Leaderboard

Sin has a wage that is outside of God's doings. When we live in sin, sin itself will destroy us, God needs to do nothing. The fact that God gave the Ten Commandments is not what made sin deadly, sin is deadly so God points out what sin is to protect us. In today's world, especially the United States, sin is protected. It's protected by enacting laws that protect sin and penalties for those who speak against sin. Children are brought up in such away as to remove the guilt and shame that is built into sin. No matter how many laws are passed to protect sin. No matter how many classes are taught to remove the guilt and shame of sin, which are built in warnings signs of danger lurking. No matter how strong or rich a country is, sin will still destroy life. This country, like many others in times past, will come to a bitter end, from the inside out, as long as sin is being protected and the warning signs are being quieted. You can turn the radio louder in your car to block out the knock in the engine and all you'll get is a headache and a blown engine. :bargu:

Aigner raises a very important issue, even though, as I understand him, he does not realize that he is doing so! His article if focused on what he sees as being proper for a group of people meeting together to worship God. That is how I understand him. For now, I will not either argue of debate his position as I believe that there is another issue just under the surface. So, let me put into focus in the SDA Experience. When we meet together on Saturday morning, is it our intent to worship God? Is it, perhaps to be educated and/or supported in our spiritual journey? Is it to evangelize and bring people outside of Christ into a closer relationship with Christ? Or, perhaps is it all of these? This question is important due to the fact that our focus, will play a part in determining the manner in which we conduct our business. IOW, a service designed for the worship of already committed Christians will probably be designed differently from a service that is focused on evangelizing people who are not committed to Christ. A properly conducted Sabbath School can clearly be a service that educates and supports people in their Christian journey. However, that may be a Sabbath School that has classes that are not using the Quarterly. For many years our SDA Congregations have focused on a worship service that is centered people who are members, often of long standing. AS a result, these congregations, in North America are in membership decline and all to many of them are dying. As a result, some congregations are changing the Sabbath focus to that od evangelizing people who are not in a relationship with a congregation and/or with Christ. I will suggest that such a focus should have a different emphasis and style than that of a congregation focused on worship. If Aigner is correct as to his application to worship, it does not necessarily follow that he is correct if he were to apply his thinking to an evangelistic service.

In post # !5, CFK1 aid: Fine. Let us not assume, without actual knowledge, that anyone is going to present error.

CFK1, in post # 3 said: It is true that: 1) The Word of God is the final authority. 2) That which is not in accord with the Word of God contains no light. However, in this life that we live, no human and no organization that has anything to do with humans, has some aspects in which they do not speak 100% in accord with the Word of God. That is part of the reason that salvation is required. CFK1, I can only assume that you do not actually believe, or would you practice, what you seem to have proposed: 1) Let me assume that you do not believe in abortion. Would you tell us that a Roman Catholic Bishop had no light in him when he advocated against abortion? Would you tell us that if such a Bishop spoke on abortion and the Christian had no light in him if he were speaking at a SDA organization? Would you tell us that we should not cooperate in any way with that Bishop in his stand against abortion? 2) The history of our "Temperance movement" shows the SDA Church and EGW working side by side with Sunday keepers. EGW spoke at their meetings and she advocated working with them. Surely you know our denominational history well enough that you will not ask that I supply you with such citations? 3) Throughout our history, to include my lifetime, many of our SDA members had thought very highly of Uriah Smith and what he wore on the books of Daniel and Revelation. Are you aware that much of what he wrote cam from Sunday keeping writers of his day? Would you tell us that Smith had no light in him? I think not. 4) Surely, if you know our history, during her lifetime, EGW had a library of books and other writings. Many of those materials were written by Sunday keeping people. If she would support what you would seem to say, why did she maintain those writings. As you may know, EGW edited a book of stories that were designed to be read to children. At one time it was titled "Sabbath Readings for the Home Circle." This book contained stories that EGW found on published materials from other authors. Those authors were mostly not SDAs. Some were well known writers and some were well known novelists who wrote works of fiction. EGW never claimed inspiration for them. Yet, she was responsible for their publication and circulation in SDA circles. It is clear that EGW did not take the position that you seem to take. 5) I will suggest that the weight of evidence demonstrates that the position that you seem to take is in error. So, by your own words, shall we say that there is no light in anything that you might tell us? That seems to be your position. If we ever show that you are in error on any spiritual point, should we say that there is not light in you? Are you telling us that you are 100% correct in everything that you might say?

Thank you Scuba. I appreciate the thoughts you've shared here! It reminds me of a thought in Ecclesiastes. "Folly is set in great dignity, and the rich sit in low place. I have seen servants upon horses, and princes walking as servants upon the earth." (Ecc 10:6-7) "Folly is set in great dignity". Yes indeed, sin is still protected and is often set in a place of honor. I have seen servants [of sin] upon horses, while princes [of God are] walking as servants upon the earth. ____________________ Also, I very much agree that God is not the One that pays the "wages" of sin. "God does not stand toward the sinner as an executioner of the sentence against transgression [i.e. the wages of sin]; but He leaves the rejectors of His mercy to themselves, to reap that which they have sown." GC p.36

Could the same be said of Ellen White, or any of the believers? The issue with Ryan Bell is that he really brought out what many people have already questioned about the belief in the open. In church these issues are taboos which are seldom discussed. When you ask these questions, people feel stumped, shocked and angered. Eventually their inability to find answer either resolves by digging their head in the sand even deeper in their inability to confront these issues, or starting on the path that eventually rejects the faith... because the orthodoxy is structured in "my way or the highway" type of approach. In case of Ryan Bell... he was trained as a pastor, so he had no other outlets other than find new ways to apply his previous experience as occupation. Would church continue support him if he openly disagreed or lacked belief? Would they find a way to soften his transition to other occupation? Nop. They simply cut him off, and set him loose with "we'll pray for you". I think it would be much more telling if he received adequate support and room to explore these issues under the church umbrella. The outcome would be perceived differently.

I believe there are no vowels in the Hebrew alphabet or Bible so in the original there were no vowels to leave out. Agree using vowels does not offend God in any way. I know that many Jews do not say the name of God and do use G-d and can see where you would say leaving it out is not appropriate, but just wanted you to know there actually were no vowels, so it might be considered to be similar to the original by some.