Elephant in the Room...

[CoAspen]

The question that people still do not answer..........

Quote:

So the question remains.....who is in control of our lives...God or the .org? It can not be a 'little bit' of both! Sort of like the question, chicken or egg first! God or His product?

Do we have a pope type system or not???

You suggest people should leave the church...really? The church is the sole repositor of truth? The H*S/God is not in control?

[CoAspen]

The bottom line for bringing up homosexuality over and over when it comes to WO is because some churches the have WO may also have homosexual leaders etc. It is a phobia when that is always the issue of those against WO use over and over. Do they obsess over unclean meat issue those same churches are not against or any other practise that SDA's beleive is wrong? No, it is the one issue that rears its head and becomes the dominate part of the discussion, while other more important issues are simply not addressed. We have been talking about the subject for sometime and it hasn't changed. NEVER address that the .org is NOT taking a stand against WO because it is Biblicly wrong but rather they want unity with the .org and that they are the supreme decider of what is right and wrong on this issue. There is the not so subtle statement that the .org is Gods voice here on earth when in session which means we have 'pope by committee' when needed. That by implication suggest that the H*S does not lead against what ever the church decides.

That is why the Central Issue is about Authority and not any of these other R Herrings brought up nto distract from answering the authority question. The .org does recognize that issue and not these 'phobias' that others wish to drag aroung constantly. ;

[CyberGuy]

Originally Posted By: CoAspen

For a long time the church has had a membership that sat back and accepted what ever the Men of the church said was of God and perhaps didn't 'listen' to voice of the H*S. But today, many, many are waking up realizing that God is their leader and each person has a responsibility to forward the Good News.

That is true, but if a person feels that the Holy Spirit is leading him or her to go against the doctrinal decisions of the SDA world church in General Conference, the correct thing is to leave the church. It isn't right to stay in the church and cause division. A person is free to teach and practice as they believe they should, but if it means opposing the main body of believers, they should separate.

There will always be division in the church. That does not mean that if I disagree with the world church I should leave it any more than i should Stop paying tithe to the church.

This church is the LAST of the churches before Christ comes. Ladocia God had nothing good to say about our church in this time. But Ellen White still says that the church is the apple of Gods eye dispite its faults.

Remember the parable of the wheat and the tares. It is not up to you or people like you to tell people to get out because you do not like their ideas or because they disagree with the church. That is up to God.

Remember that Ellen White disagreed with the world church or GC in 1888 over rightous by faith. Did EGW advocate leaving the church over that. No she worked to bring rightousness by faith into our doctrines and over time she got that done but it took time.

So your premise that those who disagree with the world church should leave is not biblical or supported by SOP.

[CyberGuy]

The bottom line for bringing up homosexuality over and over when it comes to WO is because some churches the have WO may also have homosexual leaders etc. It is a phobia when that is always the issue of those against WO use over and over. Do they obsess over unclean meat issue those same churches are not against or any other practise that SDA's beleive is wrong? No, it is the one issue that rears its head and becomes the dominate part of the discussion, while other more important issues are simply not addressed. We have been talking about the subject for sometime and it hasn't changed. NEVER address that the .org is NOT taking a stand against WO because it is Biblicly wrong but rather they want unity with the .org and that they are the supreme decider of what is right and wrong on this issue. There is the not so subtle statement that the .org is Gods voice here on earth when in session which means we have 'pope by committee' when needed. That by implication suggest that the H*S does not lead against what ever the church decides.

That is why the Central Issue is about Authority and not any of these other R Herrings brought up nto distract from answering the authority question. The .org does recognize that issue and not these 'phobias' that others wish to drag aroung constantly. ;

That simply is an untrue statement. I know my church is very much in favor of WO but nowhere do we have any homosexual leaders or those that support that lifestyle. You are just trying to stir up hatred that is unfounded by actual facts.

[CyberGuy]

The bottom line for bringing up homosexuality over and over when it comes to WO is because some churches the have WO may also have homosexual leaders etc. It is a phobia when that is always the issue of those against WO use over and over. Do they obsess over unclean meat issue those same churches are not against or any other practise that SDA's beleive is wrong? No, it is the one issue that rears its head and becomes the dominate part of the discussion, while other more important issues are simply not addressed. We have been talking about the subject for sometime and it hasn't changed. NEVER address that the .org is NOT taking a stand against WO because it is Biblicly wrong but rather they want unity with the .org and that they are the supreme decider of what is right and wrong on this issue. There is the not so subtle statement that the .org is Gods voice here on earth when in session which means we have 'pope by committee' when needed. That by implication suggest that the H*S does not lead against what ever the church decides.

