On Friday, September 22, a new video and website were unveiled, highlighting Dr. George R. Knight’s “9.5 Theses” and latest book, Adventist Authority Wars, Ordination, and the Roman Catholic Temptation.
I watched the video.
The 500-year-old Luther/SDA ‘coincidence’ is tempting . . . until I remember that Luther failed to ‘see Christ’ in ALL of the Bible, even in ‘The Revelation of Jesus Christ’, written out by the beloved disciple, John.
But, beyond that, I choose to be a Sabbath keeper. Luther was not. The gains of Luther and the other reformers essentially failed during the Council of Trent when the Archbishop of Reggio confronted them with either fully accepting the principle of ‘scripture alone’ – including its true Creation ‘Sabbath’ – or of continuing to submit to Catholic traditions, like the Sunday-keeping they refused to discard.
There are 2 versions of the 10 Commandments which contain different reasons for Sabbath memorial observance within the text of the 4th.
Exodus 20:11 stresses ‘Creation’:
“For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.”
Deuteronomy 5:15 stresses ‘Redemption’:
“And remember that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the LORD thy God brought thee out thence through a mighty hand and by a stretched out arm: therefore the LORD thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day.”
This is a great irony, and a puzzle:
Protestant Religions still claim to follow that ‘Scripture only’ which begins with the idea, “In the beginning God Created . . . .”, just as the ‘1st Angel’s Message’ at the other end of the Bible reminds us Adventist Protestants. Yet, how many seminary-trained SDA pastors could, or would, preach Sabbath sermons from that Creation ‘Word’, the study of which we call ‘science’ ? All I have is a high school diploma, but I took chemistry and physics and graduated from Otsego High School in Michigan, USA . . . just down the road from where our SDA ‘prophet’ had her vision regarding ‘health’ science. Is not the SDA church rather unique among the Protestant Christian churches for including such true, Creation-embracing ‘science’ in its ‘Gospel Work’ ?
So, here I take a stand:
George Knight cannot continue to deny that the ‘1888 Message’ – which is now being proven by non-SDA scientists to be just as true as Ellen described it – has been ‘accepted’ by the same SDA GC hierarchy that now denies its very principles regarding ‘heart-religion’, alone, by refusing the free ordination of women. You can not have it both ways, Dr. Knight, any more than Luther and friends could support ‘sola scriptura’ while denying the Sabbath memorial, also, of Genesis ‘Creation’. Either the ‘1888 Message’ has consistently been rejected by the GC, or the GC is perfectly justified according to ‘sola Scriptura’ to deny women’s ordination, based merely upon their merely physical, genetically-transferred birth-sex, while disregarding their, ‘sex-less’, ‘new heart and right Spirit’ re-Birth, re-Demption, re-Creation . . . of that ‘heart’ of the mind which science is now unveiling for the first time in human history, a ‘heart’ of the human brain first described in a scientific journal in Europe by its namesake, Johann Christian Reil, not long before William Miller took up his Bible in America, and the Great Advent religious Movement began. . . .
God’s ‘Word’ was studied in ‘Creation’ by Adam, Eve and their children and many ‘Scipture’ writers, long before there was a written ‘Word’ to recite. So, let us SDAs continue to explore our own unique Protestant identity in ‘science’ that harmonizes with our ‘religion’, a ‘religion’ which has suffered tremendously in the absence of ‘common’ scientific ‘sense’. (Ellet Waggoner was BOTH a ‘religionist’ AND a ‘scientist’, just like Jesus.)
And, let us begin here:
When Paul told the Galatians that ‘in Christ there is neither male nor female’, and
when Jesus told Nicodemus that he must be ‘born again’, then
clearly, there are 2 different human ‘births’ possible, both are described in Scripture, and now both are able to be described by ‘science’, as of the last 20 years . . . But, where is the SDA religious scholar who dares in the face of long, wrong, SDA ‘tradition’ (especially since Kellogg’s panthentheism ‘alpha’) to compare God’s Word in ‘Scripture’ with God’s Word in ‘Creation’ as Ellen said Jesus did ? . . .‘text with text’, or ‘text’ with ‘abstract’ (of scientific publication):
“The question asked during the Saviour’s ministry, “How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?” does not indicate that Jesus was unable to read, but merely that He had not received a rabbinical education. John 7:15. Since He gained knowledge as we may do, His intimate acquaintance with the Scriptures shows how diligently His early years were given to the study of God’s word. And spread out before Him was the great library of God’s created works. He who had made all things studied the lessons which His own hand had written in earth and sea and sky. Apart from the unholy ways of the world, He gathered stores of scientific knowledge from nature. He studied the life of plants and animals, and the life of man. From His earliest years He was possessed of one purpose; He lived to bless others. For this He found resources in nature; new ideas of ways and means flashed into His mind as He studied plant life and animal life. Continually He was seeking to draw from things seen illustrations by which to present the living oracles of God. The parables by which, during His ministry, He loved to teach His lessons of truth show how open His spirit was to the influences of nature, and how He had gathered the spiritual teaching from the surroundings of His daily life.”
