Comment on What does it take to be a true Seventh-day Adventist? by Shirley.
A favorite scripture of mine is Micah 6:8: “He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you But to do justly, To love mercy, And to walk humbly with your God!”
How haughty we are to suppose WE have ALL the truth. GOD is TRUTH; but how many of us know Him as we ought to know Him? A knowledge of the truth is progressive. Our founders history shows that we have had to correct our thinking in our search for truth. What makes us think that we now have a full and correct understanding of all spiritual doctrine? God has led us to the Bible, but isn’t it possible that we may fail to rightly understand some things? Even recently the doctrine of the Holy Spirit was added to. Praise God for more information.
Jesus had to point out in His day that sin is in the mind. Sin is lack of faith. Sin is an attitude. For many years we have looked at sin strictly as behavior. In our time, we still struggle with Righteousness By Faith–which is the Third Angel’s Message “in verity.”
At the end is it going to be “just two classes of people” — Seventh-day Adventists,–and the rest of the world? NO! At the end there will be those who are willing to follow Jesus WHEREVER He leads–whatever further light God reveals in His WORD; and those who think they know better, rejecting God and truth–because THEY KNOW BETTER. I hope those following Jesus will include many Adventist believers! It is right for us to think that we are right–to walk according to our consciences–“fully persuaded in our own mind.” AT THE SAME TIME, may we be humbly teachable, or like the Pharisees, we can be just as lost!
Table of Contents
Recent Comments by Shirley
Northern California Conference Votes to Act Independent of the General Conference
Much enjoyment of someone’s excellent humor in writing the 10 Reasons a Man Should Not Be Ordained. Thanks for posting.
Northern California Conference Votes to Act Independent of the General Conference
Thank you, Sean, for replying to my query on Gen 3 and 4. I have read the NIV, but put less stock in NIV than KJV, which has a better reputation in our circles. IF the NIV translation applies in Gen 4:7 – that “sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.” Then is it fair to assume that Gen. 3:16 also means that “you shall desire your husband, but he will master you.”
Is the same Heb. language used in both texts? I don’t know Biblical languages.
I do believe in the principle of Eph. 5:21, as well as 5:22, etc.
Somewhere in EGW I received the idea that God wants to bring us back to the stated relationship that originated in the Garden. Restore the Sabbath; restore the pre-fall marriage relationship. Sin causes tension, separation and bitterness… The closer we come to Jesus, the less desire we shall have to dominate each other. Harmony between the sexes can exist when we (self) is hid in Christ. Domination of one human by another human of either sex is to interpose self between God and mankind, who is to be our true Master. A gentle leader (husband) will inspire a submitting wife.
Thank you for reading, and perhaps responding as you see fit.
Northern California Conference Votes to Act Independent of the General Conference
Sean Pitman: Thank you for your explanations and referring to quotes from God’s word in its various forms. I have read the Equality statements in EGW and understand the Bible quotations that indicate that truly ‘in Christ there is neither male nor female.” I still have a question about the Genesis statements found in Gen. 3:16 and Gen. 4:7. I read this in the KJV, and have never heard anyone address this comparison TD.
Both verses say basically the same thing. When I read it, I thought, Whoa! I never saw THAT before.
3:16 – …”her desire shall be to her husband, and he shall rule over thee.”
4:7 – …”your (Abel) desire shall be to him (Cain), and he (Cain) shall rule over thee.” (Abel).
I have heard a husband say that in 3:16 God commanded the husband to rule over the wife (after all, she was deceived and fell first. [implication])
When I read 4:7 and saw that the same verbiage was used, it did not make sense to e that God would have COMMANDED Cain – evil – to rule over Abel – good. I now understand this structure to mean, as a RESULT of sin in the heart, the stronger may take advantage of the weak, and seek to dominate. There is where EGW says NEITHER should seek to dominate the other, for it destroys love.
I also noticed in Genesis that God gave THEM dominion, repeated twice in the same chapter. I have always heard it said that God gave Adam dominion. ‘Adam’ was used like a family name, Mr. & Mrs. Adam.
Am I misunderstanding or misinterpreting the scripture meaning of Gen 3:16 and 4:7?
Northern California Conference Votes to Act Independent of the General Conference
@Henry C Hills: Greetings, Brother. I am interested in your possible comparison between the two texts: Genesis 3:16 with Genesis 4:7. Both texts in KJV follow a very similar phrase pattern. One is between Adam and Eve; the other between Cain and Abel. I have heard that in 3:16 ‘he shall rule over’ [Eve] was a command of God as punishment for disobedience and the fall. In Gen 4:7, the ‘he shall rule over’ statement is the DISOBEDIENT shall rule over the OBEDIENT. I can hardly believe that it is a command of God for evil to rule over good; yet the phrase is so nearly the same in both texts as to demand the same application. Is it not that God is describing the result of sin now residing in the heart that causes the stronger to try to control and dominate the weaker? That would fit both scenarios, would it not?
Both texts basically say, ‘your desire shall be to [him] and he shall rule over you.’ which is NOT a command, but a result of the sinful nature.
Northern California Conference Votes to Act Independent of the General Conference
Ultimately, if we cannot grasp the plain “thus saith the LORD” of the Bible, and base our doctrines thereon, we have no possibility of finding “unity.”@Tongkam:
What you say about basing doctrine upon Bible is true. It seems to follow that, where there is no clear ‘Thus says the Lord,’ we should have no doctrine. To create a doctrine where there is no direct instruction appears to be ADDING to the Holy Scriptures.
The same seems true, also, of the 3 GC statements, which basically were non-statements based on a lack of ‘Thus saith the Lord,” which morphed into prohibition without any decisive basis.
