Women's Ordination Sidetrack Topic on Trinity, EGW, etc...

[Nic Samojluk]

John,

You stated:

1.

Quote:

Allah of the Koran forgives sinners without the shedding of blood. It says Jesus never was put to death on the cross but that it was someone else.

There is a difference between denying a historical event, and suggesting that God had the right to forgive sins regardless of whether the Jewish leaders would accept Jesus as their promised Messiah and King or whether whey would reject him.

Are you saying that if the Jews had refused to follow the Devil’s lead in his determination to have Jesus killed that then Enoch and Moses would have come down from heaven and die? Do you find any support from the OT for the idea that all the forgiveness granted to his children would become null and void if the Jews had not crucified Jesus?

Do you realize that your view of the cross makes God and the Devil in agreement that Jesus had to die? The New Testament’s view of the cross is an after the fact explanation for what happened. It is similar to what Joseph said to his brothers suggesting that he had been sold as a slave by them thanks to providence. The truth is that God had many ways to saved Jacob and his family from famine without the need of Joseph’s brother cruel act of selling him as a slave. God works to accomplish his beneficent purpose in spite of human activity and not thanks to them.

2.

Quote:

What do you believe would have happened if Christ had refused to die? Would we have salvation and God's forgiveness today?

The true alternative is not between Jesus refusal to allow his enemies to kill him but rather between the Jewish leaders decision to accept Jesus as the promised Messiah or to reject him. Jesus took human form knowing in advance that there existed the possibility that his mission would be rejected and that under such an event he had already decided that he would allow the Devil to have his pound of flesh.

If the Jewish leaders had opted to accept Jesus as their king, there would have been no reason for him to die. He would have reigned in Jerusalem and the city of Jerusalem would have eventually become the capital of the world. God’s plan of salvation was not contingent on the help from the Devil in his desire to take the life of the Son of God.

The idea that Jesus could have refused to die runs counter to the character of God who “in all their afflictions was afflicted.” The Lamb of God was slain “from the foundation of the world.” This means, as explained by Ellen White, that the suffering of Jesus began not when he took the human form, but rather when rebellion broke out in heaven. By the time Jesus was born in Bethlehem, Jesus had suffered more than enough as a result of rebellion—not as God’s requirement to pay the penalty for sin, but rather as the natural consequence of love. When a son rebels, the parents suffer because they love their children.

This is where Christian theologians have erred. The suffering of Jesus was not the result of God’s penalty for sin, but the result of rejected love. God’s infinite love had been rejected and pain and suffering were the result. This is why Jesus started to weep on his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. He knew that everything he had done for the people he loved was being rejected and that it would lead him to the cross. The pain was unbearable, not because God wanted his Son to suffer to pay a penalty, but rather as the natural result of his infinite love which was being rejected.

Quote:

But God could not forgive us and save us without the death of His Beloved Son. There was no other way.

That idea is based on an after the fact explanation. There was another way: The other way was for the Jewish nation to have accepted Jesus as their Messiah and rightful king. The notion that there was no other way became true after the Jews had decided to reject him. Before that decision there was another way, but not after.

Quote:

Why, then, did God command the sacrificial system in which millions of innocent animals were slain, and why did God plan that Christ would come to this earth as an innocent God-man for the purpose of dying?

For two reasons: Because the children of Israel in the desert rejected God’s vegetarian diet he offered them, and because God knew that there were two possibilities: His chosen nation could elect to accept Jesus as their Savior or reject him. Moses, Joshua, Gideon, Samuel, and David did save the Israelites from their enemies. Why? Because they humbled themselves, they accepted the leadership of those men, and God could save them. Had the Jews accepted Jesus, the same result would have followed. Had they repented from their sins, Jesus would have liberated them from the Romans the same way Moses and the other freed their ancestors from their enemies.

This is why many Bible translators have decided, as I pointed in a previous posting, to translate Is. 53:10 with the contingent conjunction “If”. This is because at that point in time there was the possibility that the Jewish nation might accept Jesus as their Messiah and King.

