use their strength and position to rule over women doesn't mean they *should*, and doesn't mean that God wants them to.

The fact that some men abuse their strength and position to rule over women doesn't mean that the curse was not intended by God to be a blessing under the circumstances brought about by the Fall.

For instance, hard work was intended to be a blessing for man after the Fall. Before the Fall, work was also a blessing but it wasn't hard labor.

The Fall brought up about a situation where it was necessary that someone in the marriage be the head, and the Bible is clear that God chose the husband to be the head of the wife.

1 Cor. 11:3--

[3] But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

As long as sin continues in our world, the arrangement of God is intended to apply for the good of society as a whole and for the good of the family in particular.

Both the Bible and the SoP show that it was God's plan for the husband to be the head of the wife.

The prophet of God wrote:

Quote:

Eve was told of the sorrow and pain that must henceforth be her portion. And the Lord said, "Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." In the creation God had made her the equal of Adam. Had they remained obedient to God--in harmony with His great law of love--they would ever have been in harmony with each other; but sin had brought discord, and now their union could be maintained and harmony preserved only by submission on the part of the one or the other. Eve had been the first in transgression; and she had fallen into temptation by separating from her companion, contrary to the divine direction. It was by her solicitation that Adam sinned, and she was now placed in subjection to her husband. Had the principles joined in the law of God been cherished by the fallen race, this sentence, though growing out of the results of sin, would have proved a blessing to them; but man's abuse of the supremacy thus given him has too often rendered the lot of woman very bitter and made her life a burden.

Eve had been perfectly happy by her husband's side in her Eden home; but, like restless modern Eves, she was flattered with the hope of entering a higher sphere than that which God had assigned her. In attempting to rise above her original position, she fell far below it. A similar result will be reached by all who are unwilling to take up cheerfully their life duties in accordance with God's plan. In their efforts to reach positions for which He has not fitted them, many are leaving vacant the place where they might be a blessing. In their desire for a higher sphere, many have sacrificed true womanly dignity and nobility of character, and have left undone the very work that Heaven appointed them. {PP 58, 59}

However John317,

1. God never intended that such a pecking order would exist outside the home. God never ever made a mandate that all men were to rule over all women.

2. That still does not negate God's Ideal in Eden. The Ideal in Eden (my answer to the Edict in Eden) was that Eve was to help Adam "rule the earth". That means the two had to be "one" in every way possible for there to be the harmony that God made.

This "Ideal in Eden" is still the very best way to conduct the business of the Home even in the "sinful state". Unfortunately this Ideal in Eden is never striven for because humans are willing to settle for the lesser level of existence called the "Edict in Eden".

3. It appears to me that SDA as God's chosen people (or so they themselves claim) should not be settling for the "Edict in Eden" but rather should be showing the sinful world the more righteous way of the "Ideal in Eden". Which would entail that Christian women would with their male Christian counterparts LEAD TOGETHER GOD'S PEOPLE.

Instead we see those who claim to understand the Bible and the current "use of women in the Church" take the lesser way of the "Edict" rather than the better way of the "Ideal".

Is this the way the SDA Church will "reflect the Character of Jesus Christ in their lives" as the Prophet Ellen White has written they should before Jesus Comes.

Why not perfect the Character of Jesus Christ in our lives by being "one" as the Bible states is the Ideal in Eden? Maybe Ellen White is correct that God is WAITING FOR HIS PEOPLE TO REFLECT THE CHARACTER OF CHRIST IN THEIR LIVES.

Why you and the SDA Church .org soooo willing to reflect the the lesser ideal (in the Edict) when God is calling us to reflect a higher ideal?

That is the higher ideal of "ONENESS" between man and woman in the Home and in the Church.

[CoAspen]

Quote:

1. God never intended that such a pecking order would exist outside the home. God never ever made a mandate that all men were to rule over all women.

And that is the crux of the issue. It is simply a convenient way for the subjugation of women. I have asked for Biblical, direct from God, evidence for denial of women to be used in ALL areas of spreading the Good News. It hasn't happened and won't happen!! We are told to make earths experience 'like heaven', we told to return to that 'pre fall experience' in our journey through life, knowing that it will not be fulfilled until the 2nd coming. Yet, some wish to exclude women from that experience. Just can't get around it, no matter the obfuscation.

Note the none emphasis to these quoted words....

Quote:

Had the principles joined in the law of God been cherished by the fallen race, this sentence, though growing out of the results of sin, would have proved a blessing to them; but man's abuse of the supremacy thus given him has too often rendered the lot of woman very bitter and made her life a burden.

Again, the whole context of the EGW quotes, are talking about, as you pointed out, a marital relationship.

