Neither spiritual male headship nor the salvific role of sanctification constitute a man-made tradition. Both are based on the Word of God.
I know almost no one who thinks that. Even most Adventists I know don’t think that.
The early Jesus-followers thought they were experiencing the near end of the second age and beginning the third and last glorious age. They were sure it would be soon. Jesus would return soon, he had said, perhaps in their lifetimes, to begin the new age.
Well, it hasn’t started yet and there’s no indication this ancient Jewish world view is valid. Actual history does not present two ages with a third as pending.
Maybe He is? Maybe there’s an Ellen 2.0?..
What is “spiritual male headship”? Searching the 28 and can’t find it.
Do you mean what this article is referencing?
I was almost positive that you would not EVER answer my question objectively. You cannot!
And the reason is simple: any mature, honest and unbiased Christian would certainly agree that the Bible contains ALL the info needed to reveal the Gospel and what is needed for salvation.
But when someone is undeniably biased, they cannot affirm the same, they cannot subscribe to the Bible alone being enough.
I am sorry that not answering a question and at the same time writing a long “explanation” is the pattern you always follow when an important, crucial question is asked.
Kevin is teaching us a sinister new way to talk: Orwellian Adventist Newspeak.
This is the second phrase today.
- The Biblical Order of Gender Authority
- Spiritual Male Headship
I’m compiling a Newspeak Dictionary for you.
Pacific Union Officials Decline Inclusion in SDA Yearbook; Stand in Solidarity with President Sandra Roberts
Yes, he doesn’t really answer mine either. I have several outstanding questions for him that he’s side-stepped, mis-answered, or just replied with a new tangential assertion that will in the end also not be supported when asked for details.
It is futile to ask an apologist to support their claims after they are presented with new information or difficult questions of any sort. In most cases, they don’t seem to know why they believe the things they do, or they just retreat to the same tired and inadequate formulas and proof texts, ignoring evidence, ignoring new ideas, and often butchering scripture to make their point.
I sense that spiritual male headship may one day become part of our Fundamental Beliefs as a church. And I wouldn’t bring up the 28 if I were you, as your own denial of any number of those Beliefs is a matter of record on this forum.
Tim, we’ll let the readers of this dialogue decide who is ignoring evidence and who is not, and who is presenting credible evidence—especially from the Bible—and who is not.
Kevin is an apologist for Ellen White, explicitly over Jesus Christ.
So Kevin is explicitly saying that God is instructing us FAR more earnestly through Ellen White than He did through Jesus Christ.
I should hope not, but given Ted’s fantastic retreat into the 1950s and beyond you may be right. It would be a tragedy.
It is fair to bring up the 28, or any other source, in a conversation where one side uses it as a source. If you quote a source as authoritative, then I can use it in the discussion whether or not I think it is.
For example, if you state that the entire Bible is God’s written word to be taken literally in all cases, then I can challenge that using the bible:
I can then fairly challenge you and ask you to confirm that you think there are unicorns, talking donkeys, that gods mated with human women to create demi-gods, and ask you why the four accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection all differ in many points of fact.
I can also ask you if you follow all of the instructions in the commandments, which Adventists claim to but then do not in fact even attempt to follow or even teach (read all three differing versions to confirm.)
When you assert that Adam and Eve were the pinnacle of creation as God’s last act before he rested, then it is fair to ask you how Adam named all the things as God created them as relayed in the second creation story. Both cannot be literally factual.
If you state that all scripture is inspired and to be followed then I’ll ask why you don’t keep Kosher, or why you even should since God stated, “Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.”, in diametric opposition to the Priests. And also why He said that after making a fuss about 7 of each “clean” animals to go into the Arc?
That says it all. Otherwise my Ellen 2.0 theory is possible is it not?
I suppose if people are foolish enough to chase after another authoritarian, monolithic “prophet,” there’s nothing to stop them. I hope Adventists have learned better by now.
Better to just become psychological adults, I would say.
