1. The Holy Scriptures
The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God, given by divine inspiration through holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation.

The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will.

They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God's acts in history.

(2 Peter 1:20, 21; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; Ps. 119:105; Prov. 30:5, 6; Isa. 8:20; John 17:17; 1 Thess. 2:13; Heb. 4:12.)

This tells me that the Bible is infallible.

What does infallible mean? That it doesn't contain any errors whatsoever? Is that what it means?

Hi Dary,
Here is what Infallible means, so you were right on track:

quote:

---

Pronunciation: (")in-'fa-l&-b&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin infallibilis, from Latin in- + Late Latin fallibilis fallible
Date: 15th century
1 : incapable of error : UNERRING
2 : not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint : CERTAIN
3 : incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals

---

God Bless,
Will

I have a rather deep question that I believe belongs here, as I will be discussing the first belief.

Does the church still have this first belief as a belief? There are several things that would lead me to this question. First, I would like to look at some main points contained within this first chapter.

quote:

---

The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God, given by divine inspiration through holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God's acts in history.

---

This is the introduction paragraph. In it, it says "The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will." Therefore, the scripture are believed to all be the will of God and not wrong in any way. The part that is most troubling to me is that the Adventist church tends to write things off a custom today. If all scripture is stating the will of God, how can it be culture? Beyond that thought, we must ask, does God's will change? According to Malachi 3:6,

quote:

---

"I the Lord do not change. So you descendants of Jacob have not been destroyed.

---

So if it were God's will during the Bible times, it must be God's will now.

Here is another point in the chapter,

quote:

---

The Biblical assertion that "all scripture is inspired by God" or "God-breathed," profitable and authoritative for moral and spiritual living leaves no question about divine guidance in the selection process. Whether the information cam form personal observation, oral or written sources, or direct revelation, it all came to the writer through the Holy Spirit's guidance. This guarantees the Bible's trustworthiness."

---

The Adventist belief should be that how the information was obtained is not of importance, it was the spirit that led the authors to write it.

With all this in mind, would we say that the current view of the GC or the NAD is not in line with the true Adventist belief? I received an e-mail today from the ministry department of the GC that stated most of the writings of Paul were based on customs and not relevant for today. Maybe it is that we need to change our beliefs? The last edition of the book was made in 1988; have the Adventist beliefs of the scriptures changed since then?

Dave, Is this letter private or could you quote appropriete parts of it to this thread as reference?

/Thomas

I have no problem with posting it:

quote:

---

Dear Dave,



Thank you for your question. The debate on how and in what capacity women should be ordained as elders or pastors has been going on for a long time. We referred your question to the ministerial department here at the General Conference. Here is what they said.

“The Biblical principle is clear -- the local churches selected laity leaders under the direction of the Holy Spirit and set them apart for service as elders and deacons. These were both male and female in the Scriptures.

For example, in the original greek language, the titles given to some of these women leaders are the same as the titles for the apostles themselves.

Likewise, in the greek language there are not two words -- deacons or deaconesses. There is only one word - diakonos - used for both genders.

The ordination of women to ministry for the world wide church is an entirely separate issue from the ordination of local church leadership whether male or female. For polity reasons the Adventist church does not ordain women to the gospel ministry. However, we have clearly delineated that this is not a theological issue, but a ecclesiological issue of how we will organize and operate our denomination. Theology does not change; ecclesiology may change. Our prophet, Ellen White, advocated setting women apart for ministry by laying on of hands although when the General Conference voted to ordain her (and issued her "ordained minister credentials" which she carried for many years), she declined not because she didn't believe in the practice, but because she believed that the role of prophet was greater and more significant than the designated position of an ordained minister.

Regarding local church officers -- A local congregation may or may not choose to elect or ordain one gender to the offices of elder or deacon. However, a local congregation may not judge the motives or actions of a sister church who makes a different choice.”

We hope this answers your question. Please visit us again.

God bless,

The Let’s Talk Team

---

The section I bolded stood out to me. THe oponants of woman's ordination read many texts and EGW quotes at the 1995 GC sesson to support their view.

quote:

---

In the first of two presentations, Dr. P. Gerard Damsteegt, associate professor of theology, Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, presented the theological case "against" the women's ordination. While affirming women's "equality of nature and worth before God" he suggested that women are "different in functional roles." He suggested that the Bible does not allow "spiritual headship" of women either in
the family or in the Church.