Let us not forget that, according to E. White, all God’s promises and threatenings are conditional. The term “ALL” includes the death of Jesus.

[Musicman1228]

I suppose then that there will be NO women in the 144,000, in spite of what EGW says. Will these people NOT be ordained by God?

[Dr. Rich]

John, are you losing it my friend? First you say 'no comment needed' and then you make a comment as in a question. Hmmm? Hey, if you do not agree, so be it. I happen to fully agree with MM. Does this make me a bad person?

One more thing about this that might interest you--or not--is this. It is clear that God wanted humans to know more about God. Could it be that God actually creates not alone, but as a 'husband and wife' type of team work? So, could it be that God gave men and women the 'good feeling' of sexual contact with a man and a woman to let them get a small taste of how God (as in OUR) feels when they create?

I shared this with some youth in a bible study on evening and several came up to me later and said that this whole idea made sense to them and that because of what I said they have made a choice to remain virgins until they get married.

Here is the thing: Sex between and husband and wife MUST be a mutual agreement. How can it be mutual when there is no equality?

Another thing is this: Satan must know this and therefore he has caused all kinds of sexual deviation in order to destroy what God established. Therefore, any type of discrimination towards women has to be the work of Satan or the causation from Satan.

Anyway, this is MY opinion and I am sure not the same as the majority of men on this thread.

[Nic Samojluk]

John,

You stated:

1.

Quote:

Do you believe the Bible teaches Christ could have saved the world without dying and shedding His blood? If so, how?

Yes, the Lamb of God was slain from the foundation of the world. If suffering was the price of redemption, then, according to Ellen White, the suffering of Jesus began right at the beginning when rebellion opened the floodgates of sin and misery in God’s universe. The consequences of love is suffering when a child rebels.

This is not an arbitrary imposition by a God who demands his pound of flesh. It is rather the natural result of true love. Infinite love produces naturally infinite pain which humans could not comprehend without faith. The cross was simply a revelation of the pain God was subjected to since the beginning as a result or his love and given the fact that sin did enter heaven and earth.

Lucifer’s and Adam’s rebellion elicited infinite pain in the heart of God. If men would have believed this by faith, there would have been no further revelation needed. When the Jewish leaders decided to reject Jesus as their Messiah, God had no alternative but to allow rebellion to show its ugly face. The true character of Satan had to be revealed to the universe, and this would in turn reveal the true character of God. The cross of Christ was not a payment in terms of suffering because God had already experienced infinite pain as a result of sin and rebellion. Jesus’ death was actually an overpayment.

Justice did not require that Jesus demonstrate his love by dying for us. It was love that prompted him to go beyond the requirements of justice. Love prompted him to provide an overpayment in terms of love. His love exceeded the requirements of justice. Love prompted him to submit to torture and death knowing that this would entice many to accept his offer of forgiveness. What made the cross necessary was not the demands of justice, but rather the fact that the chosen nation decided to reject the one who had come to save them from their sins and from their enemies.

The Bible explains the cross in terms of what actually took place. It is an after the fact explanation. This is where most theologians get stuck. Like Joseph of old, they think that God’s providence led his brother to sell him into Egypt as a slave, forgetting that God worked in spite of human frailty.

We see what could have been when we read Jesus' reaction on his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. He wept. Why? Because he realized that the chosen nation had forfeited what could have brought freedom and peace to them. Jesus came to save his people from their sins and from their enemies. This is what Moses, David, Gideon, Samuel and other had done. The condition was repentance. When the Jews rejected Jesus, they closed the door to being liberated from the Romans.

2.

Quote:

What is the meaning of the verse in the context of Hebrews 9: 22, 23?

Good question. This is the way I understand the sacrificial system: It was given as an accommodation for two reasons: The Israelites had rejected the vegetarian diet God gave them in the desert. God needed to give an objective lesson designed to show them that sin results in suffering by innocents. Those lambs were a symbol of the “Lamb which was slain from the foundation of the world.”