While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; HEAR YE HIM..
I’ll repost what I said earlier, Paul:
The tragedy, Tim, would be if your obvious disbelief in the Holy Word of God became tolerable in the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
Like other theological liberals, you have decided that criticism of the Bible is to be treated as if it were as verifiable as Newtonian physics. The harmony of the four Gospels is easily demonstrated despite small variations in the accounts. And if you’re prepared to doubt that God works miracles (e.g. talking donkeys) or that animals like unicorns couldn’t possibly have existed at some point in human history, than the question is no longer whether you qualify as an Adventist, but whether you even qualify as a Christian.
And Genesis chapter 6 doesn’t teach that heavenly beings mated with humans. The Biblical consensus is as clear as it can be that what Ellen White later said about this passage is the only accurate way to read these verses. This was a case of the descendants of Seth intermarrying with the daughters of Cain.
These discussions have great value, frankly, as they demonstrate just how wide of the mark so-called “progressive” Adventism has strayed, and how no harmony between this nihilistic approach to God’s Word and the classic Bible-based teachings of our faith is possible.
Cassie, there is absolutely no conflict between Hebrews chapter 1 and the Ellen White statements you have quoted, as the New Testament is clear that the gift of prophecy will continue to function till the return of Christ (I Cor. 1:7). Hebrews 1 isn’t saying God has ceased using the prophetic gift because of Jesus. Rather, Hebrews is saying that God has communicated even more intimately with humanity because of Jesus. But this hardly means God has ceased to use the prophetic gift, or that a more in-depth prophetic revelation than in previous times won’t be necessary as the end of all things draws near.
As usual, Ellen White and the Bible are in full agreement, and such statements as those you have cited complement, not contradict, one another.
This is an incredibly outlandish statement given EGW herself said she was ordained by God. She taught, preached, raised up an entire movement.
Just what is spiritual leadership, Kevin? Even other outside entities recognize and give EGW credit for her spiritual leadership in founding a church and movement.
To compare EGW to Miriam is a stretch. This is a classic persuasive technique called “downplaying.”
Again. Kevin. You can’t have it both ways.
No, I haven’t.
They’re not small. Even if they were, any variances preclude a literal treatment, preclude historicity of the other accounts.
Did Mary Magdalene and the other Mary go go to look at the tomb, see an angel roll the stone away, at which point the Roman guards fainted? Then the Angel who told them of the resurrection. Did they hurry away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and run to tell Jesus disciples?
Or, did Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bring spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body, find the tomb deserted by the Romans, find stone already rolled away, and then speak to young man dressed in a white robe who told them of the resurrection inside the tomb? Did they then run away and say nothing to anyone, because they were afraid?
Or, did Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the “others” take the spices they had prepared and go to the tomb, find the tomb deserted by the Romans, find the stone rolled away, and then speak to two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning, who told them of the resurrection, and then go and tell the 11?
Or, did Mary Magdalene go to the tomb alone, find the tomb completely deserted, see the stone had been removed, and then run away to tell Peter and the “other disciple” of the news, and then did Peter and the “other disciple” run back to the tomb to see it empty without any explanation offered?
These are not minor differences. If any one of these accounts is accurate, the other three are inaccurate. And many of these differences have theological implications and meaning, as much as the subsequent and conflicting accounts that follow. Many are taught in parallel as if they can both be accurate at the same time. These differences, when taken literally, cannot be reconciled and any attempt to do so is disingenuous.
That’s ripe, but thank you for your criticism. I guess you’re right. Since I don’t think unicorns ever existed I guess I don’t qualify as an Adventist, or even as a Christian.
What mark is that? And shouldn’t we all be progressive Adventists by definition? If there is no progress, then there is no Present Truth, but only Past Truth, and what good is that?
Well, we aren’t doing that. You may be, but why?
The mark of which I speak are the limits set by the written counsel of God (Isa. 8:20; Acts 17:11).