Here are some highlights from this video worth remembering:

0:27 The Seventh-day Adventist Church is not in the abortion business.

0:44 Lay members who knew what was taking place, contacted the official repository of records and requested a correction by the church, the answer was silence.

2:43 The GC representative stated that the guidelines were not written in stone and that some timein the future they migh be changed.

3:16 Adventist leaders knew what was taking place, lied about it, and refused to correct the situation.

4:02 Adventists who the church were concerned about the abortion issue repeatedly requested to address this issue but their requests were repeatedly ignored by the church leadership.

4:12 During the 1991-1992 period at least 1,600 innocent unborn children were murdered in two Maryland Adventist hospitals. This does not include all the other Adventist hospitals in North America.

4:48 These abortion guidelines were approved by over 90 percent of Adventist leaders from the world church.

Advertisements

My question to Pastor Mark Finley: In this powerful and inspiring presentation you state that before Christ’s return to this earth people will be forced to choose between “obeying God’s Law or following the way of tradition” [see 14:04].

Does this prediction apply to God’s Remnant church on earth as well, because right now Adventist are faced with the need to choose between the Sixth Commandment that forbids the killing of innocent human beings and the Adventist tradition created in 1970 that allows certain elective abortions to be performed at our Adventist hospitals and clinics.

headship 2

The origin of the Headship Doctrine was developed in the 1970-1980 decades by a few Calvinist evangelical teachers and introduced into Adventism by Andrews theologian Samuelle Bacchiocchi in the late 1980.

Bacchiocchi’s main motivation for adopting the headship doctrine was the fear of feminism that was advancing rapidly in society at the time and his dislike of the women’s ordination movement.

There was nothing published in Adventism dealing with the headship doctrine in Adventism prior to 1980. The only support for this was Paul’s injunction against women speaking in church and his prohibition of women teaching men.

Adventists interpretation of those Pauline prohibitions alleged that Paul’s teaching regarding women’s role were based on cultural mores prevalent in the first century. The reason for this Adventist interpretation was the role played by Ellen White who did preach and taught openly in the church.

For 120 years the Church of Christ ministers criticized the example of Mrs. White on this issue and held that she violated Paul’s principle based on the need of women to be silent in church.

Up to that time, Adventists ignored the argument that ordained pastors and deacons must be the husband of one wife rule set by Paul, and interpreted this as implying that ordination required moral integrity.

More: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bxa-xjkVWScYMFJvVk9SOE1JUU0/view

Posted by: adventlife | January 21, 2018

Guidelines on Marital Affairs, a Parody by Doug Yowell

Marriage 3

Introduction

In the event you are not familiar with the Adventist document known as “guidelines on abortion,” you might have some difficulty appreciating the clever irony contained in this literary piece created by its pro-life author. You may want to consider reading said document first. Here is the link: http://www.adventist.org/en/information/official-statements/guidelines/article/go/0/abortion/

*********

1) Marriage bed is a magnificent gift of God. God’s ideal for human beings affirms the sanctity of the marriage bed. The marriage institution is modeled after God’s image and requires respect for the marriage covenant. However, decisions about affairs must be made in the context of a fallen world. An affair is never an act of little moral consequence. Thus, the marriage bond must not be thoughtlessly destroyed. Affairs should be performed only for the most serious reasons.

2) An affair is one of the tragic dilemmas of human fallenness. The church should offer gracious support to those who personally face the decision concerning a violation of their wedding vows. Attitudes of condemnation are inappropriate in those who have accepted the gospel. Christians are commissioned to become a loving, caring community of faith that assists those in crisis as alternatives are considered.

3) In practical, tangible ways the church as a supportive community should express it’s commitment to the value of marital fidelity. These ways should include (a) strengthening family relationships, (b) educating both genders concerning Christian principles of human sexuality, (c) emphasizing responsibility of both male and female for intimate sexual planning, (d) calling both marriage partners to be responsible for the consequences of behaviors that are inconsistent with Christian principles, (e) creating a safe climate for ongoing discussion of the moral questions associated with affairs, (f) offering assistance to spouses who choose to retain their marital faithfulness in a crisis situation, (g) encouraging and assisting parents to participate responsibly in the modeling of marriage for their children. The church also should commit itself to assist in alleviating the unfortunate social, economic, emotional, psychological, and physical factors that may lead to an affair and to care redemptively for those suffering the consequences of individual choices on this issue.