Every time people sinned, their behavior produced pain in God. When love is rejected, the result is pain by the innocent. Had the Jews understood this by faith, there would have been no need for additional manifestation of the results of sin. The requirement for salvation is repentance and forgiveness. Repentance implies that we understand that every time we sin we hurt God’s feelings, because he loves us—not because a legal penalty must be imposed on the innocent.

The passage in Hebrews simply describes the sacrificial system in terms the Jews could understand. Every time they sinned, an innocent animal had to be sacrificed. The death of the animal pointed to the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. It pointed backwards to the time when Lucifer and Adam sinned. This is all which was needed. Today, this side of the cross, those lambs point both back to God’s suffering from the beginning and God’s suffering as manifested on the cross.

The death of Jesus became necessary when the Jewish nation rejected the one who had come to save them from sin and from their enemies.

[Woody]

I suppose then that there will be NO women in the 144,000, in spite of what EGW says. Will these people NOT be ordained by God?

This is a good question MM. Ellen White did consider that both men and women were to be ordained messengers:

"God's messengers are commissioned to take up the very work that Christ did while on this earth. They are to give themselves to every line of ministry that He carried on. With earnestness and sincerity, they are to tell men of the unsearchable riches and the immortal treasure of heaven."

"The commission given to the disciples is given also to us. Today, as then, a crucified and risen Saviour is to be uplifted before those who are without God and without hope in the world. The Lord calls for pastors, teachers, and evangelists." Testimonies, vol. 9, p. 130. {ChS 23.2}

[John317]

Quote:

Musicman1228: I suppose then that there will be NO women in the 144,000, in spite of what EGW says. Will these people NOT be ordained by God?

Ellen White never said there won't be women among the 144,000.

Yes, God, of course, may ordain anyone He wants to for any kind of work He chooses.

[Tom Wetmore]

Well, I am inclined to agree with Rich and Musicman on the general thrust of this line of thought. (Not necessarily on all the details and I might have expressed it differently.) I wouldn't expect everyone else to agree or not to agree and I am not troubled by that.

I am quite certain that sin has resulted in substantial gender and sexual confusion, turmoil, degradation and degeneration. Concepts and emotions of sex and gender are deeply intertwined psychologically in humans. This effects much of what we do and think. That is inescapable. And personal insecurities and confusion in terms of gender and sex will effect how we relate to and view persons of our own sex and the opposite sex, and how we relate to the topic at hand.

I also agree and have said that being created in the image of God is both male and female according to Genesis. That would very strongly indicate feminine and masculine qualities derived from that image of God. God created male and female to be as one. And the disruption of that oneness and harmony is what God described as the consequences of sin. Sin broke what God had joined together as one.

And I think that if we are a people that believe that our Salvation is a reversal of the consequences of sin, we should take seriously getting back to what God originally designed and intended - man and woman equal. We strive vigorously in so many other areas to return to that perfect state.

Why do we resist in this one area so strongly?

IMHO, it is because this is at the very heart of our brokenness. The devil knows that by attacking the image of God in us, he directly attacks the God that created us in that image.

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: Do you believe the Bible teaches Christ could have saved the world without dying and shedding His blood? If so, how?

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Yes, the Lamb of God was slain from the foundation of the world. If suffering was the price of redemption, then, according to Ellen White, the suffering of Jesus began right at the beginning when rebellion opened the floodgates of sin and misery in God’s universe. The consequences of love is suffering when a child rebels.

But is that what is meant by "slain from the foundation of the world"? Doesn't it mean that Jesus Christ had agreed and promised to come to this world and die for sinners from the very foundation of the world?

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: The death of Jesus became necessary when the Jewish nation rejected the one who had come to save them from sin and from their enemies.

Are you saying that Christ only had to shed His blood because the Jewish nation rejected Him?

It seems to me you are saying Christ need not have died to save the world if the Jews had accepted Him. Am I understanding you aright?

[John317]

Quote:

Dr. Rich: John, are you losing it my friend? First you say 'no comment needed' and then you make a comment as in a question. Hmmm? Hey, if you do not agree, so be it.