That is why the Central Issue is about Authority and not any of these other R Herrings brought up nto distract from answering the authority question. The .org does recognize that issue and not these 'phobias' that others wish to drag aroung constantly. ;

Dwight Nelson of the Pioneer Memorial church came out in a sermon in favor of WO. He also spoke a few months before against homosexulatity and if one has a tendancey toward that he should maintain abstainance as scripture plainly teaches that those who practice same sex sex are going to lost.

So you see putting everyone who favors WO as favoring Homosexuality is simply untrue.

That would be a fair as my saying that anyone who is against wo is prone to violence and should be expelled from the church.

See this articile of a man against WO resorted to violence against a spectrum magazine reporter.

http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2011/02/25/violence-president-wilsons-california-speech

I am not saying that some who favor WO favor Homosexuality. I am saying putting the whole WO camp into the homosexuality camp is untrue and unfair.

[CoAspen]

I was speaking of churches outside the denomination of SDA's...you may have misunderstood me. I was responding to the allegations of quilt by assocciation!

Not in direct responce to your post! Sorry about the confusion.

[Woody]

Opposition to WO is a sign of the times.

WE have to expect that this kind of support for Satan's ways - will happen in the end days.

But we know the name of Him who will come out on top in all of this and we need to keep our focus on Him.

[jasd]

>>A person is free to teach and practice as they believe they should, but if it means opposing the main body of believers, they should separate.<<

Lu 11:33 No man, when he hath lighted a candle, putteth [it] in a secret place, neither under a bushel, but on a candlestick, that they which come in may see the light.

[Tom Wetmore]

It is reported that Ted Wilson when they were going to pray said. " All that agree with me please kneel with me."

That kind of action makes it seem that instead of praying to our Crator God we are kneeling to give homage to Ted Wilson.

That is spirtual bullying plain and simple

That will not cause unity. That will cause anger and it will spread. This kind of bullying will be long remembered.

I was there. I was paying attention. I certainly do not recall hearing Ted say anything of the sort. And I am more than a little skeptical that he said it at any other gathering.

[olger]

So you see putting everyone who favors WO as favoring Homosexuality is simply untrue.

This is true for now.

The problem (and I am conducting research on this issue) is that feminism and homosexuality seem to share the same ethical trajectory. One indicator of this is what proponents of both have to say about each other (feminism and homosexuality).

Giving that moral interconnection, it is a matter of time until WO steps back and opens the door for homosexuality. It is coming, Sir.

[JoeMo]

CyberGuy says "This church is the LAST of the churches before Christ comes."

I never read in scripture that God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit ever said that (or ever mentioned SDA's, for that matter). If it was EGW that said it; she is entitled to her opinion, but that don't make it so. The "church is made up of people who sincerely love God and want to spend eternity with him - not some bricks-and-mortar man-made denomination. It may come as a suprise, but there will be many non-Adventists in heaven. There will be many non-Adventists who survive will be taken up when Jesus returns. SDA's do not have a corner or a monopoly on salvation.

There may even be some female pastors in heaven!!

[olger]

Originally Posted By: CyberGuy

It is reported that Ted Wilson when they were going to pray said. " All that agree with me please kneel with me."

That kind of action makes it seem that instead of praying to our Crator God we are kneeling to give homage to Ted Wilson.

That is spirtual bullying plain and simple

That will not cause unity. That will cause anger and it will spread. This kind of bullying will be long remembered.

I was there. I was paying attention. I certainly do not recall hearing Ted say anything of the sort. And I am more than a little skeptical that he said it at any other gathering.

busted

[Woody]

CyberGuy says "This church is the LAST of the churches before Christ comes."

I never read in scripture that God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit ever said that (or ever mentioned SDA's, for that matter). If it was EGW that said it; she is entitled to her opinion, but that don't make it so. The "church is made up of people who sincerely love God and want to spend eternity with him - not some bricks-and-mortar man-made denomination. It may come as a suprise, but there will be many non-Adventists in heaven. There will be many non-Adventists who survive will be taken up when Jesus returns. SDA's do not have a corner or a monopoly on salvation.