4) The church does not serve as conscience for individuals; however, it should provide moral guidance. An affair for reasons of sexual experimentation, lack of self control, or convenience are not condoned by the church, Couples, at times however, may face exceptional circumstances that present serious moral or relational dilemmas, such as significant threats to the marital commitment, serious jeopardy to the emotional and sexual health of the marriage, severe physical defects carefully diagnosed in one of the spouses, intentionally withheld sexual responsibilities by one of the married persons, a previous or ongoing sexual infidelity by either of the couple, the chronic failure of one partner to provide sexual satisfaction for the other, an undetected gender misidentity, and consensual agreements with other intimately related couples. The final decision whether to have an affair or not should be made by the affected party after appropriate consultation. They should be aided in their decision by accurate information, biblical principles, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, these decisions are best made within the context of healthy family relationships.

5) Christians acknowledge as first and foremost their accountability to God. They seek balance between the exercise of individual liberty and their accountability to the faith community and the larger society and it’s ethics. They make their choices according to Scripture and the laws of God rather than the norms of society. Therefore, any attempts to coerce a married person either to remain faithful to their sexual vows, or to engage in an affair should be rejected as infringements of personal freedom.

6) Church institutions should be provided with guidelines for developing their own institutional policies in harmony with this statement. Persons having a religious or ethical objection to affairs should not be required to give support to an extra marital sexual experience.

7) Church members should be encouraged to participate in the ongoing consideration of their moral responsibilities with regard to sexual faithfulness in the light of the teaching of Scripture.

.

What follows is a review of some of the salient points presented in the video coupled with the time count for easy location of the specific item presented in it.

Dramatic increase in the number of abortions at the Glendale & the White Memorial hospitals: 558 % spike in one year as evidence that these were elective abortions.
Advance to 058

1986 American Hospital Association reported that 12 our of 56 SDA hospitals were offering abortion services
Advance to 1:52

“The number of elective abortions has increased since 1971.”
Advance to 3:32

Estimated elective abortion between 1970 & 2,000 is 20,0000
Advance to 4:42

The Washington Post report of elective abortions in Adventist hospitals was never denied by the church.
Advance to 5:24

Chaplain George Gainer asked by Ministry Magazine to write a report on abortion. Thr church’s secret abortion file was denied access to him, but later allowed following a Ministry Magazine special request. He copied half of the material in the file, but days later Neal Wilson ordered his access interrupted.
Advance to 5:58

In 1970 our Castle Memorial Hospital started offering abortion for social reasons.
Advance to 8:06

The Washington Adventist Hospital was reported to have performed 1494 abortion between 1975 & 1982.
Advance to 10:37

In 1991-1992 three SDA hospitals near the GC performed 1600 abortions. The total estimated number of abortion in just two of these hospitals is 15,000.
Advance to 11:51

In response to a pro-life complain, President Ron M Wisbey asserted that the Adventist church was not involved in the abortion business which resulted in a raise of his salary.
Advance to 14:15

In 1993, GC Health Ministry director wrote a letter asking a pro-lifer to support the guidelines on abortion, which means that if you want to help children being killed, you need to support the guidelines that authorize their murder.
Advance to 16:53

Following the Washington Post report of abortion in Adventist hospitals, the Adventist for Life web site was ordered by GC lawyers to cease and desist their pro-life activities.
Advance to 19:18

When a Washington Adventist Hospital employee complained about the abortion issue, she was provided with a list of Catholic hospitals where she could apply for employment.
Advance to 20:27

The women’s ordination issue was voted three times already by the church. The abortion issue not even once.
Advance to 24:02

Adventist hospitals have murdered more blacks than the KKK in all their history.
Advance to 26:14

A.R.

According to an article published by the Adventist Review entitled “Church in South America Passes Statement Opposing Death Penalty” [1] the Adventist Church has come out against the execution of criminals and murderers while still allowing the execution of innocent unborn children as evidenced by a document approved by the church known as “guidelines on abortion.” [2]

If the killing of criminals is wrong, how in the world did the church decide that the execution of innocent human beings was morally acceptable back in 1970? And do not forget that said guidelines on abortion are still followed by our Adventist Health System!

Can’t we see that killing the innocent is contrary to the health ministry of our church? How did we manage to include killing among the health program designed to alleviate suffering, pain, and the protection of human life? We allow abortion to protect the lifestyle of the pregnant woman. Is lifestyle more sacred than life? Here are some of the statements contained in this new document of the church:

“The document contextually discusses biblical texts and passages that seem to support the application of the death penalty by governments, to conclude that “Adventists believe that violence and capital punishment have no place within the Church. In other words, it is not the task of the Church to take human life.”

How can we be against “violence” when dealing with criminals but in favor or neutral when violence is manifested against unborn and innocent human beings? Isn’t this evidence that we have a serious contradiction in our teachings regarding the right to life of those who were created in God’s image?

“The application of capital punishment “is often fraught with procedural difficulties,” and “is irreversible,” something that “should make us very cautious.”

