Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Murcielago]

So Peter's conviction that eating a donut does not make it a sin for Mary? Peter has a strong argument for his belief. Although the Bible does not specify donuts, it says that we are the temple of God, and it stands to reason that eating a donut it a veritable assault on that temple, at least to some, and thus eating a donut should constitute sin to anyone who hears Peter's assertion. If Mary doesn't agree with Peter's theory is she in sin for ignoring a divine command, as per Peter and his interpretation?

[Snoopy]

Or, is Peter in sin because he relentlessly pounded on Mary for her donut indiscretions (in his view) to the point that Mary was no longer interested in hearing anything relating to Peter's religious views??  Instead of teaching Mary about the love of Jesus, will Peter have to answer for the impact his incessant preaching and holier-than-thou attitude had on Mary such that he basically drove her away?  And when Peter falls off that holier-than-thou pedestal he uses for preaching, will he break any bones?

[Bob Pickle]

In fact, ordination is not really a Bible teaching.

Sounds good, but is it true? I don't think so. One of the chapters in DA is entitled, "Ho ordained Twelve." And then there is the following description of Paul and Barnabas' ordination:

"Both Paul and Barnabas had been laboring as ministers of Christ, and God had abundantly blessed their efforts; but neither of them had previously been formally ordained to the gospel ministry by prayer and the laying on of hands. They were now authorized by the church, not only to teach the truth, but to baptize, and to organize churches, being invested with full ecclesiastical authority" (LP 42).

I suspect this is another example where an argument in favor of WO has not been well thought out or verified, or is being used anyway.

It is a tradition which developed over centuries in the Catholic Church and then was adopted by Protestants, including Adventists.

Now someone needs to explain how the Catholic Church "developed" ordination in or prior to the first century in time for Jesus to ordain the twelve and in time for Paul and Barnabas to be ordained.

Ellen G. White held the credentials of an ordained minister for decades and orthodox, loyal Seventh-day Adventists in China have ordained 17 women as ministers, starting in the 1980s.

This is misleading if the entity making the decision about who is going to be ordained is in reality the communist government.

Recall also that there has been an influence pushing the idea that just as in China they have the three self movement whereby the locals fund themselves, administrate themselves, and evangelize without assistance, there also ought to be a fourth self, whereby the locals come up with their own theology. And if that theology doesn't include the mark of the beast, 1844, and the sanctuary, that is all right, since those doctrines don't scratch where it itches.

So I'm not sure how far we want to push this China stuff.

[Gregory]

Sin, what is it from the Biblical viewpoint?  People who like  argue (discuss) the Bible typicallly bring up their favorite texts to prove a point.  Often they are correct, as far as they go.  But, they will often forget one aspect os the Biblical teaching on sin. That aspect is:  God does not charge us with sin, even when committed, unless we have been convicted on that point and following that conviction we rebell against that conviction.

There are several texts on this that one can easily find.  My favorite is:  "To him who knoweth to do  good and doeth it not, to him it is sin."

In brief:  The Holy Spirit is our spiritual teacher.  It is the HS who convicts us as to the will of God.  As humans, none of us know the complete will of God for us and we all have more to learn.  The HS teaches us individually according the what God wants us to learn at that point in time in our lives.  God holds us accountable for our reaction to the leading of the HS.  Yes, we typically resist and rebell, but that is where the plan of salvation comes into action.  In the Cross there is salvation from our rebellion.

God is good!

 

[Gregory]

Bob, you suggest that ordination is a Biblical concept and those who suggest otherwise are wrong.  To  support your statement you reference a statement that EGW has made.  I find it interesting that you fail to provide a Biblical basis for your suggestion that ordination is Biblical.

I personally tend to agree with the statement that ordination is not derived from the Bible.  But, I do not think that position is a slam dunk.  If I were to want to argue that ordination is Biblical, I could find some texts that might provide some suport for the  idea that it is Biblical.  So, I am willing to state that you may be correct in your view that ordination is Biblical.  I am simply surprised that after telling us that ordination may be Biblical you fail to support your position with Biblical support.   Rather, you go to EGW.

[Gregory]

Or, is Peter in sin because he relentlessly pounded on Mary for her donut indiscretions (in his view) to the point that Mary was no longer interested in hearing anything relating to Peter's religious views??  Instead of teaching Mary about the love of Jesus, will Peter have to answer for the impact his incessant preaching and holier-than-thou attitude had on Mary such that he basically drove her away?  And when Peter falls off that holier-than-thou pedestal he uses for preaching, will he break any bones?

