Thanks for this quote. I have never heard or seen it quoted by the anti-ordaining-women-for-spiritual-leadership folks.
I already gave you the source for the quote from Waggoner when I gave you the link, and so it doesn’t make sense for you to ask for the source, or ask me what on p. 4 I wanted you to look at, or say that the quote I gave was undocumented.
But you zeroed in, expectedly, on Waggoner’s use of the word “pastor,” and assert that Smith and White wrote extensively about that. Frankly, I’m as skeptical about your assertion as I was when Dave Gemmell wrote that we had a certain number of female pastors by the Great Depression, citing a particular source. I called up that source and asked him if we can identify any churches that female pastors were assigned to prior to the Great Depression, and he replied that there were none. I then wrote Gemmell about that discrepancy, and his reply led me to believe that he already knew his statement was false.
Simply put, even male ministers weren’t being used as pastors in those days, at least not usually. I found a 1927 book and a 1940 book about various churches that said as much. And I think we should consider reverting back to that system, in the interest of accomplishing our divine mission.
As to the 1882 item from the ST, one would think that that is a condensation of the minutes that appeared in the Review, and thus the Review’s record takes precedence. The minutes in the Review do not state that the item you are referring to was voted.
Jeremy, you’re just confusing the matter, and I think we discussed this one long ago. If you want to use that quote to promote the idea of women elders, okay, but you can’t in good conscience use it to promote the idea of ordination of women to the gospel ministry, since our ministers weren’t serving as pastors at that time, and Ellen White pointedly said they shouldn’t be.
6T was published in 1901. That’s the very year that Ellen White wrote the first of two letters to the brethren and sisters of the Iowa Conference, telling them that as a general rule, the ministers should go out from the churches into new fields.
The elders were to do the pastoral work of the churches, and maybe the deacons as well. And if a minister can neglect to do pastoral work, as Ellen White stated, then someone other than a minister or an elder can do pastoral work.
You’re going to have to explain what you’re talking about. George has repeatedly brought up LGT here, but has failed to explain what he means by that term.
And I think your comments about the highest authority on earth under God are disrespectful.
If you had been a Judaizer at the council of Acts 15 and had later read Paul’s comments in Galatians about meeting privately ahead of time with Peter, James, and John, would you similarly have cried foul?
Gotcha! No worries.
I did watch the movie, My Scientology. More madness! Thanks for letting me know about it.
Kim, you nailed it. Folks who talk about this are never able to clarify these"nebulous" points. It is just thrown out with the expectation it will not be thoughtfully questioned. Kevin and others who have espoused this become silent or simply double down on their opinion without explaining or engaging in dialog. Really wish people could just explain in an understandable way and not freak out when challenged…sigh
Kevin read the seventh paragraph of your first entry. Let us remember for every hooker there is a looker.So why was only the woman taken in adultry.? Conceived by the Holy Spirit means Hesus did not inherit the curse of Adam. the flesh through Mary. The Soul through the HolynSpirit. Read Romans Five. Read Heppenstalls book The Man Who is God.
In addition I would refer you to the response of Adam when approached by God After Adam had eaten the forbidden fruit. Adam replied the woman.That is the mind set of Ted Wilson et al. Two critical points. Mary anointing Jesus feet and Hesus saying this will be know around the world. MAry telling the Disciples that Jesus is risen. I might add the woman at the well.
be prepared: their talking point is that “pastor” doesn’t mean “ordained minister”…
To be clear, I don’t agree with Kevin, at all…ever
But, I think the LGT people really latch on to this statement by EGW:
Christ is waiting with longing desire for the manifestation of Himself in His church. When the character of Christ shall be perfectly reproduced in His people, then He will come to claim them as His own.
Needless to say, I don’t believe this, but what do you do with this comment from the SOP?
The best way to give $ as you want is probably sending it to your local Conference marking it, “For pastor’s salaries in this Conference only.” They can keep it and use it exclusively as you marked, or if they don’t, they have to return it to you. Of course, don’t indicate that it is tithe. That is no Biblical rule saying that you must write “tithe” on it. This way, the GC won’t ever see a penny of it.
I never got a contribution like this back. Did anyone?..
Medical??? I thought is was “occultic!” …
Jeremy, you infidel!!! How do you dare to reveal parts of “scripture” like this? You will make many enemies among the faithful, aka “fidels”…
Now, remember, we always have to apply the “KP Maneuver” to everything. Therefore, by interpreting the text, we conclude that since she didn’t say “ordained pastors,” only “pastors,” there is no reason to apply it to women…
Does it make any sense?.. (I know it doesn’t, but the discriminators will say it this way anyway )
Are you kidding me? With all your knowledge and you are asking about the meaning of the Last Generation Theology?
By the way, unless I missed it, you never answered my question - I wonder why! So I will try again, hopping you will not dodge it again:
Are you a LGTarian?
____ YES … … ____ NO
I can tell you honestly I have really struggled with this as well. It is not readily apparent as to how this actually works and as I have mentioned before I think we would all really like to be there
In the Bible you have the references to this topic in Matthew 5:48, Philippians 3:1-16 which seem to support this. Since the time of the early Christian church many have tried to explain the context, what it means, rules to follow to attain this, etc. They all failed as far as I know and to my knowledge even EGW never made the claim to have attained this level in her relationship with God. LGT’s and others in the Adventist church will talk about it claim that you must attain it but have no really practical suggestion as to how you get from where you are now to this level.