There may even be some female pastors in heaven!!

Well stated JoeMo.

Although I might differ with the EGW comment. It is just her opinion UNLESS she says "And I was shown". That makes a difference. If God shows her in vision ... it is something we need to pay attention to. If it is just her thoughts and opinions - that is different.

[John317]

The "church is made up of people who sincerely love God and want to spend eternity with him - not some bricks-and-mortar man-made denomination. It may come as a suprise, but there will be many non-Adventists in heaven. There will be many non-Adventists who survive will be taken up when Jesus returns. SDA's do not have a corner or a monopoly on salvation.

There may even be some female pastors in heaven!!

SDAs have always taught that heaven will be filled with non-SDAs, including Catholics, and people who didn't even know about the true Sabbath. No one here is suggesting that SDAs have a monopoly on salvation.

[John317]

I might differ with the EGW comment. It is just her opinion UNLESS she says "And I was shown". That makes a difference. If God shows her in vision ... it is something we need to pay attention to. If it is just her thoughts and opinions - that is different.

Ellen White denied that she ever wrote her mere opinions in articles and books for the church. She only wrote what she knew God wanted her to write. She wouldn't agree with the statement that "It is just her opinion UNLESS she says, 'And I was shown.'"

Prophets don't give their own messages; they give God's messages. If they give their own opinions, they're a false prophet.

[John317]

Dwight Nelson of the Pioneer Memorial church came out in a sermon in favor of WO. He also spoke a few months before against homosexulatity and if one has a tendancey toward that he should maintain abstainance as scripture plainly teaches that those who practice same sex sex are going to lost.

So you see putting everyone who favors WO as favoring Homosexuality is simply untrue.

...I am not saying that some who favor WO favor Homosexuality. I am saying putting the whole WO camp into the homosexuality camp is untrue and unfair.

I'm not saying everyone who favors WO also favors homosexuality. But I know many who do favor both, and there seems to me to be a connection between these two viewpoints. For instance, I know that Friz Guy favors practicing homosexuals becoming members of the SDA Church. Of course he also very much favors WO. He uses some of the same arguments in his defense of both positions.

I am concerned about the homosexual issue because I am myself a non-practicing homosexual. I think it's wrong for us as a church to teach gays that God is OK with the practice of homosexuality. That is exactly what we're doing if we accept practicing gays as church members. If the church accepts practicing gays into the church, it will only be a short time before we will also have gay clergy. God will hold our church accountable if we join the fallen churches in accepting homosexuality as "normal" and neglect to help them resist and overcome their sins. Our church should be at the forefront of helping gay people become aware of the power of the gospel to change their lives. Instead, I'm afraid we will be encouraging them to continue their sinful practices.

[Woody]

Quote:

Prophets don't give their own messages; they give God's messages. If they give their own opinions, they're a false prophet.

The job of a prophet is not a life time position.

The prophet is sent for a specific purpose and message.

Please name one prophet who for their entire lifetime ONLY proclaimed words directly from God and never their own opinions.

[BobRyan]

The bottom line for bringing up homosexuality over and over when it comes to WO is because some churches the have WO may also have homosexual leaders etc. It is a phobia when that is always the issue of those against WO use over and over.

[BobRyan]

The job of a prophet is not a life time position.

The prophet is sent for a specific purpose and message.

Please name one prophet who for their entire lifetime ONLY proclaimed words directly from God and never their own opinions.

Prophets don't "give themselves visions" and a liberal cannot simply "vote them out of office", or impose an arbitrary "term limit" if they don't like what God tells the prophet.

I think we can all agree - it simply does not work that way.

in Christ,

Bob

[John317]

Of course Ellen White had personal opinions. But the issue is whether Ellen White wrote her personal opinions in the Testimonies for the church or in her other writings that were intended for the church or for individuals.