"No comment needed" means that I don't believe the post requires any reply from me-- reply as in explanation of my thoughts. It doesn't imply that I won't ask a question or give any kind of response at all.

[John317]

Quote:

Tom Wetmore: Well, I am inclined to agree with Rich and Musicman on the general thrust of this line of thought. (Not necessarily on all the details and I might have expressed it differently.) I wouldn't expect everyone else to agree or not to agree and I am not troubled by that...

Would one of your arguments for WO, then, be that SDA men who oppose WO should understand that the reason they oppose it is that they are insecure?

What would you say to the women who oppose it?

[Nic Samojluk]

John,

You stated:

1.

Quote:

Teilhard de Chardin's theology and evolutionary views have crept into the churches through the back door. They influenced Whitehead and Pannenburg, men who influenced Richard Rice and the Openness of God theology.

This could be true, but it has nothing to do with my leaning towards the openness of God. God’s absolute foreknowledge is something I had never truly accepted because it tends to negate and destroy the notion of true moral freedom. God knows everything which already exists, he also knows what he is determined to bring into existence, but when he created free moral agents, he gave up the possibility of knowing thousands of years in advance what a particular human being which was not born yet would do.

I believe that moral freedom is real, and this is precisely the reason the Lord pronounced the blessings and curses before the Israelites entered the land of Canaan. This was his way of showing that they were truly free to either obey or disobey. This is also the reason Jesus said “If I be lifted up.” For the same reason Is. 53:10 was rendered by some Bible translators on a contingency basis as I pointed out before.

2.

Quote:

The Openness of God theology does not accept the Immutability of God, or the concept of God as One who cannot change. It also denies that God is all-knowing.

I can relate better to a God who is affected by our response to his love. A God who is immutable cannot feel rejection, pain, and suffering. Ellen White told us that God’s pain and suffering is real and intense and that it started the moment sin and rebellion appeared in his universe. This is not a picture of an unfeeling, immutable being. The Bible paints a picture of a God who “In all their afflictions was afflicted.” An immutable God is immune to human response.

There is no need for God to know what color of necktie I will be wearing next Sabbath to church. What he needs to know is that I am fully free to react favorably to his love.

3.

Quote:

Augustine argued that because God is immutable he cannot even speak in time, using created beings to utter eternal words.

The God of Augustine doesn’t look like the God I worship. I worship the God of the Bible who is touched by what I think and do; who rejoices when I behave and who weeps when I stray from the narrow path.

[John317]

Quote:

Tom Wetmore:

Translators have a very hard time breaking with tradition.

What is your opinion here based on?

Do you have other verses besides Romans 16: 1,2,7 in mind? If so, can you suggest a couple of examples?

It seems to me that a person who is going to be critical of the translations already made ought to be a proficient translator himself or at least have taken several classes in the language he's dealing with.

If you examine all the English translations of the NT-- or even just the ones that are readily obtainable-- you'll find that almost every legitimate way the NT can be translated has been published. And some that are not always legitimate have been published as well.

As English words change in meaning, there will need to be new translations made, but the accurate meaning of the NT is already available through studying the translations previously made.

Many-- if not most-- translators are not concerned with "tradition" but with making a good and accurate translation. That's all they are concerned with.

But it seems to me you have an agenda when it comes to translation. Rather than looking at it from the grammatical and linguistic viewpoint, you see it as a contest over whether women will be ordained. No translator should view his work in that way. Translation is not a matter of politics or agendas, but only a matter of producing the most accurate and readable NT.

[Nic Samojluk]

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Did not most translators chose "the Spirit of God" because of the Christian dogma of the Trinity. Had most translators been non-trinitarian we would probably be reading said passage as: "God's presence" instead of "the Spirit of God."

An argument right out of the Jehovah's Witnesses' books.

I've studied their books off and on since the early 1970s and spent about a year and a half studying with them recently. Most of that time I just asked them questions about their beliefs. As far as the Godhead (or, as they say, Godship) is concerned, they have a lot in common with the beliefs of our Adventist pioneers.