Isn’t the capital punishment applied to the unborn “irreversible” as well?

“As the document states, however, the key task is to get to know the biblical view of capital punishment by studying biblical texts on the topic in various contexts. It is also important to understand it from “a robust biblical anthropology,” as over the years, the Adventist Church has issued official statements “against violence, war, and euthanasia, and in favor of tolerance and noncombatancy,” it reads.” 

If we are against violence in the case of war and euthanasia, on what moral or biblical basis can we continue to allow for violence to be manifested in the case of abortion?

“The Church shares the biblical teaching of the immense value of all life and the sanctity of human life especially, which was created in the image of God,” reads the statement. Accordingly, “[it] seeks to preserve and protect human life.””

Are we saying that the life of a convicted murderer is sacred but the life of the unborn is not? Aren’t the unborn created in God’s image as well? Why are convicted criminals entitled to the “protection of human life” but not the unborn who are not guilty of any crime? Here is what the Bible teaches:

“The one who acquits the guilty and the one who condemns the innocent–both of them are an abomination to the LORD.” [Proverbs 17:15]

Based on this biblical passage, we can safely conclude that the position of the Adventist church on this issue is and “abomination to the LORD” because we are protecting the life of the wicked but failing to protect the life of the innocent.

References

1. http://www.adventistreview.org/church-news/story5706-church-in-south-america-passes-statement-opposing-death-penalty

2. http://www.adventist.org/en/information/official-statements/guidelines/article/go/0/abortion/

Please, take the time to watch the following powerful video created by Adventist researcher named Andrew Michell:

“Adventist Church Official Position Statement on Death Penalty”

Link: https://youtu.be/x__x1SWm3YI

Posted by: adventlife | January 9, 2018

Adventist Church Official Position Statement on Death Penalty

.

.

My Question: How can we claim to be opposed to the death penalty of guilty criminals but at the same time maintain a document known as “Guidelines on Abortion” that lists a variety of circumstances under which our hospitals and clinics are allowed to kill unborn children who have committed no crime? This is a mystery to me!

Posted by: adventlife | January 8, 2018

Woman Pastors World’s Largest SDA Church

.

“The Amazing Hao Ya Jie Story – Pastor Hao Ya Jie, a woman, is the pastor of the Beiguan Seventh-day Adventist Church in Shenyang, China. It started as a small group of 10 people in her living room in 1985. Now it has a membership of more than 7,000 and is considered the largest Adventist Church in the world. Pastor Hao oversees the day-to-day operation of the church, its lay-training program, a feeding program for the needy, and morning worship that starts each day at 5:00 a.m. with hundreds of members in attendance. The Beiguan church has prompted the growth of more than 120 church-plants.
When asked why she felt called to ministry, Pastor Hao offered a simple answer: “When I was reading the writings of Ellen White, I felt that God was calling me to leave my former profession and serve Him in evangelizing those in my community. I felt moved to a life of serving God.”
More than half of the Adventist pastors in China are women, and a large majority of the members are also female. God is working in mighty ways to spread the Gospel through their willing efforts.
More:  https://vimeo.com/129726663

Posted by: adventlife | January 8, 2018

Dr. George Knight: Biblical Meaning of Ordination

.

“The laying on of hands is a biblical concept, but they received their “commission from God Himself, and the ceremony of the laying on of hands added no new grace or virtual qualification.” It was simply a human recognition that God had called the person. (AA, p. 161) …

Who decides who can be a pastor? Jesus gave spiritual gifts, including the gift of pastoring (and they are not based on gender). (Ephesians 4:8, 11-13) The Bible has examples of female prophets and preachers. …

The laying on of hands merely recognizes publicly what the Holy Spirit has already done. (EGW, AA p. 161) …

The “husband of one wife” passage was a limitation against fornication and polygamy, not an indication that only males can be ministers. Jesus and Paul were not married. …

The General Conference already approved women in ministry 25 years ago. Men and women ministers already have the laying on of hands. The only difference is that the men are called “ordained” and the women are called “commissioned.” It is merely a word game, because they do the exact same work, and the two terms mean the same thing. …

It is especially amazing that Adventists are having this debate, given the fact that the most influential clergy person in Adventist history was a woman. …”

More: http://equalordination.com/george-knight-on-ordination/

Older Posts »

Categories

Advent Life Books

The best books should be free--like air and water!

KEEPLIFELEGAL

EXPOSING THE ABORTION AGENDA FROM THE PULPIT, ON THE SIDEWALK, IN THE MEDIA & AT THE STATEHOUSE.

kelzbelzphotography

My journey - The good, bad and the ugly

Confessions of a Teenage Runaway

My Voice... My Story...

Advent Life

Focusing on Life