“Thus to Jesus the significance of the word and the works of God was unfolded, as He was trying to understand the reason of things. Heavenly beings were His attendants, and the culture of holy thoughts and communings was His. From the first dawning of intelligence He was constantly growing in spiritual grace and knowledge of truth.” DA 70
If we SDAs ever decide to believe our own woman-‘prophet’, we will be the first to discard the ‘Sola Scriptura’ heresy of the 500-year-old failing Protestant Reformers who denied the Sabbath of BOTH Redemption ( re-Creation, re-Birth) of the human sinner’s ‘heart’ of the mind AND of the Creation spoken into existence by our Redeemer, Jesus, the parable-speaker.
Creation science, alone, can balance out the partisan battles within the SDA church. And, that would seem to me to be just how the Creators intended it to be. . . but do we ?
I watched the video, read and studied George Knight’s writings spanning a number of years, and I consider myself blessed by this man’s ministry…His writings make me think instead of trying to think for me. They are simple not simplistic. His words make me want to study more, listen more and reflect on God’s words more deeply. He is is wise man and not a “wise guy” or complicated. A simple definition for wisdom that I have used is “wisdom is the right use of knowledge.” The resources that Dr. Knight and his ministry is offering for us are excellent and much needed for these times. These resources and the recent books that Dr. Knight has published prove to me that writers grow in wisdom as they remain creative and open their minds to God’s leading. His body of work facilitates greater knowledge and understanding of issues we face today as God’s children. It will be up to each of us individually to determine how to use these resources prayerfully and positively in our spiritual journey.
With all the hurricanes, earthquakes, political upheaval, we have been experiencing it is comforting to learn and be inspired by the wisdom of one of our very best Adventist writers. It has been said that wisdom is reflected in how we respond to stress and trauma. These resources, the video and web page, enhance my growth and capacity for wisdom. Dr. Knight is not a young writer. His writing is conversational and clear. Growing older does not guarantee wisdom. Yet we are more likely to acquire it as we get older. George Knight’s insights and wisdom reflect consistent, mature and sustained study of our shared needs and faith experiences and perhaps getting back up after many rounds and hard knocks in life’s ring.
We need to see the story of the Exodus as a spiritual journey not a historical fact.The Jews in Egypt were slaves because years earlier there forefathers left the Promised Land during difficult times seeking food.
Naturally to begin the spiritual out of bondage one has to recognise God as creator.
I wont go in to all the events of the Exodus but at the end of the journey with the Promised Land in sight it was important to recognise that grace alone had brought them thus far.
Properly understood the Sabbath is a testimony that one is saved by grace not by works
confusion ?
the bellow chapter even show cases gender roles in the family and men called to be ordained
most members have to work in secular works
these teachers and most of our leaders have a secure job in a insecure world
its getting a bit self absorbing or self serving ?
what does it mean SERVING the church
when is theses 10.5 coming out and 11.5 ?
this all does not make any sense hope current ordained ministers can sort this out
Like to add
We can romance the idea of new prophets or walking in luthers shoes yet we can’t even do it in Ellen g white’s with submission some pastors say 'in jesus’
Have we forgotten 1st 2nd and 3rd base
George Knight’s Thesis No.3, according to the video, states: “It is God who calls Pastors. All the Church can do is to recognize God’s call by the laying on of hands.” The obvious implication is that women who desire to be ordained as Pastors should be so ordained; because, in keeping with Thesis No.4, “Ordination is NOT a Biblical topic. From the perspective of the Bible, there is ABSOLUTELY no difference between ordaining and commissioning.” Therefore, according to him, a woman should be ordained as Pastor, as equally as men already are.
I’m tired pointing out that the Bible is unequivocally clear, both in the Old and the New Covenants, that though God recognized and blessed the faith of women, men were always the designated “ordained” leaders of His people. There was no such thing ever as a “shepherdess” in the congregation of the saints.
