Perspective: Even The General Conference in Session Doesn't Believe all 28 Fundamental Beliefs

That’s not being aggressive, merely stating the facts in a courteous, polite way.


Yes, exactly, this is the strange theological quandary that the church finds itself in. They say God calls women to be ministers, but this same God would be unhappy if the church performed the service that acknowledges he has called them to ministry.

So God wants certain women to actually do the work of pastoring but just not get the formal recognition?

It’s like Ms. Nebblett at the GC saying she is proud to serve as GYC leader but doesn’t want ordaination. She is leading lots of men spiritually in that position which is God’s plan for her, but she thinks it is not God’s plan for her to simply have that plan acknowledged?

To me, it makes more sense to say women cannot serve as spiritual leaders period, rather than say they can, but it can’t be acknowledged formally. Why would that part bother God?


The vote for gender discrimination totally discounts the Priesthood of all Believers and imposes a restraint upon the Holy Spirit for empowering women to receive gifts and authorization to preach. It is a blatantly anti-Biblical move by the church to limit the scope, reach, and penetration of the Gospel. It is a troubling move away from Gospel evangelizing and the mission of the Church.


I think you mean he’s merely stating his opinion or perspective. They’re not facts.


But then we go into terms such as licensed minister, pastor, or just minister?

Can someone please explain what each mean? Because it seems that sometimes they are used interchangeably. And it can get confusing. :confused:

It’s more than that. The author purposely used constructions aimed to incite, evident in the very title. This goes beyond stating an opinion to the level of purposely mis-stating others opinions in order to get a rise out of them or ridicule them–what is commonly referred to as “trolling,” and forbidden in this forum. It is interesting to note the tenor of the recent articles here: This one contains obvious trolling, another contained an ad-hominem attack (below)

A third claimed that people with a certain theological perspective tear that church apart (below)

All of these are things that are prohibited here on the forum, but Spectrum is going to have an increasingly difficult time policing the comments when it fails to hold its articles to the same standard.


Totally agree with your analysis. I think I said so too somewhere but I’ve written so much I can’t remember. Lol

1 Like

We who have been given the gift of being married understand this important concept. @kevindpaulson and those who are yet to be married could have their worldview skewed to being “entitled.”

I went through five years of clinical training in how to listen actively. I would rather listen attentively in hopes of ministering to those who need to have an empathic listener. There are way too many pontiffs already.


It’s a pity that ministers are not given a course in empathic listening as some seem to have lost the ability to listen at all and only talk.


We point at others but hardly include ourselves. The irony is we really should include ourselves.

I know I’d want to learn how to listen completely 1st and then formulate my view on things. My mind is always guessing and coming up with things before I’ve even finished listening to the person.

It’s easier to read people’s views than listen to them, at least for me, it is.


Great! Now that you have pointed this out about belief #14, we can expect the conservatives to change that one at the next GC like they did with the Creation belief this time around. What’s that adage about sleeping dogs?


Yes, Daniel. An another cool dude, Pope Francis, said something similar when he guessed that some atheists may make the cut, too.

1 Like

I continue to fail to understand how a “fundamental” belief can be changed on a regular basis. If it’s fundamental, then it doesn’t change. Right?


An earlier comment smashed the nail-head: the priesthood of ALL believers, not just men.

As for the argument about gender-distinction being original, that doesn’t help Kevin’s position at all: the distinction is made, but there is not one jot or tittle of “headship” theology in the the story of pre-fall human experience. What results from the fall is no argument–we are meant to OVERCOME sin, not persist in it. Post-fall difficulties for women, when transmogrifed into spiritual arguments for hierarchy, only serve male desperation with regard to power. They have NOTHING to do with the Gospel as Jesus and Paul understood it.



as i understand it, spectrum’s forum policy isn’t geared towards content so much as it’s geared towards manner of delivery…the articles you cite do take a definite slant, but with the possible exception of the ted wilson comment, this isn’t a problem since personal attacks aren’t present…of course in the broader world that includes advindicate, in which nad leadership is now being described as representatives of satan, spectrum is probably striking a reasonable balance…


But Adventists by tradition, look to the OT for their major doctrines:
Sabbath, YEC, Tithe, IJ beginning in 1844. Then the NT which is where Christianity originated, is rejected for many of the changes which made the Law obsolete as replaced in Christ.


Here is some of the vitriol from Advindicate.

“Readers, Please re-read the article replacing the name “Lucifer” with “NAD & TED” - his representatives in Adventism - originators of chaos in God’s Church.”

“Surely they became the representatives of ‘The Devil’ - ‘The Jesuits’ - ‘The Popery’ in Adventism! This article is for them!”


see what i mean… :scream:


If this kind of thing were being published from those on the side in favor of ordination for women, there would be major accusations of vitriol, hate, anti-Christ, non-Christian attitudes.

What Spirit does this display?


These terms, pastor and minister, are totally interchangeable.