[John317]

Why you and the SDA Church .org soooo willing to reflect the the lesser ideal (in the Edict) when God is calling us to reflect a higher ideal?

The church has no direction from Heaven that the "curse" was done away with or is of no more effect.

As long as sin exists in the world, the "curse" will have a purpose. It is part of God's plan. We have no right to do away with God's arrangement.

We have these clear statements in plain English, written by the prophet of God:

Quote:

...sin had brought discord, and now their union could be maintained and harmony preserved only by submission on the part of the one or the other. Eve had been the first in transgression; and she had fallen into temptation by separating from her companion, contrary to the divine direction. It was by her solicitation that Adam sinned, and she was now placed in subjection to her husband. Had the principles joined in the law of God been cherished by the fallen race,this sentence, though growing out of the results of sin, would have proved a blessing to them ; but man's abuse of the supremacy thus given him has too often rendered the lot of woman very bitter and made her life a burden.

Eve had been perfectly happy by her husband's side in her Eden home; but, like restless modern Eves, she was flattered with the hope of entering a higher sphere than that which God had assigned her. In attempting to rise above her original position, she fell far below it. A similar result will be reached by all who are unwilling to take up cheerfully their life duties in accordance with God's plan. In their efforts to reach positions for which He has not fitted them, many are leaving vacant the place where they might be a blessing. In their desire for a higher sphere, many have sacrificed true womanly dignity and nobility of character, and have left undone the very work that Heaven appointed them. {PP 58, 59}

Her statements above have great significance for those who realize that she was a true prophet. What she wrote here is in harmony with the Bible.

[John317]

...I have asked for Biblical, direct from God, evidence for denial of women to be used in ALL areas of spreading the Good News. It hasn't happened and won't happen!! We are told to make earths experience 'like heaven', we told to return to that 'pre fall experience' in our journey through life, knowing that it will not be fulfilled until the 2nd coming. Yet, some wish to exclude women from that experience. Just can't get around it, no matter the obfuscation.

Are you asking for Bible evidence that God's ideal or plan is for men-- and not women-- to be the leaders in the church? If so, that evidence has been given quite a few times before.

I don't think anyone in the SDA church believes women shouldn't be involved in the spreading of the gospel. They definitely should be. What's being said is that the Bible clearly teaches that men are to be the elders, pastors, bishops, etc. The NT gives no evidence that women were assigned to those positions in the first century church. In fact, Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write that women are not to teach men but are to be "submissive" and "silent" in the churches. Paul's reason for this instruction is not local or cultural problems but he points his readers back to what occurred in Eden.

Why do you think Paul does this?

[John317]

...

Note the none emphasis to these quoted words....

Quote:

Had the principles joined in the law of God been cherished by the fallen race, this sentence, though growing out of the results of sin, would have proved a blessing to them; but man's abuse of the supremacy thus given him has too often rendered the lot of woman very bitter and made her life a burden.

Again, the whole context of the EGW quotes, are talking about, as you pointed out, a marital relationship.

But notice that she says,

"Had the principles joined in the law of God been cherished by the fallen race,this sentence, though growing out of the results of sin, would have proved a blessing to them..."

Question: Aren't we Seventh-day Adventists to cherish the principles of the law of God?

Notice the "sentence" grew out of the results of sin. Aren't we still living with the results of sin? If so, then the sentence continues to have a purpose.

Her statement means that if we sincerely and seriously cherish the principles of the law of God, then the sentence [i.e., the curse] will prove a blessing to us.

Is Ellen White saying that the church ought to get rid of the sentence because many people abuse the plan of God? Will getting rid of the sentence, or ignoring it, solve the problems?

[Guest]

Her statement means that if we sincerely and seriously cherish the principle of the law of God, then the sentence [i.e., the curse] will prove a blessing to us.

That's encouraging!

[miz3]

But notice that she says,

"Had the principles joined in the law of God been cherished by the fallen race,this sentence, though growing out of the results of sin, would have proved a blessing to them..."

Question: Aren't we Seventh-day Adventists to cherish the principles of the law of God?

Notice the "sentence" grew out of the results of sin. Aren't we still living with the results of sin? If so, then the sentence continues to have a purpose.

Her statement means that if we sincerely and seriously cherish the principle of the law of God, then the sentence [i.e., the curse] will prove a blessing to us.

Is Ellen White saying that the church ought to get rid of the sentence because many people abuse the plan of God? Will getting rid of the sentence, or ignoring it, solve the problems?

John317 it appears that you are not for us to reach for the "Ideal in Eden" but are for all humanity settling for the lesser "Edict".

Second, [it appears that] you base your ways of thinking on other than the Bible as found in Genesis, which says that the "two shall be one". [That] throws that Ideal out the window.