Even Mary, THE MOTHER OF JESUS CHRIST (yes, that Mary, a woman of whom it is written, “Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!” – Luke 1:28) and who was with Him even from His days in the womb, was not chosen to be an Apostle over His Church.
But a sudden fever has gripped the SDA Unions of the rich and famous nations, wherein which women have ascended to walk in the corridors of worldly power, so that those Unions now look enviously at them and have grown ashamed of their own laws and ordinances.
1 Samuel 8:1-9 cf. Isaiah 3 (especially verse 12)
Now it came to pass when Samuel was old that he made his sons judges over Israel. The name of his firstborn was Joel, and the name of his second, Abijah; they were judges in Beersheba. But his sons did not walk in his ways; they turned aside after dishonest gain, took bribes, and perverted justice.
Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah, and said to him, "Look, you are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now make us a king to judge us like all the nations."
But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” So Samuel prayed to the Lord. And the Lord said to Samuel, "Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt, even to this day — with which they have forsaken Me and served other gods — so they are doing to you also.
Now therefore, heed their voice. However, you shall solemnly forewarn them, and show them the behavior of the king who will reign over them."
///
i’m not sure there really is similarity between martin luther’s 95 theses and dr. george knight’s 9.5 theses beyond the title…as i understand it, luther posted his 95 theses, not because pope leo X was threatening to use the power of the church against him because he was refusing to comply with a church wide vote over a policy matter, but because pope leo and the archbishop of mainz had authorized the dominican priest johann tetzel to sell indulgences to raise the funds necessary to renovate st. peter’s basilica, and luther’s parishioners were explaining to him that their purchase of these indulgences meant they didn’t have to repent, like luther was teaching them to…in other words, luther’s protest was in response to a clear violation of scripture on the church’s part, which stirred luther to expose other longstanding and well-known practices and beliefs of the church that were also in violation of scripture…
by way of contrast, dr. knight’s 9.5 theses seem to be in response to the GC’s stated intent to uphold the church wide vote in san antonio, which all sides entered into willingly, and lobbied heavily and extensively to influence…while i agree in substance with many of dr. knight’s points - and i think his video will be persuasive with many rank and file adventists - i think he may be hijacking the heroism of luther’s actions to justify an unwillingness to accept the consequences of a vote which our side lost by a small margin…does TW’s enforcement of a world church vote to preserve law and order in the church, if it happens, rise to the level of the persecution pope leo and emperor charles V unleashed on luther because his 95 theses exposed deep-seated corruption in the church…is there deep-seated and well-known corruption in the GC and the life of TW that any impending action from fall council compels people of conscience to rise up against…has sudden and ruthless discipline against any non-compliant entity in our church, without due process, been on the table at all…
it is one thing to state, as dr. knight does, that the only basis for legitimate christian unity is “scripture, trust and the love of god”…but why wasn’t that message disseminated before the vote on WO in san antonio…presumably the san antonio vote was initiated because actions in PUC and CUC, and elsewhere, indicated a lack of clear church policy despite the church wide anti-WO votes in 1990 and 1995…if the san antonio vote, which by definition carried risks, wasn’t necessary for church unity, and all we needed was a universal affirmation of the value of the bible, trust and the love of god - which i can’t imagine any adventist having a problem with - why did we go through decades of scholarly investigation, TOSC, carefully crafted pronouncements from the seminary (which dr. knight may have contributed to) and our BRI, not to mention the cautions of venerable church leaders like jan paulsen, william johnsson, calvin rock, charles bradford, allejandro bullon and angel rodriguez…why did so many of us lose so much sleep for so long, leading up to san antonio, in order to do what we could to convince headship advocates that WO is of god…is it not because dr. knight, like all of us who believe in WO, expected that the rightness of our cause would win the day in san antonio, and that the church would benefit from a world wide vote that could strengthen the legitimacy of WO with the parts of the church that were opposed…and can it now be a legitimate claim to make that the machine of the church that would have been a valuable tool had we gotten our way is suddenly the embodiment of the medieval papacy because we didn’t…
thesis #9 in dr. knight’s video, 3:32, accuses our GC leaders of coming dangerously close to the medieval church for calling for the serious discipline of large segments of the church “on the basis of a non-biblical issue”…but if WO is such a non-biblical issue, why not yield to the voted majority will of the church, which is all the GC is seeking to enforce…on the other hand, if WO really is the matter of conscience which this video implies, why were there no strongly worded objections leading up to the vote in san antonio…have we ever subjected to a vote by erring mortals what we deem a matter of core doctrine, which we use the bible, and the bible only, to define…