John,

You ignored my question. Why should I care what other religionists think. Give me the Bible!

[Nic Samojluk]

Quote:

majority of Adventists, the writings of Ellen White continue to be considered as authoritative,

Still does not answer the question...and never seems to be answered...why did she tell people to never quote her, but go to their Bible's???

All too often SDA's use 'authoritative' to mean equal or slightly lower than the Bible as if she is the only person spoken to by God. I believe God speaks to many people and my only reference of 'correctness' is the Bible, not EGW. That belief is substantiate by the lady herself.

Co Aspen,

I agree! Nevertheless, I believe that Ellen was more inspired than I am.

[John317]

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: Did not most translators chose "the Spirit of God" because of the Christian dogma of the Trinity. Had most translators been non-trinitarian we would probably be reading said passage as: "God's presence" instead of "the Spirit of God."

Quote:

John317: An argument right out of the Jehovah's Witnesses' books.

I've studied their books off and on since the early 1970s and spent about a year and a half studying with them recently. Most of that time I just asked them questions about their beliefs. As far as the Godhead (or, as they say, Godship) is concerned, they have a lot in common with the beliefs of our Adventist pioneers.

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: You ignored my question. Why should I care what other religionists think. Give me the Bible!

I didn't mean to ignore your question.

If you're referring to Gen. 1: 2, the word ruach is translated as either wind, spirit, or breath.

I don't think I've ever seen it translated as "presence." (The word "presence is usually translated from the Hebrew word, paneh, Strongs #6440, as in Ps. 51: 11).

The (non-trinitarian) JPS translation (1917, 1955) renders it "spirit." The most recent JPS translation (1985) renders it "a wind." As you may already know, the New World Translation has, "active force." Robert Alter, the Jewish scholar, translated it as "breath."

Interestingly enough, the Septuagint (LXX) is translated from the Greek word pneuma into English as "Spirit."

How would you translate the same Hebrew word in Ps. 51: 12 and Is. 63: 10-12?

Was David saying "Take not thy holy breath or holy wind from me"? Obviously not. David is begging God not to take His Holy Spirit from him.

And in the same way, it seems to me that it is not correct in Gen. 1: 2 to translate it as "a wind" or "the breath" from God. The Holy Spirit was involved in the creation of the world just as the Word was. All Three Persons of the Godhead contributed to the creation of the world.

Finally, there is this significant passage from the writings of Ellen White: "'When He the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide you into all truth.' John 16: 13. Only by the aid of that Spirit who in the beginning 'was brooding upon the face of the waters;' of that Word by whom 'all things were made;' of that 'true light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world,' can the testimony of science be rightly interpreted. Only by their guidance can its deepest truths be discerned." Ed. 134.

Ellen White makes it very plain that it was the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Godhead, who "in the beginning was brooding upon the face of the waters." It was the same Holy Spirit that guides us into the truth. This is a person, as much a person as God the Father or the Son are persons. See Ev. 614-617. Ellen White here is in perfect agreement with the Scriptures.

[Nic Samojluk]

John,

You stated:

1.

Quote:

Could God have saved us apart from the shedding of Christ's blood?

The answer is “Yes” because the Lamb of God was already “slain from the foundation of the world. Do not forget how Ellen White described God’s suffering, which began, not on the cross, not when Jesus took human form, but rather when sin and rebellion broke the harmony of heaven. God’s suffering is not the result of a legalistic arbitrary demand that the penalty be paid, but rather the natural result of rejected love. As far as suffering, the cross was not a payment for sin, but rather an overpayment.

The natural result of rejected love is pain. Infinite love results in infinite pain. Infinite pain was experienced by God a million times since Lucifer rebelled in heaven. There was no requirement for Jesus to suffer more. Nevertheless, infinite love went far beyond what was required.

Jesus voluntarily subjected himself to additional suffering which was not strictly needed to satisfy any legal requirement. He did it because his chosen nation rejected him and he realized that by submitting himself to additional torture and suffering he would be able to gain the loyalty of millions of human beings and the loyalty of heavenly intelligences.