So I think we are left with the conclusion that this is either not something we really understand or it is something we really misunderstand. I keep asking commentators who talk about this if they can explain the ‘secret sauce’ or how this can be reconciled with promises of God to forgive and cleanse sin and how this works in world where we stand without a mediator without becoming a paradox. I think EGW was simply stating a fact but did not explain what leads up to that or what kind of transformation would lead to that or perhaps…maybe…we really just don’t know what is meant by the character of Christ / perfectly reproduce.
I would really welcome a discussion that explores this honestly from the standpoint of avoiding what so far has been an oversimplified and mystical level of thinking.
It is useful only for those who are Whitist Adventist. For Biblical Adventists it means nothing.
Yeah, I am not sure there is anything you can do with that statement, cause it is a statement. It is not actionable…
we could have only discussed this matter long ago if you’re using a different name now…i don’t recall any such conversation…but if we did have that conversation, i would have pointed out that egw would have been using ‘pastor’ to refer to the extent that women were allowed to minister at that time…to say that this can possibly mean that women should still be restricted to that same extent is like saying that pastors today should still be travelling by horse and buggy because her diaries describe such travel by them…
and this really gets us to the heart of what is wrong with conservative adventism, despite its many strengths…a literalistic reading of inspiration is not how the inspired writers themselves read one another - it isn’t even how any of us ready each others communications - but it is the way that conservatives read inspiration…contextual analysis is seen as a slippery slope instead of a way to translate into an equivalent, and therefore accurate, meaning…today’s conservatives, like yesterday’s pharisees, construct walls around themselves to protect themselves from the idolatry around them, without realizing that it keeps them from being relevant…
LGT is an acronym for Last Generation Theology…it’s most recognizable tenet is character perfection in the last generation to live on earth before the second coming…
my own view is that it combines what is very true in egw with what is presumed to be true in egw…in short, it’s conservative adventism run amok, fuelled by what i have come to believe is a mental inability to fuse apparently competing threads of information into a wholistic, multi-faceted doctrine that rests on balance…i have personally communicated extensively with LGT proponents and have seen them, among other things, mutilate egw texts by omitting endings in a compound sentence that destroy their interpretations, and freely exchange terms like “imputed” and “imparted” on the grounds that egw didn’t always use these terms accurately or consistently…
i’m surprised you haven’t heard of LGT, and almost suspect you’re being devious by feigning ignorance…
you may need to review some of egw’s original GC comments…she has said everything i have said, and more…
bob, first of all, TW and his 250 appointees to san antonio are hardly the inspired apostles in the bible…second of all, the council of jerusalem effectively arrived at a dual policy solution, removing any possibility for objection…had san antonio followed this apostolic model, we would not be in the situation we find ourselves today…
When I went to RTS in Orlando, I had the privilege of hearing and taking a few classes from Keller, RC Sproul, now deceased, and John Piper. Tim is the only one in the PCA. All, very bright people.
None “spank their wife” unless they like it. Not making light of true abuse.
They all hold to the Westminster Confession of Faith in terms of the Trinity.
Princeton allowed Tim to speak but refused the award to him because he opposes, as does his denomination, the ordination of women and “open” Lesbian & Gays as the allowed practice in the PCUSA which permits.
He and they all believe in “headship” in that in Adam we all die and in Christ we are made alive and reckoned righteous by “faith alone” when convicted and applied by the Spirit on the elect. Elect,by the way before there are strokes, is a biblical term accepted even by Arminian Wesley.
PS. This is a good example of how denominations split. They can separate and follow their vision instead of simply fighting over seemingly “unsolvable” differences. Each can then follow their conscience and yet remain charitable while differing with others’ views.
When one looks at the delegate count at the bottom here, one sees that “cultural representation” is weak for our “Western” worldview!
Africa and South America hold over 65% of the votes, while Trans-European 0.44 votes, Inter-European division 0.89 votes, South Pacific division 2.45 votes, and the North-American division 6.18, taken all together would comprise only 9.96
This is a sad fact because in this voting situation the church at large is not now able to benefit from the mature experience and seasoned leadership of the West.
I am not implying that “Western Culture” or the Western Church is superior because it certainly is not. However, Gospel Principles have had more time in Western Cultures to work social reforms that other nations have not fully enjoyed as of yet.
Although, the “death of God” movement in the West is removing Christian rationals for morality, still equality of all souls before God with intrinsic rights exists strongly here, at least for now.
The voting disparity must change!! Taxation without representation is the other issue. We pay the bills but get little input.
I think this guy (@Bob) was here before, presenting the same challenges and arguments. If I am not mistaken he did it before, pretending that he had no clue on what LGT is or means.
I am positive that I asked him (more than once) at that time if he was a LGTarian, and he never answered it. Actually, he dodged the question already once this time, this why I asked him again, and my bet is that he will not answer it in the Y/N way. He will either ignore it again, or will be evasive.
It seems that we are under another LGTarian attack, now with the same guy doubling down!!! I am avoiding to waste my time again going into some more elaborated exchange; you are right, he is certainly “being devious by feigning ignorance.” If he is dishonest on this, and does not even reveal his name and who he is, why should we even consider his rant*???
*_ “Rant” comes from the Dutch ranten, “to talk nonsense.” (Vocabulary.com)