Snooopy has raised a valid point.

We represent God to  others.  I would not want to spend eternity with the God that some people portray.

It should be noted that the God of love that exists is not a mamby pamby God. An understanding of the Cross demonstrates the the price of sin and its consequences.  There is a price paid for sin.  There are consequences.  God does not do away with those as God cannot.    We humans make choices and those choices have consequences.  Those who  chose to seperate from God will be able to do so which includes the consequence of the choice to eternally seperate from God.

The god that some people represent is manipulative, dishonest, arbitrary, vendictive and much more.  An eternity with such a god is not attractive to me. 
 
Thankfully, in the light of the Cross, a different God is presented.

[Gregory]

So Peter's conviction that eating a donut does not make it a sin for Mary? Peter has a strong argument for his belief. Although the Bible does not specify donuts, it says that we are the temple of God, and it stands to reason that eating a donut it a veritable assault on that temple, at least to some, and thus eating a donut should constitute sin to anyone who hears Peter's assertion. If Mary doesn't agree with Peter's theory is she in sin for ignoring a divine command, as per Peter and his interpretation?

 The idea is expressed above that Mary may be in sin if after hearing Peter proclaim such, Mary ignores it and eats the forbidden pastry.  Such, in my thinking, would only be true if the Holy Spirit had convicted Mary, on the  basis of his comment that eating that pastry was sin.  It is the HS who convicts of sin.  We humans do not.  Yes, the HS may use us.

 Perhaps,  the HS used Peter to proclaim the forbidden pastry?  Or, perhaps, there was some other  orgin for Peter's proclaimation.  I will suggest that sometimes Saten proclaims truth in a manner that causes people to see God in a false light and to reject that proclaimation of "truth."  NOTE:  Truth that is proclaimed in a manner designed to fit the strategy of Saten should not be called truth.

[Murcielago]

So Peter's conviction that eating a donut does not make it a sin for Mary? Peter has a strong argument for his belief. Although the Bible does not specify donuts, it says that we are the temple of God, and it stands to reason that eating a donut it a veritable assault on that temple, at least to some, and thus eating a donut should constitute sin to anyone who hears Peter's assertion. If Mary doesn't agree with Peter's theory is she in sin for ignoring a divine command, as per Peter and his interpretation?

 The idea is expressed above that Mary may be in sin if after hearing Peter proclaim such, Mary ignores it and eats the forbidden pastry.  Such, in my thinking, would only be true if the Holy Spirit had convicted Mary, on the  basis of his comment that eating that pastry was sin.  It is the HS who convicts of sin.  We humans do not.  Yes, the HS may use us.

 Perhaps,  the HS used Peter to proclaim the forbidden pastry?  Or, perhaps, there was some other  orgin for Peter's proclaimation.  I will suggest that sometimes Saten proclaims truth in a manner that causes people to see God in a false light and to reject that proclaimation of "truth."  NOTE:  Truth that is proclaimed in a manner designed to fit the strategy of Saten should not be called truth.

Now Peter and his fellow believers on the donut wagon may say that the Holy Sirit indeed spoke to Mary through him, and in ignoring Peter and his donut theology, she has disregarded the light of present truth and chosen to  label the Holy Spirit as the mere word of Peter, thus making the choice to live in sin when truth was at her disposal.

[Gregory]

Now Peter and his fellow believers on the donut wagon may say that the Holy Sirit indeed spoke to Mary through him, and in ignoring Peter and his donut theology, she has disregarded the light of present truth and chosen to  label the Holy Spirit as the mere word of Peter, thus making the choice to live in sin when truth was at her disposal.

Yes, if indeed the Holy Spirit did convict her.

However, it is unlikely that the Holy Spirit would tell Peter that Mary had been convicted by the Holy Spirit.  So, if Peter and his followers were to say such, they would be tresspassing in areas that belong to God alone.   God alone convicts.  Other humans do not know whether or not God has convicted.  The mere presentation of truth by a human does not ipso facto result in conviction by the Holy Spirit.

[Bob Pickle]

Bob, you suggest that ordination is a Biblical concept and those who suggest otherwise are wrong.  To  support your statement you reference a statement that EGW has made.  I find it interesting that you fail to provide a Biblical basis for your suggestion that ordination is Biblical.