What made the cross necessary was the Jewish rejection of the Messiah. It was not a requirement for God to forgive sins. Jesus did forgive the sins of sinners before his death and he did not do it on any contingency basis.

2.

Quote:

Isn't that one of the chief lessons of the sacrificial system and particularly of the book of Leviticus? For instance, see Lev. 17: 11.

The sacrificial system was designed in response to the Israelites rejection of a vegetarian diet God gave them in the desert. A second objective was to lead people to realize that when we sin the innocent suffer the consequences. Those lambs pointed to God, the Lamb who ws slain from the foundation of the world. Read what Ellen White said about the deep meaning of the cross. It pointed back to God’s suffering which began when rebellion took place in heaven.

3.

Quote:

Notice that Heb. 9: 22, 23 is speaking of Christ's work in the heavenly sanctuary, that the things in the heavens are to be cleansed with better sacrifices than those which cleansed the earthly sanctuary. 1 Peter 1: 18, 19 says we were redeemed with the blood of the precious blood of Christ.

The better sacrifices phrase points to God’s suffering from the beginning when Lucifer rebelled. That is how Ellen White explains the deeper meaning of the cross. I did cite that more than once and I can cite it again if needed. God suffered more than enough in heaven. There was no need for him to suffer on the earth except in the event God’s chosen nation decided to reject their promised Messiah. This is what made necessary for Jesus to submit to a cruel death.

4.

Quote:

Hebrews 9: 22, 23 and 1 Peter 1: 18, 19 teach that it was necessary for the Messiah to shed his blood for the remission or forgiveness of sins.

Hebrews was written for the Jews. The writer of this epistle had to use a language the Jews could understand. They were familiar with the killing of lambs for the forgiveness of sins. Nevertheless, all this pointed to God’s suffering as Ellen White explained.

5.

Quote:

Do you believe that the death and sacrifice of Christ-- the shedding of His blood-- was unnecessary for our salvation?

The shedding of the blood of animals pointed to God’s suffering from the beginning of sin and rebellion. If the Jewish nation had accepted Jesus the way previous generations of Israelites had accepted Moses, Gideon, Samson, Samuel, and David, there would have been no need for Jesus to die.

Their rejection of their Messiah and Savior made it necessary for him to submit himself to a cruel death. Biblical predictions were two fold: a glorious future under the reign of the Messiah, or his death in the event he was rejected. This is why his death was expressed on a contingency basis by some Bible translators of Is. 53: 10.

[John317]

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: I can relate better to a God who is affected by our response to his love. A God who is immutable cannot feel rejection, pain, and suffering. Ellen White told us that God’s pain and suffering is real and intense and that it started the moment sin and rebellion appeared in his universe. This is not a picture of an unfeeling, immutable being. The Bible paints a picture of a God who “In all their afflictions was afflicted.” An immutable God is immune to human response.

That is not what the immutability of God means. Certainly God is affected by our response to his love. But it's a mistake to think that this means God "changes" or is not immutable. Jesus Himself was immutable in the sense that His divine nature and His esssential character did not change.

When God is recorded as saying "I change not," or that Jesus is the same today, yesterday, and tomorrow, it is not suggesting that God doesn't respond to us or that He doesn't love us.

In process theology, God is perceived as evolving along with His creation. That is a substanative change. The Bible presents no such view of God. Process theology also does not view God as having true foreknowledge, which is the reason it doesn't accept genuine prophecy.

[John317]

Quote:

CoAspen: ..why did she tell people to never quote her, but go to their Bible's???

Where does she say that SDAs should never quote her?

Of course we are to go to our Bibles. But it's a mistake to think she meant that we should never study her writings or quote them.

Quote:

All too often SDA's use 'authoritative' to mean equal or slightly lower than the Bible as if she is the only person spoken to by God.

I don't know of any genuine prophet of God since the 1860s, do you?