Here is some of what she said:

Quote:

In the testimonies sent to Battle Creek, I have given you the light God has given to me. In no case have I given my own judgment or opinion. I have enough to write of what has been shown me, without falling back on my own opinions. You are doing as the children of Israel did again and again. Instead of repenting before God, you reject His words, and attribute all the warnings and reproof to the messenger whom the Lord sends.--Testimony for the Battle Creek Church, pp. 50-58 (1882). {3SM 70.1}

Permit me to express my mind, and yet not my mind, but the word of the Lord.--Letter 89, 1899. (Quoted in Counsels to Writers and Editors, p. 112.) {3SM 70.2}

Satan Will Help Those Who Feel They Must Discriminate.--I have my work to do, to meet the misconceptions of those who suppose themselves able to say what is testimony from God and what is human production. If those who have done this work continue in this course, satanic agencies will choose for them. . . . {3SM 70.3}

Those who have helped souls to feel at liberty to specify what is of God in the Testimonies and what are the uninspired words of Sister White, will find that they were helping the devil in his work of deception. Please read Testimony No. 33, page 211 [Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 682], "How to Receive Reproof."--Letter 28, 1906. {3SM 70.4}

[BobRyan]

I'm not saying everyone who favors WO also favors homosexuality. But I know many who do favor both, and there seems to me to be a connection between these two viewpoints. For instance, I know that Friz Guy favors practicing homosexuals becoming members of the SDA Church. Of course he also very much favors WO. He uses some of the same arguments in his defense of both positions.

And he favors blind-faith evolutionism over the Bible - and he is hosted by the left coast union so special to Spectrum.

However the argument is not that all WO leaning unions/conferences are also tagging along behind the left-coast. Rather the point is that if done badly - the WO issue can be used by others to create a far bigger rift than the WO issue ever dreamed of being.

Hence my appeal to the 1Cor 8 example that Paul provides for us.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted By: BobRyan

If the west wing is able to contain itself and not rush out the door with its own union agenda for evolution, gay marriage, etc etc - then I think we dodged a bullet with this Columbia Union fiasco.

As Paul said in 1Cor 8 "I will never eat meat again if it causes my brother to stumble". One would think that this principle would have held up in the case of the entire denomination rather than taking actions designed to fracture the same.

Originally Posted By: CoAspen

Red H alert! Red H alert!!!

Come on...doesn't this 'gay agenda' scare tactic get a little old? Some of you all try to tie this into everything you disagree with! Is the true homophobia finally being seen??

Lets get back to topic!!

By contrast the facts are that the left-coast - west wing is already pushing for it.

The question is an obvious one.

Simply holding up the homophobia red herring does not address the issue.

[olger]

Julius Nam for one.

[Tom Wetmore]

This is true for now.

The problem (and I am conducting research on this issue) is that feminism and homosexuality seem to share the same ethical trajectory. One indicator of this is what proponents of both have to say about each other (feminism and homosexuality).

Giving that moral interconnection, it is a matter of time until WO steps back and opens the door for homosexuality. It is coming, Sir.

Using this same "logic", many anti-feminists and those most voraciously opposed to women in ministry or leadership also practice and believe it is necessary and appropriate to use corporal punishment on a disobedient wife.

Given that moral interconnection, it would be only a matter of time, if we follow the path of the Southern Baptist of reversing ourselves away from accepting/allowing women in pastoral ministry and leadership in the Church that we step back toward the dark ages of the treatment of women. If you like that direction, sir, take a look at Muslim extremists. If we reverse the path of progress, we will eventually see nothing wrong with shooting young girls for advocating equal opportunity for education for girls. We will execute the woman caught in adultery and let the guilty man walk free, and even cast the first stone. Beating our burka clad women will be perfectly acceptable and even expected.

And that is a real and logical connection on many levels.

[JoeMo]

Woody,

Just like we can't say every word that proceeded from the mouth of Isaiah or Jeremiah was prophetic, we dare not say that every word that proceeded from the mouth of EGW was prophetic. I think there has (and still is) a danger among more conservative SDA's to equate every word in her published writings as equivalent to scripture (IOW, infallible). That makes her sound kinda like a pope.

I could make the argument that the NT gift of prophecy is different than the OT office of prophecy. In speaking of the NT gift of prophecy, Paul says:

"Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. And if a revelation comes to someone who is sitting down, the first speaker should stop. For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged. The spirits of prophets are subject to the control of prophets. For God is not a God of disorder but of peace—as in all the congregations of the Lord’s people."

(1Cor.14:29-33)

It appears here to me that the words of a single NT prophet "could be wrong"; but if 2 or 3 prophets agree .... I understand that this argument won't hold water with some of you; and I won't push it.