Dr. Damsteegt suggested that those who are "for" female ordination are departing from the traditional Adventist method of Scriptural interpretation. He explained that this proposal conflicts with three basic Bible doctrines, namely; the doctrine of the Church, the doctrine of Holy Scripture, and the doctrine of the unity of the Church.
From the 1995 GC session report

---

To claim the isse is only ecclesiological is iggnoring one side compleatly. Beyond that, it minimizez the writings of the Bible. This also makes the claim that what God wants is ever changing, and I find that quite troubleing.

quote:

---

Why can't a woman who feels a call to ministry be ordained?
God calls every believer--whether young or old, male or female--to participate and serve within His church. Scripture includes many stories of God placing women in positions of great authority and responsibility. Think, for instance, of the prophetesses named in the Old Testament: Miriam (Exodus 15:20), Deborah (Judges 4:4-16), and Huldah (2 Kings 22:14-20).
In the New Testament we have examples of women playing significant roles within the newly forming Christian community. Following His resurrection, Jesus chose to appear first to three women, and He gave them the responsibility of sharing this wonderful news with His grieving disciples. (Luke 24:3-10) Later, Paul refers to a woman as a "deacon" of the church in Cenchrea (Rom 16:1).
The extraordinary example of Ellen White’s ministry in the early years of the Adventist Church provides us with yet another example a woman entrusted by God with an important responsibility.
While there is no question about the value of the contribution of women, the issue of women and ordination is more complex. For Seventh-day Adventists, ordination to the gospel ministry means ordination to serve the entire world church anywhere the minister is called. Within many countries and cultures, women are excluded from exercising leadership, whether political, religious, or social.
The Adventist Church has placed a high value on unity and worldwide consensus on this issue, and at the 1990 General Conference in Session it voted that women would not be ordained to the gospel ministry in our denomination. The issue was revisited at the 1995 General Conference session and this approach was confirmed. Again, it was a matter of the global Adventist Church saying, in the interest of unity, "No--at least not now."
Dr. Angel Rodriquez, director of the Biblical Research Institute at the General Conference, writes that “the question of women's ordination is one the church is still discussing and only the work of the Spirit within the church could lead us to some consensus on that most difficult issue.” (Angel Manuel Rodríguez, Women’s Ministries and the Bible, Biblical Research Institute, June 2003.)
Why do some Adventist churches ordain female pastors?
In the few instances where this has happened, both the female pastors and the individual congregations have understood in advance that this is an ordination only for their local area and not ordination to the gospel ministry for the worldwide church organization. The more usual office to which both men and women have been ordained is that of "local church elder."
I understand that some countries have problems with women being ordained as pastors, but what I don't understand is why each country can't act independently on those subjects of ordaining pastors.
The Seventh-day Adventist Church is a worldwide community that embraces hundreds of different cultures, languages and ethnicities. In fact, the Adventist Church is one of the few Protestant organizations with a truly global structure. Many other denominations operate on a congregational basis, perhaps organized under a regional or national conference that provides only limited financial, doctrinal or organizational direction.
One practical advantage of this unified structure is that the Adventist Church is able to make better use of its resources; it can support a worldwide health, education and mission work that would be otherwise impossible. Our church places a high value on unity; we are a worldwide movement, bound together by our common beliefs, our shared mission, and our assurance in the soon return of our Lord.
It follows, then, that for Seventh-day Adventists, ordination to the gospel ministry means ordination to serve the entire world church anywhere the minister is called. For this reason, the church has sought worldwide consensus on the matter of women’s ordination. By vote of the General Conference in Session (1995), the Seventh-day Adventist Church determined that on this particular issue, there should be a global approach and that each division of the church structure would not be permitted to follow its own plan. In the interest of unity, the church said, “No--at least not now.”
What is the interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:12, "a woman must be silent?" Does this mean that women shouldn't preach?
If you want to take an in depth look at all that Paul is saying in 1 Timothy 2:12 it may be worth getting hold of a good commentary study. But let me just touch on some main points. First, the text clearly does not mean that women are forbidden to preach or teach, because we have examples to the contrary from Jesus, Himself, and from the early Christian church as well as our own church history. The situation that is being described by Paul is of behavior within a specific cultural context. In that culture, a woman speaking publicly in a worship setting would cause disgrace within the church, and cause others in the general community to view the church as scandalous.
Let’s look at some examples of women who have been entrusted by God to deliver spiritual messages to their faith communities.
The first public evangelist was the Woman at the Well (John 4)who preached the gospel message to her entire city (Samaria).
The first public proclamation of the resurrection was by Mary Magdalene (Mark 16:9-11) whom Jesus instructed to inform to the other disciples of His resurrection. Later Jesus rebuked the disciples (Mark 16:14) because they had refused to believe the message.
The early church utilized women in positions of teaching, preaching, and church leadership: For example, Phoebe was greeted as a fellow apostle by the Apostle Paul, Priscilla taught the evangelist Apollos and, contrary to custom, she was listed first before her husband Aquilla, Lydia was the leader of the congregation which was established in her own home.
The Seventh-day Adventist Church was co-founded by Ellen G. White who often preached, counseled, and corrected "the brethren."
From the GC Let's Talk wep site

---

As there are already other topics on women's ordination, I don't want this to develop in yet still another women's ordination topic, therefore, let us let what has been posted serve as an example only. Other different examples will also be acceptable.