God can speak to anyone, and through His Spirit and His angels, God often does impress us with thoughts, but that is not what occurred in the case of Ellen White. She was given messages for us, directly from Christ, many times. I don't know when that has happened since Ellen White's death.

Quote:

I believe God speaks to many people and my only reference of 'correctness' is the Bible, not EGW. That belief is substantiate by the lady herself.

There's a lot of misunderstanding on this point. We are to test her by the Bible, but once we have tested her and become convinced that she is a true prophet of God, it isn't necessary to go back through all the biblical tests for a prophet before we accept what God's prophet has said. Either she's lying or else she's telling the truth.

She said that she received visions from God concerning the life and death of Christ-- concerning the beginning of sin in heaven-- and conerning the end-times. Each of us has to decide through study and prayer whether we believe her or whether we believe she's either lying or crazy. It is the same with Christ and the Bible. Nobody can do that for us, and no one should try. But once I decide Jesus is the Messiah, I don't have to keep going back to test Him. Once I decided (after years of study) that the Bible is God's word, I don't keep constantly doubting it and testing to see if it's really God's word. To do that is a waste of time besides showing a lack of trust in Him. We can't grow spiritually when we're not exercising our faith, just as we can't become strong if we're not exercising our muscles.

The question for all of us, then, is, do we "trust" God or His prophet only when we like what they say or when we agree with them? If so, is that really trust and obeying? Would children really be trusting and obeying their parent if they must have proof the parent is right before they obey? Clearly not, and it's the same with our trust and obedience in relationship to God and His prophet.

[John317]

Quote:

Woody (quoting): "God's messengers are commissioned to take up the very work that Christ did while on this earth. They are to give themselves to every line of ministry that He carried on. With earnestness and sincerity, they are to tell men of the unsearchable riches and the immortal treasure of heaven."

"The commission given to the disciples is given also to us. Today, as then, a crucified and risen Saviour is to be uplifted before those who are without God and without hope in the world. The Lord calls for pastors, teachers, and evangelists." Testimonies, vol. 9, p. 130. {ChS 23.2}

The gospel commission is given to all those who accept the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior and Master. I think you'd readily concede, though, that our being given these responsibilities doesn't mean we all must become ordained pastors and ministers of congregations. I think it's mistake to give people the idea that they have to become a pastor or minister or elder in order to do valuable work for God. Ellen White never suggested such a view, and neither does the Bible. In all the times she talked to women about working for God, she never once encouraged them to consider becoming an ordained minister of the gospel.

[Nic Samojluk]

John,

You stated:

1.

Quote:

But the question remains: what would have happened to Jesus if the Jews had accepted Him? Would He never have been killed and shed His blood?

Good question. When the Lord sent Moses or Gideon, or Samuel, or David, was there a need for anybody of those saviors sent by God to be killed? They were a type of Christ! People accepted their leadership, people repented, and God freed them from both sin and from their enemies.

If we accept how Ellen White described the cross as a window to help us realize that God was on the cross since the beginning, and if we realize that God suffered infinite pain as a result of sin and rebellion, then tell me why would Jesus need to die?

Moses was not killed after he freed the Israelites from the Egyptian bondage; neither any of the other men like Joshua, Gideon, Samuel, or David were killed after they liberated the Israelites from their enemies. The Israelites almost stoned Moses on a particular occasion, but they did not carry this out.

Their mission was similar to that of Jesus. They led people to repentance and this allowed God to free them from their enemies. If the Jews had accepted Jesus, why would the Lord require that someone kill him? God had already suffered infinite pain since the inception of sin. Why require that he be subjected to additional suffering?

Of course, when the Jews rejected Jesus, the only logical alternative for God was to allow the Devil his pound of flesh in order to reveal the contrast between God’s character and that of Jesus.

2.

Quote:

But are you sure that prediction really failed?

Of course it failed. Instead of Jesus sitting on the throne of David, he was murdered. Some people suggest that God’s plan for Jesus to be king was simply delayed. This is fine, but it does not represent God ideal plan for humanity and for his chosen nation. Let’s not confuse God’s original plan with the alternative which resulted form the rejection of the Messiah by the chosen nation.