Quoting Ellen White and her analysis of the Bible is not a good substitute for actually reading the Bible and doing what the Bible actually says.

Thus, your theology [appears to be] based on someone else's interpretation of what the Scripture says rather than on what the Bible actually says. [it seems to me] that this is how you constantly do your Biblical interpretations, coming with conclusions already in tact and then try and fit the text to suit that conclusion. Relying on another human being for your interpretations is against the what the Bible says is the way you should form your theology. See 1Corinthians chapter 2. The Holy Spirit is to be the only interpreter of the Bible.

Of course you are free to believe and study as you choose but that does not make your methods correct. In fact it makes your methods incorrect. [This appears to me to be the] pattern in the way you interpret the Scripture and it is almost always based on what others have said the Bible says and not what the Bible is actually saying.

This accounts for why we disagree so often because I rely on what the Bible actually says and not on what some else says I should do to interpret the Bible.

Thus, it is having a conclusion first and then trying to fit the Bible into that conclusion. This is not the correct way to use the Bible. We are to come to the Bible without preconceived notions and conclusions. I would suggest abandoning that method of Bible study and adopt the Bible's method of Bible study.

It is only a suggestion, after all you will do as you want.

[John317]

...

Again, the whole context of the EGW quotes, are talking about, as you pointed out, a marital relationship.

Yes, you're right that the quote from PP 58, 59 is in the context of marriage. But God's plan for the husband to be the head of the wife is also reflected in the arrangement of God in the the nation of Israel as well as in the church.

Notice that the directions that Paul gives in 1 Cor. 11 about women in the church are directly related to the statement Paul makes in verse 2, "The head of every woman is man." "For [because] man was not made from woman, but woman from man. [9] Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man." {1 Cor. 11: 8-9}

I think you'll agree that there's a clear pattern of male leadership in the Old Testament. The 12 tribes of Israel were all named after men. All the priests were men as were virtually all the leaders that God chose for the government as well as in the sanctuary. Pagan religions had female priests, but Israel never had anything but male priests. With few exceptions, God also chose males to be His prophets. None of the Scriptures were written by women, and Christ chose all males to be the 12 and the 70 disciples.

When we come to the Christian Church, we find the same pattern of male leadership. In fact, as pointed out before, Paul even goes so far as to say, "Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For [because] Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression." {1 Tim. 2: 11-14}

Notice that Paul gives "the law" as his reason for his instructions about women in the church. Moreover, Paul says that his instructions are "the commandments of the Lord" (1 Cor. 14: 37). Evidently Paul knew that there were some in the church who opposed His instructions.

[Tom Wetmore]

In the recent (now locked) discussions on the ordination of women, much has been made of the curse pronounced after the Fall, in Genesis. Here are the relevant texts from Genesis 3:

16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

The key point I want to make here is two-fold:

1. The curse was descriptive, not prescriptive. God was not saying 'this is what I want', he was saying 'these are the consequences of what you have done'. He was describing how life would be from then on because of the entry of sin to the world, not ordaining (heh) how He planned the world to be.

2. The curse is not the ideal. God's ideal had been an equal partnership, but the consequences of sin broke that ideal and led to an inferior outcome (hence the name 'curse'). It's not what God wanted, and since God never changes, it's not what he wants now.

The fact that men *do* use their strength and position to rule over women doesn't mean they *should*, and doesn't mean that God wants them to.

Yes, this is very consistent with the perspective of this that I have been speaking to for quite some time now. I think most fascinating that those most vigorously claiming it to be prescriptive only focus on the part about the relationship between the man and the woman. Nobody seems to view the curse on the ground and the pain of childbirth as a prescription that we must follow and not seek to change. If the one part is prescriptive the rest must be also. And God's "edict" included pain for the woman and back-breaking struggle with weeds for the man. Yet today we think it does not violate that edict to seek to ease the pain of childbirth or to use herbicides to easily remove weeds from our gardens. It would seem to be truly faithful to this we should only allow natural childbirth and eat only organically grown food.

But the more serious concern I have is that any should be it as an irreversible state or that it reflects in any way God's pre-sin ideal or as a continuing mandate after Christ overcame sin. Overcoming sin has to mean a reversal of sin and its consequences in all aspects of our life. We are to live according to what Christ has done for us.

[Gibs]

I suppose just because Eve was seduced and Adam was not don't prove a woman is more easily seduced than a man. Different things will seduce a woman than a man.

Many Pastors fall as Satan will send a beautiful woman to seduce him. The point is, Satan knows exactly where each of us is most susceptible and that is where the temptation is set up.

We each are weak and Christ knows where also and this is why we need His dwelling in us or we will fall.