The issue isn't whether the Bible is not infallible, but that our interpretations are not infallible. In other words, it is our interpretations that are fallible, whereas the Bible remains infallible in accordance to the #1 of the fundamental beliefs of the SDA Church.

The question then is this: Is the SDA Church infallible in its interpretation of the infallible Bible?

As the leadership of the SDA church is made of men, no, they are not infallable.

My quoting is not intended to be entierly about WO. It is only one example of how we have stated our beliefe and then make an exeption to it.

Examples are OK.

I am only concerned about any disgression from the topic as a result of any of those examples.

The seven days of creation are suffering with increasing numbers of theologians and science teachers in our institutions favouring theistic evolution. It is unreported, and the Faith-Science conferences - which are a continuing annual event - reported in favour of the fundamental belief in a 7 day creation (mustn't forget that the Sabbath also was created...), but the thoughts in class rooms and lecture theatres are supportive of the alternative.

But then the belief in the Bible as final authority is attacked from many angles.

Daryl, how would the statement "the Adventist church's interpretation of the infallible Bible are fallible," (not wrong but fallible) differ from the statement "the Adventist declaration that the Bible is infallible is fallible?"

Can we realistically say that a statement of doctrine is infallible but an interpretation by the same group that made the statement is fallible?

Colin I share your concern about the creation/evolution issue. Any deviation from the literal 7 day creation story undermines the cornerstone of all our beliefs indeed our very identity as the Seventh-day Adventist church hinges on this belief and it is a requirement for membership. There can be nothing that the devil would like more than to have our church turn it's back on this most fundamental of all our beliefs. Tonight at a service for my father one of our churches top theologians will be speaking, I'm tempted to take him aside and question him about the issue and what is being done about it. I realize this a bit OT Daryl but I think it directly relates to the topic.

Redfog

Colin, are you familiar with the proposals of Dr. Russell Humphreys, an SDA scientist who has done some work in this area of origins. IMO, he has a very plausible scenerio. It is well laid out in his book Starlight and Time.

No, but, while he appears to have a positive presence on the web, I am aware of Dr Kent Hovind, also a physicist - south of the border where you are, though Dr Colin Mitchell, whom we have in SE England here, warned me off the meteor scenario for causing the flood and seasons; both these geologists are young-earthers. When he's not teaching, Mitchell is a consultant to the UN on soil geography. He's revised his book, now Creationism Revisited.

You should be aware that the Adventist Geoscience Research Institute is staffed by young-earth geologists....There's a good number of young-earthers out there

Nearly all statements about the Bible are necessarily fallible since humans are, too. Prove all things, it says, so even doctrinal wording is up for testing, but the Bible texts are priviledged. The only commentary which is part-priviledged is the SOP commentary and testimonies: they have to be tested by Scripture, but have a presumption of accuracy. See bottom of post for an infallible human statement regarding this thread.

In view of the second topic on this thread, I should point out the theological difference between infallible and inerrant. Infallible is the Bible's content on salvation. Inerrant is the Bible's content on history and science. Whether we opt for both is the next question after Daryl's clarified question - which is clearly still under discussion.

Back to SOP, the ongoing doctrinal dispute about Jesus' two natures involves proofs from both Scripture and SOP. Still, we don't formally apply "infallible" to Ellen White's writings, but we do say they are "authoritative", since her authority of office is Biblical, via prophetic fulfilment, but she is not Biblical. All other Adventist published commentaries are generally agreed but not automatically binding, and so subject to discussion.

The Bible's infallibility is both traditional and professed, so is the cornerstone of belief, to answer Darius' point. God's truth in written word earns itself infallibility since it is recognised as absolute truth. Our affirmation of that infallibility, while all humans are fallible, would be an infallible statement of an unchanging & unchangeable truth.

[ December 24, 2005, 06:43 PM: Message edited by: Colin ]

I see, from reading other threads, that this is still an issue.

Still an issue though of how many people here?

Is Darius the only one, or are there others here?