[doug yowell]

There is no need for God to know what color of necktie I will be wearing next Sabbath to church. What he needs to know is that I am fully free to react favorably to his love.

]

Nic, Is there anything else you think God needs to know in order for Him to be God? That post is one of the saddest posts I have ever read.The Bible is full of stories where God knew,what you refer to as meaningless minutia,LONG before it happened. Don't those stories count for anything? How is it that He doesn't know what color tie you'll wear next Sabbath but yet "Your eyes saw my substance,being yet unformed.And in Your book they were all written, The days were fasioned for me, When as yet there were none of them." How is it that Jesus knew exactly the year, month, day, hour, and manner of His death years before the event? Didn't Jesus Himself tell us that only His Father knew the exact day and hour of His second coming? But not the color of your tie next Sabbath?

[Nic Samojluk]

Are you sure the promise failed??? "Now David himself said in the Book of Psalms: The Lord said to my Lord,sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool." Therefore David calls Him Lord; how is He then his Son? (Luke 22:41-44) "From this man's seed, ACCORDING TO THE PROMISE,God raised up for Israel a Savior-Jesus..." (Acts13:22,23) John 18:37 19:19 Acts 2:29-36!!!!!!

Doug,

God's original plan for Israel and the world fid fail. Jesus never occupied the throne of David. He will one day, after his second coming, but this was not God's original plan.

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

Are you sure the promise failed??? "Now David himself said in the Book of Psalms: The Lord said to my Lord,sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool." Therefore David calls Him Lord; how is He then his Son? (Luke 22:41-44) "From this man's seed, ACCORDING TO THE PROMISE,God raised up for Israel a Savior-Jesus..." (Acts13:22,23) John 18:37 19:19 Acts 2:29-36!!!!!!

Doug,

God's original plan for Israel and the world fid fail. Jesus never occupied the throne of David. He will one day, after his second coming, but this was not God's original plan.

You didn't read the the Scriptural references, did you? Peter,(not a lawyer)filled with the Holy Spirit, says:" Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David...being a prophet, and knowing the God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne,he,foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ..." Acts 2:29-36 Note here that the resurrection occured AFTER Jesus was crucified, so David obviously understood that God's promise pretained to an after death experience.

[Nic Samojluk]

John,

You said:

1.

Quote:

Excellent response, Doug. Jesus is today sitting on David's throne, and eventually this throne will be on earth for eternity.

This does not represent God’s original plan for Israel. God wanted Israel to accept their promised Messiah and for Jesus to physically occupy the throne of David. This original plan did fail.

2.

Quote:

Nic, I would like to know if Ellen White says the prediction failed. How does she say the prophecy is being, or will be, fulfilled? Can you find a quote?

I did cite Ellen White where she describes what God’s original plan was. Keep reading. You probably have not read said posting yet.

[John317]

Quote:

JOHN3:17: Could God have saved us apart from the shedding of Christ's blood?

Quote:

Nic Samojluk: The answer is “Yes” because the Lamb of God was already “slain from the foundation of the world. Do not forget how Ellen White described God’s suffering, which began, not on the cross, not when Jesus took human form, but rather when sin and rebellion broke the harmony of heaven. God’s suffering is not the result of a legalistic arbitrary demand that the penalty be paid, but rather the natural result of rejected love.

The Lamb wouldn't have been slain from the foundation of the world if the Lamb never would have come to this earth and been slain.

Ellen White never implies that Jesus was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world simply because he was sorry that sin entered the world.

He was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world because of His voluntary agreement that He would come here and die-- give up his life, shedding his blood-- in order to save all who should come to Him in humble faith.

If Jesus hadn't shed his blood, how would He have been resurrected for us?

How, then, too, would He have ratified the New Covenant?

How, also, would He have bruised the head of the serpent?

And finally, if Christ hadn't died, with what blood would Christ have cleansed us and cleansed the heavenly sanctuary?