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[John317]

John317 it appears that you are not for us to reach for the "Ideal in Eden" but are for all humanity settling for the lesser "Edict".

The sentence grew out of the results of sin. We are still living in a sinful world-- and dealing daily with the results of sin. Therefore it is impossible for you and me to return to the conditions as they were before the Fall. We will only do that at the second coming of Christ, when we will no longer have a sinful nature. At that point, Eden will be restored. As long as you and I have a sinful nature, and are in relationship to other people with fallen natures, we will need to follow God's arrangement for those living in a sinful world.

[Tom Wetmore]

So, then what other aspects or consequences of sin do we not need to worry about overcoming this side of the second coming?

What happened to being an overcomer? Striving to live up to God's idea as people saved from sin? It sort of sounds like being saved in our sins.

Some would argue that we should just live with some other unchangeable conditions resulting from living in a sinful world.

The first pronouncement of the consequences of sin was that sin would bring death. We do everything within our power to prolong life to overcome those things that bring about death. And we do everything we can to improve the quality of life, directly countering the deleterious effects of sin on us. Consistent with the idea you suggest, we should just accept our fate as God's arrangement for sinful people.

[John317]

Second, [it appears that] you base your ways of thinking on other than the Bible as found in Genesis, which says that the "two shall be one". [That] throws that Ideal out the window.

The fact that the husband is head of the wife in no way prevents "the two" from being "one." As a matter of fact, the sentence that God gave after the Fall is for the purpose of helping the husband and the wife to be "one." The "sentence" that God gave to Eve was surely not given in order to defeat His purposes that husband and wife shall be "one."

As Ellen G. White says, "...sin had brought discord, and now their union could be maintained and harmony preserved only by submission on the part of the one or the other. ....she was now placed in subjection to her husband. Had the principles joined in the law of God been cherished by the fallen race,this sentence, though growing out of the results of sin, would have proved a blessing to them..."

Can you see that the sentence is not AGAINST the plan of God that "two shall be one"?

Therefore, far from throwing the ideal out the window, obedience to God's sentence will prove the greatest blessing to us if we cherish "the principles joined in the law of God."

[John317]

...

Quoting Ellen White and her analysis of the Bible is not a good substitute for actually reading the Bible and doing what the Bible actually says.

We should do both-- that is, we should study the Bible and do what it says, and also study the Spirit of prophecy. They go hand in hand. Ellen White is in complete harmony with Holy Scripture.

If you do not believe she's in harmony in what she has said on this topic, please show the Bible evidence.

What is your evidence that I am not reading the Bible?

[John317]

What happened to being an overcomer? Striving to live up to God's idea as people saved from sin? It sort of sounds like being saved in our sins.

We are to overcome sin, yes, but can you show where it is sin for us to follow what the Bible says?

Where do you find evidence that it's sin to believe and practice the writings of Ellen G. White? Is that something we need to overcome?

Sin is transgression of the commandments of God, and the commandments of God are found in God's edict in Eden and in 1 Cor. 14: 33b-38.

It's those who want to jettison those commandments who are seeking to be saved in their sins.

[Woody]

I don't mind standing up and saying that I'm saved while being a sinner. That's what the Bible is all about.

[John317]

.... your theology [appears to be] based on someone else's interpretation of what the Scripture says rather than on what the Bible actually says.

Would you like to show how Ellen White's statements in PP 58, 59 are contrary to the Bible's teachings?

Originally Posted By: miz3

[it seems to me] that this is how you constantly do your Biblical interpretations, coming with conclusions already in tact and then try and fit the text to suit that conclusion. Relying on another human being for your interpretations is against the what the Bible says is the way you should form your theology.

Please show how I've done this here.

Originally Posted By: miz3

Relying on another human being for your interpretations is against the what the Bible says is the way you should form your theology. See 1Corinthians chapter 2. The Holy Spirit is to be the only interpreter of the Bible.

Ellen White was a genuine prophet of God and inspired by the Holy Spirit.

We study the Bible and then study what Ellen White wrote on the topic.

The Bible interprets itself. The Holy Spirit teaches us through the Bible, but He also leads us to study God's prophets; and Ellen White was a true prophet. Therefore it would not be obeying Scripture to ignore Ellen White's comments.

The Bible's testimony is,

"Do not quench the Spirit. [20] Do not despise prophecies, [21] but test everything; hold fast what is good." {1 Thess 5: 19-21}

Hold fast what is good-- and Ellen White's writings are certainly good.

[Woody]

I don't mind standing up and saying that I'm saved while being a sinner. That's what the Bible is all about.

I agree Woody -

Jesus came to save SINNERS - not SAINTS.

He avoided the Saints and preferred eating with sinners such as I.