Well, now that we have that cleared up…are you okay with the killing of the babies, barring some very extenuating circumstances?
Too late. He’s done that to himself, if for no other reason that he makes various assertions as if they are fact when they are not and then won’t reply to questions about them with any concrete information.
For example in a message that he addressed to me he stated the Roman Catholic Church asserts the right to contradict scripture. I asked for a source. None has been forthcoming.
He and his only usually answer those questions/issues that they are “sure” about and ignore the others that are too problematic. When all you have to to fall back upon is asserting that the rest of us rely upon Pop psychology and science…you know that your credibility is failing.
I’ve said it before…but, if they could only admit that the Bible and EGW doesn’t answer any and all questions/dilemmas then we all could get somewhere. But this is the issue with Fundamentalism- you are supposed to know it ALL! Don’t know about you…but for sure I know that all my answers have not come form the Bible. Having said this…I believe that there are many principles that the Bible teaches without having “rules” and I actively dislike the omission of the power of the Holy Spirit to guide and direct us. I believe that they actually fear the concept of guidance of the Spirit because it may contradict their “rules”. Individuality is squashed and GroupThink is in.
The other dilemma comes when becauseof their need to KNOW- they cannot say that some of their beliefs are simply based upon faith. It is such a vicious cycle that the belief is that we must be PERFECT yet never being able to know if we are perfect enough…or being able to present a living and breathing person who exemplifies “perfection”. Such a hell to become caught up in- just like Tantalus.
Kevin, you of all people should know and understand why the commandment in the graphic posted by Cassie is presented as the fifth commandment. There are many Christians who simply do not number the commandments the way you do.
To Heather Knutson,
I have no idea whether you will read this, but I can only imagine you’re disappointed with the discussion here, much of which is superficial and at times prejudicial. I don’t understand why some are so eager to criticize your work when they haven’t read even the abstract of your dissertation. Obviously, the interview we have read was not designed to summarize, point by point, your hypotheses, methods, results, and conclusions.
I truly appreciate the fact that you undertook this important study, and I have no doubt you will be able to refine your instrument and continue exploring these very important attitudes within our denomination. I would LOVE to see that happen. Prayers and blessings to you!
I agree with Professor Kent. I hope you will continue your research, and perhaps even expand it beyond Southern California for a representative sampling.
You have undertaken important questions. Please publish and continue.
I am well aware that many Christians number the commandments in this fashion. It is a fulfillment of Daniel 7:25. It is because Roman Catholicism has dared to delete the Second Commandment forbidding graven images, and in order to keep the number of commandments at ten, as the Bible says (Ex. 34:28; Deut. 4:13), they divided the tenth in half.
The numbering of the commandments is clear in both Biblical renditions of the Ten Commandment law (Ex. 20:3-17; Deut. 5:7-21). The new numbering to which Cassie makes reference came from another source, and we know which one it is.
Perhaps you didn’t notice this statement from the late Pope John Paul II, in which he asserted the right to contradict Christ Himself:
"Have no fear when people call me the “Vicar of Christ,” when they say to me “Holy Father” or “Your Holiness,” or use titles similar to these, which seem even inimical to the Gospel. Christ Himself declared, “Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven. Do not be called Master; you have but one Master, the Messiah” (Matt. 23:9,10). These expressions, nevertheless, have evolved out of a long tradition, becoming part of common usage. One must not be afraid of these words either."
Pope John Paul II, Crossing the Threshold of Hope (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1994), p. 6.
John Paul’s successor, Benedict XVI, while he was still Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, stated in 1997 that using Scripture to evaluate Catholic teaching was “one of the most dangerous currents to come out of Vatican II” (quoted by Jay Tolson, “Defender of the Faith,” U.S. News & World Report, May 2, 2005, p. 38).
This and the previous statement by John Paul II are but two of the more recent statements from papal sources affirming their supposed right to contradict Scripture.
How might we possibly get back on track? For the principal contributor to join the conversation, may be?
What do members feel about the number of men holding ordained minister credentials who are in top leadership positions – at the GC, Division, Union, Local Conference, local congregation; as well as in healthcare, education and publishing. If they were not yet ordained when they assumed office, how long did it take for them to be ordained? And the few women who have been elected to similar positions of responsibility who, based on current policy, cannot be ordained and must be issued a different credential?
I don’t know how you read such a thing into that statement. The church has an official doctrine(?)/practice of apostolic tradition, but it is said to extend what is in the bible, not contradict. He’s defending only his title and commonly used names, in use for a millennia, which began when their initial use was perhaps not as jarring.
I’d say the quote in Matthew is a little odd when used even as part of his defense, since most of us have someone we personally call father.
When reading in context, Jesus is specifically telling the those in attendance to not be hypocrites, to not relish in titles like “Rabbi” or “Father”, or even “Teacher”. So, be humble to the absurd in order to distinguish from the local self-aggrandizing peacocks, if you will.
But, I’ll note that this is generally a text no one follows literally (and so a strange example used by the Pope and in turn by you.) We have no issue being called teacher, or father (even father as a nick-name, “pappa” in Spanish for example, applied to old men in an extended the family.) It’s the idea that counts, I think, the concept that we should not take pride in titles and outward appearances, specifically those designed to make us appear religiously superior the way the Pharisees were said to behave and to present themselves.
Jesus’ statement about not calling anyone Father is spiritual, not biological. It’s similar to the question of spiritual male headship, which involves spiritual leadership rather than executive responsibility in such settings as business or politics.
From Former Adventist Fellowship:
The next time an Adventist says "well if the Sabbath is done away with then is it OK to murder?", simply answer, "yes, if you are an SDA abortionist and it is not the Sabbath".
Conduct a LARGE sample size poll of these question too.
Have U read the whole bible?
Do u spend any significant time other than church attendance on devotions?
Do U attend Sabbath school?
What if 75% of the SDA membership were secular backsliders or atheists? The poll results would be heavily favored for female involvement.
Why do U think USA was established with a representative government?
I have already seen results where SDA church attenders are very worldly and don’t know much about scripture principles. Sermons & Sabbath school presentations bring that out.
But I really don’t care if 100% of pastors were female. The male pastors are so shallow & institutional…the same would apply to the females. The SDA denomination has its own cultic approach at sermons.
So true, Kim…
The Holy Spirit is very much ignored (as is being born again), because if the Christian life is guided by the HS, they don’t need these other men/women to tell them how to live, as if they are speaking for God, and you can’t know God on your own. Scripture and the HS, are sufficient. As believers, we grow and mature in our walk of faith. It’s very simple really.
Not to say that I don’t learn from others, I certainly do. But, they aren’t an “authority” to me. They don’t replace my own God-given mind and the Spirit leading in my life.
What does this mean? Can you explain further?
You are both so spot on.
Those who are opposed to women in leadership refuse to acknowledge the Holy Spirit’s role in spiritual gifts on today’s church members, male and female, for spiritual growth of the body.
There is something fuzzy, fear-creating, and distrustful about the Holy Spirit, it appears.
The Priesthood of All Believers is he Protestant principle of the just living by faith (and guidance from the Holy Spirit and its gifts).
This is a bottom-line issue and the one that rankled opponents of women in spiritual leadership–The Holy Spirit.
And it IS a theological issue, Biblically based on the Priesthood of ALL Believers, not a cultural issue. It is a moral issue of following the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Either we believe in the Gifts of the Spirit on ANYONE or we do not. Those who oppose women in spiritual leadership are rejecting the Holy Spirit and its gifts on Believers.
You summed it up so very well!