I personally tend to agree with the statement that ordination is not derived from the Bible.  But, I do not think that position is a slam dunk.  If I were to want to argue that ordination is Biblical, I could find some texts that might provide some suport for the  idea that it is Biblical.  So, I am willing to state that you may be correct in your view that ordination is Biblical.  I am simply surprised that after telling us that ordination may be Biblical you fail to support your position with Biblical support.   Rather, you go to EGW.

If we want to find a biblical basis, we could go the passages upon which that DA chapter is based, or the passage in Acts that refers to Paul and Barnabas' ordination.

Mark 3:14  And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach,

Luke 9:1  Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases.

Acts 13:2  As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed, and laid their hands on them, they sent them away.

One nice thing about the SoP is that it removes a bit of the room for argument or uncertainty regarding whether this or that word or phrase was translated correctly, or regarding how to apply biblical concepts to more recent situations. But it does not replace the need for Bible study, and to base all our beliefs on the Bible.

[Bob Pickle]

So Peter's conviction that eating a donut does not make it a sin for Mary? Peter has a strong argument for his belief. Although the Bible does not specify donuts, it says that we are the temple of God, and it stands to reason that eating a donut it a veritable assault on that temple, at least to some, and thus eating a donut should constitute sin to anyone who hears Peter's assertion. If Mary doesn't agree with Peter's theory is she in sin for ignoring a divine command, as per Peter and his interpretation?

 The idea is expressed above that Mary may be in sin if after hearing Peter proclaim such, Mary ignores it and eats the forbidden pastry.  Such, in my thinking, would only be true if the Holy Spirit had convicted Mary, on the  basis of his comment that eating that pastry was sin.  It is the HS who convicts of sin.  We humans do not.  Yes, the HS may use us.

I think it is a little more complex than that.

"But that mighty evidence given to the Pharisees did not convert them. Men can so encase themselves in unbelief, doubt, and infidelity that the raising of the dead would not convict them. Because of their unbelief they would be in the same unbelieving position, unconvicted, unconverted" (FW 68).

"How many there are who are unwarned, and in consequence unconvicted. They are passing on, in harmony with the world and with the desires of their own undisciplined, unsubdued hearts. They live in pleasure and worldliness, and should sickness come, and death overtake them, they would be found unready" (RH 3-31-04).

"But for the mirror which Nathan held up before him, in which he so clearly recognized his own likeness, he would have gone on unconvicted of his heinous sin, and would have been ruined. The conviction of his guilt was the saving of his soul" (2BC 1023).

Based on these passages, I think it possible for someone to never be convicted about a particular sin, and to still be lost. So I don't think that whether someone has been convicted on a particular question is necessary the deciding factor.

[Gregory]

Bob said:

Based on these passages, I think it possible for someone to never be convicted about a particular sin, and to still be lost. So I don't think that whether someone has been convicted on a particular question is necessary the deciding factor.

In the specific examples that you gave, I would not argue with you.  In those examples,  I would suggest that the individuals involved had made choices  to reject the leading of the Holy Spirit.  Once that decision had been made, they may have stood unconvicted on later attempts by the Holy Spirit to lead them.  But, I will suggest that their loss of salvation came about due to their prior rejection of the Holy Spirit.  They made a choice and God accepted that choice.

[Artiste]

Or, is Peter in sin because he relentlessly pounded on Mary for her donut indiscretions (in his view) to the point that Mary was no longer interested in hearing anything relating to Peter's religious views??  Instead of teaching Mary about the love of Jesus, will Peter have to answer for the impact his incessant preaching and holier-than-thou attitude had on Mary such that he basically drove her away?  And when Peter falls off that holier-than-thou pedestal he uses for preaching, will he break any bones?

I'd have to agree, Snoopy, that that type of behavior can be pretty bad, and Peter would most likely break some bones.

[Johann]

Zdravko Plantak
Five minutes ago, at the historic Columbia Union Conference Constituency meeting regarding ORDINATION TO GOSPEL MINISTRY WITHOUT REGARD TO GENDER, our Union has voted positively on this motion and has trail-blazed (as before) for the rest of the SDA church. May God continue to bless ministry of all who are called regardless of gender!

[Johann]

We now see in the reports from CUC that president Ted Wilson was present at the meeting, but that every protest of his was met with such a convincing reply that it did not prevent the delegates from voting in favor of ordaining ministers without regard to gender.

Something similar it taking place in North Germany.