The devil is in the details.

What do you mean by the devil is in the details?

I meant exactly that. What words mean can be different depending on who is speaking. You may have heard the story of the man who on the occasion of his 40th anniversary told the genie he wanted a wife who was 30 years younger than he was. He got his wish. The genie made him 30 years older than he was.

A cute story, but it does not prouve a whole lot or even answer the question.

But we are not talking about stories, we are talking about the Holy Scriptures, therefore, I would prefer a better answer than that when it comes to the words and details from the Bible, so my question remains, and I wait for a better and not confusing answer.

I can't respond, Daryl, because you edited out the sentence that elicited that response.

A good and nonconfused answere, yep, thats something weve been waiting for lately on these topics.

/Thomas

I edited that post within a minute after posting it as I felt it wasn't an appropriate comment to be publically posted, therefore, I will accept your last post regarding your response to that and move on from there, however, Darius, I truly do find most of your posts to be confusing to the reader, myself included, and from what I have gathered from others posts, others included also, therefore, I would appreciate you make less confusing posts and be more sensitive to others posts in relation to their confusion of your posts.

As some other threads have stressed the importance of studying and proving our beliefs from the Bible alone, I am bumping this thread for possible further discussion.

This discussion is continued from fundamental #2, which involves fundamental #1 not being followed.

Let me see if I understood you correctly dedication. You are saying that this conversation about 'trinity' and fundamental #2 has already taken place on these forums and that no further discussion is to be had openly? If that is correct, can you place in your next response the link to those places please. I would like to read through them to see the various positions held by those on this board who might still exist here. Thank you.

Also, if that is correct, I feel very sad that I could not have my own points openly known. I would still like the link placed in this thread to where I can go to the 'private' area and read the current or present discussion please. Can you, or another, kindly do that for me?

I do not intend to introduce "spiritual abuse" or "disrespectful" comments into the discussion, as the true intent is to consider what the Bible says, along with the SoP/ToJ. If truly there was "NO MEETING ground" (sic) between differing positions after "many years ... with pages and pages of posts" this means that it still needs to be discussed (openly), and allow fresh persons to enter the conversation. It is commonly known that after years go by, people can change in their thinking, and can come to differing conclusions even after having been settled into an ideology for so long a time. I am one such example, having been Roman Catholic for 30 years, and then suddenly God's Holy Spirit did something wonderful.

Why not at least consider what I might say from the Bible and SoP/ToJ?

Allow me to give you some insight into my own position:

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...quick-references-three-trio-etc.8060685/

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...roceeded-forth-in-john-8-42-kjb.8060465/

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...meaning-of-proverbs-8-22-31-kjb.8060316/

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...the-evidence-for-1-john-5-7-kjb.8060173/

Daryl actually knows who I am (at least as an online presence if not in actual name), as I am constantly banned from that 'Christian' website under false pretenses, even from the beginning (it has been probably over 50 times (minimally) now, maybe as far as 100, I lost count a long time ago. Daryl has been a part of that process in the past, though I cannot say what side he took, or on how many occasions, as all their Moderation deliberations are always in secret. Their only excuse is now, 'sockpuppet account' and simply terminate me, and yet they never desire to discuss their false reasons to have banned me in the first instances so many years ago, and why I must return as another account (so others may be helped). They have gone so far as to change their rules and web procedures because of my constant returning to help others, though 'leadership' there has long ago turned a deaf ear to pleas of justice, and even mercy. At least I still have good friends there, and I can always return when I feel like it. Never the less, long story, consider the material to get an idea of where I stand on the topic I desire to discuss from Scripture and SoP/ToJ, for I have done a thorough study of each.

If persons, believe in a Roman Catholic definition of "trinity" to which they use fundamental #2 as justification for they are indeed in error. I can cite their official definition if need be and show where it differs from the scriptural and SoP/ToJ position. I truly believe that the wording of fundamental #2 ought to be corrected by fundamental #1, for as of right now, it (f#2) is written in an incorrect ecumenical way, which does not rightly represent the Seventh-day Adventist position from both the law and the testimony (Isaiah 8:20). I also think it is dangerous to say it the way it is written, and can lead to incorrect understandings of the Gospel and matters salvation/redemption.

If we truly are not going to discuss fundamental #2 here by fundamental #1, I take my leave.

It's only when we are not allowed to do that publicly Daryl, and public threads are locked out, like fundamental #2, that my concern grows.

ADMIN HAT ON!

As I already stated, this is only to be discussed at the following link:

https://www.maritime-sda-online.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=38574#Post38574

This thread is closed.

ADMIN HAT OFF!