Who treats women as “unclean?” That’s really a stretch, Doc.
Listen… you may not see it, but it comes across in a derogatory ad hominem way. Go eat what you want and see how that works for you? Keep to the issues, not my practice.
If I’m a “believer” and I invite you over for a BBQ which includes pork and shellfish, and not knowing the “brand” of Christian you are, am I sinning? Think Paul.
When I was with those without ther law/ Torah, I wasas one without the Torah. Although I am not free from God’s law being under Christ’s law. He makes a distinction between the two. We know what that is.
Can you expand on what that is?
Opponents of WO. They treat women “symbolically” as “unclean” meaning not fit for ordination.
Paul had the freedom to be somewhat of a chameleon regarding jews and gentiles. Which means he could hang out and eat meat, as long as it wasn’t sacrificed to idols, right? How am I wrong?
Oh, come on, Doc., this has been debated ad nauseam. It has nothing to do with “fitness” or ability; it has everything to do with God-given roles.
In Galatians he said, “Bear one another’s burdens and so bring to completion the law of Christ.” This is fleshing out the self giving love of neighbor that Christ demonstrated through his life and sacrificial death.
In 1 Cor., Paul speaks about Christ’s law again in connection with not asserting his freedom and rights, if it would be an offense or stumbling block to the faith of another. IOW, his attitude towards food and dietary issues and scruples had nothing to do with adhering to taboo lists, and everything to do with concern and love for the others spiritual well being… the law of Christ! Romans 14 and 15 explore this as well. That’s why he could say in regard to these kinds of issues, all things are permissible for me, but not all things are beneficial.
He regarded this as distinct from adherence to rule and regulation of the Jewish Torah. He was governed by the relational principle of the love of Christ… which can lead to different actions in different situations. That’s where we also need the guidance and empowerment of the Spirit.
Really? Because they have been well before Christ came.
Thank you for that.
We don’t get Paul in Adventism. Never will fully with things as they are.
I don’t agree that it was a symbolic vision. It seems pretty pointed to me. “Kill and eat”
Yes, we are free to eat according to our conscience. If you choose not to eat lobster or pork, that is fine. If another chooses to eat pork, they are free to do so.
The walls between Jew/Gentile, clean/unclean was broken down in Christ.
Nope. Sure don’t/won’t!
Here’s another thing they don’t/won’t get.
The body of Christ, beyond them exclusively. I think I have shared this with you before but every weekend my pastor prays for another church in our county and their pastor as the body of Christ. We are all part of the body and this prayer reminds us of that participation. This is impossible with Adventists, speaking as a 3rd gen, because A) they are spiritual elitists and B) those churches meet on Sunday. It’s really sad because it’s a great communion of brotherhood that they’re missing out on.
As Christians, we should be free to disagree, argue, and explore our differences together. We cannot possibly be uniform in all things. But we can do this in unity, knowing whom we all belong to and serve. Isn’t that a great thought?
The length of the debate does not resolve the issue. No one has ever given me compelling cognitive or physical evidence (the Bible nor in my clinical psychiatric practice) that possession of a vagina makes a preacher less effective when preaching the great gospel. However, there have been a number of those who have given convincing evidence of discriminating women as Dr. Tichy @GeorgeTichy has frequently mentioned.
Who are those? Just because people question and ask questions does not mean they want to discredit anything. You are declaring a “MOTIF” which is nothing but trying to demoralize people who dare to express their views and apparently want to defame them.
Please, stop this denigrating crusade against people and focus on the issues not on what you think people’s motifs are. You do NOT know anyone’s motifs.
There is nothing more evident and clear regarding the WO issue that it’s NOT about “God-given roles,” but about “discrimination and CONTROL.”
There are no “God-given roles,” only “males-given roles.” This is the tragedy about this dark chapter in out Church’s history. SDA males utilizing RCC ordination rules to keep the control of the Church in their own hands. Shameful!
Thanks for response @webEd .
Basically wondering why it is not also published alongside on this site.
I see that some articles do id the writer, and wondered what determined who gets the byline and who doesn’t…
Both are correct because it is the underlying psychodynamics that matters as Peter proclaims “I truly understand that God shows no partiality.” What does that say about our current GC polarizing agenda?