i think what is necessary now is the recognition that paul’s call for “all things to be done decently and in order” in the church, 1 Cor 14:40, implies a judgement about what is decent and orderly, with the expectation that some things will be deemed to not be decent and orderly…presumably his detailed enumeration of the qualities necessary in church leaders in 1 Tim 3:2-12, and elsewhere, implies the eventuality of disagreement over what is decent and orderly, and the necessity of someone qualified to execute judgement…is it decent and orderly for all to agree to participate in a vote on WO, but then go ahead and do what they want, irrespective of the vote…for that matter, is the phenomenon of everyone making a decision to be their own leader, and calling on others to join them, in harmony with the importance paul attaches to the church giving respect to its leadership, which is the obvious implication to draw from his careful delineation of the honorable qualities necessary in leadership that in fact enable the church to give that respect…i don’t think anyone can seriously question that our GC is taking its responsibilities seriously…while i cannot know for certain, i would venture to guess that not a day goes by without serious prayer on the part of TW and others tasked with the responsibility to lead our world church for wisdom and guidance to do the right thing…as a church body, are we at all contributing to the answering of those prayers when we decide to wrap ourselves in the mantle of martin luther in order to flaunt our own will, which is now a principle, but certainly couldn’t have been when we agreed to subject it to a vote by erring human delegates…
i do think resistance to the voice of the GC in this instance is the wrong course, even though i strongly disagree with the san antonio vote…parallels to the heroism of martin luther are wholly off…by adopting such parallels, we aren’t launching a bold new direction in which freedom and conscience hold sway…sadly, we are only feeding into satan’s plans to divide and scatter us in order to compromise and mute our message…i see nothing in either the bible or egw that gives cover for breaking with godly leadership who are simply seeking to uphold voted policy by the world church…any organization requires law and order, and leaders are always derelict when they overlook this…in fact, church leaders are arguably in violation of 1 Cor 14:40 when they neglect the difficult task of imposing decency and order because it’s easier to go with the flow…as i see it, we have nothing to lose by yielding to fellow church members on this issue, which we are saying isn’t a biblical issue…there are future GC sessions where a stronger, more intelligent presentation of WO will likely complete the trajectory of victory it is on now…there is no need to place our church and witness to the world in jeopardy from a split, or even the loss of a single, valuable, union…
The surest way to create a BEST SELLING SENSATION is to have a book burning/banning.
How splendid of Jay Gallimore to ensure such superb free publicity/promotion/press for Knight’s potential BLOCKBUSTER,
Knight owes Gallimore a percentage of the royalties!
Will Gallimore also promote the Hollywood movie rights?
It’s so sad that people’s traditions or men’s religious, the political order become more important than biblical truth. Just simply, so sad. How long will we see that God’s word is not static but that we keep gaining a developmental understanding through time? Just like the Tabernacle rituals transcended to the coming of the Messiah, the Jew leadership were blindsided about who Christ was and the purpose of the Messiah. Our SDA GC leadership is being blind-sided about the WO issue. No difference. Is there a petition that Spectrum or other SDA organization is creating to counter-act the zealous unitedintruth.com political campaign? Thank you!
Never have I seen or read such contrived hyperbole. It is incredibly irresponsible to compare the medieval practices of the Catholic Church in Luther’s day to that of the General Conference. Men being put to the most inhuman torture, imprisoned, burned, beheaded. I’m sorry, did any of us suffer any of these things at or post San Antonio? A vote, I REPEAT, a vote was made in good faith in session in 2015, by both sides on this issue, which means both sides recognized the authority of this body. If the vote had gone the other way, the way which this video advocates, this video would not have been made. Victory would have been declared and the vote recognized as valid.
One of the 9 points, which are actually 14 or 15 points, is that ordination is not even biblical. If this is so, then why the adamant move towards ordination? It also is very presumptuous to use the famous quote by Martin Niemöller and apply it to this situation as if the circumstances in which he wrote these words are somehow equal. I find this insulting and disingenuous. We voted. The church in Luther’s time gave no respect to individual liberty or to a vote by a church body made up of all of its members. If this is the great issue of the day, then what this video is advocating is that systematic dogma is more important than scripture since ordination isn’t even a point of theology in the Bible. This is pride and vanity since what they are really seeking is a recognition of a political body. Will this issue hasten the return of Christ? And if Christ were to return at this very hour, would any of this matter or would we be more focused on just being ready to receive Him?