Leaderboard

" though growing out of the results of sin" That is the point. Do we like the results of sin? Do we want to persist in that result? Or do we look for restoration? Many on both sides of the ordination issue have greatly abused the meaning of ordination, giving it unwarranted importance. Ordination adds no new grace or virtue or qualifications. Ordination is simply the recognition of an appointment to a given office. Even the way ordination is often done is not biblical.

Green said, below: I can understand why Green not only prefers the KJV (NKJV ?) and rejects the NIV. While I do not agree with him, I do not have a problem with him arguing in CA his position on this subject. But, his statement below comes across to me as a "cute" statement (Calling the NIV the Not Inspired Version) that is designed to get a laugh from people reading it. I take great offense at anyone who attempts to get people to laugh at what many believe to be the inspired Word of God. Personally, I think that Green is doing the work of Satan in such statements. I compare what Green has posted here with what another person has posted in CA in saying that Paul is a liar and the Bible is not inspired other than the words of Christ, which are inspired. I have blocked people from reading such statements by that other person. Perhaps in fairness, I should also block people from reading Green's statement. I have considered doing so. But, in fairness to Green, I do not consider his statement to quite reach the level of this other person. So, I have not blocked Green's statement. But, I will say to Green: The work of God is not advanced by one's skill in scoring cute debating points that bring a laugh and present one as cute and/or smart. While I assume you believe that your comment reflects the mind of Christ, I believe that it reflects the mind of Satan.

I'm no NT expert but I read the texts as Tom explained above. I also see 1 Corinthians 10:23 as relevant. "I have the right to do anything," you say--but not everything is beneficial. "I have the right to do anything"--but not everything is constructive. (NIV). For me, eating pork is not beneficial, so I refrain from eating it.

Rossw, your post is NOT out of line. It is well within what is permissible. Green, the issue with me in not what you believe about the NIV. I do not have any desire to change your mind. I have no intention of debating with you the appropriate translation of any verse. If anyone want to do that, it would be quite appropriate to do so in another thread. In my personal opinion, when someone comes here and refers to a Bible translation as the "Not Inspired Version (NIV)" that person is presenting themself to me as mocking what many consider to be a Bible. While I often disagree with Green, I also am known to agree with him. In spite of my disagreement with him at times, I have respected him in the past and I have respected his sojourn her in CA many times. But, I am deeply offended by his use of those term in relation to the NIV and to be blunt, in this regard, I think that he is doing the work of Satan. As I said, his offense does not rise to the level of the other person, whom I blocked (hid). So, I have not hidden Greens post. It is open. Others may read it and form their own opinion.

How did you know??? Answer: "Georgia on My Mind" is a song by Hoagy Carmichael and Stuart Gorrell, now often associated with the version by Ray Charles, a native of Georgia, who recorded it for his 1960 album The Genius Hits the Road. On March 7, 1979, "Georgia On My Mind" became Georgia's official state song. To celebrate the moment, Charles was invited to perform it for state legislators at the state capital building in Atlanta. The title of the song was used as the state of Georgia's license plate slogan exclusively from January 1997 through November 2003. In 2003, Rolling Stone magazine named Ray Charles' "Georgia on My Mind" the 44th greatest song of all time.

It makes sense to have a head of household to make ultimate decisions in a life that is sinful and full of discord. Had we not had headship the home would be full of chaos and anarchy.

God's Instruction to Eve.--Eve was told of the sorrow and pain that must henceforth be her portion. And the Lord said, "Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." In the creation, God had made her the equal of Adam. Had they remained obedient to God--in harmony with His great law of love--they would ever have been in harmony with each other; but sin had brought discord, and now their union could be maintained and harmony preserved only by submission on the part of the one or the other. Eve had been the first in transgression; and she had fallen into temptation by separating from her companion, contrary to the divine direction. It was by her solicitation that Adam sinned, and she was now placed in subjection to her husband. Had the principles enjoined in the law of God been cherished by the fallen race, this sentence, though growing out of the results of sin, would have proved a blessing to them; but man's abuse of the supremacy thus given him has too often rendered the lot of woman very bitter, and made her life a burden. {AH 115.1} Notice that Ellen White, a woman, speaks the truth freely here in saying that "Eve . . . was now placed in subjection to her husband." Those are not the words of merely a foretelling of what would happen. Those are words indicative of a command. That it was a command is further emphasized in the very next words: "Had the principles enjoined in the law of God been cherished by the fallen race, this sentence, though growing out of the results of sin, would have proved a blessing to them . . . ." Ellen White makes clear that the submission of woman to man is not a sin, but a law of God. Which of us has authority to change God's law, man or woman?

My point is that Genesis 3 is talking about the consequences of sin, and not that God wanted the results, including the relationship between men and women, for some take this to believe that this is what God wanted, to have women ruled over by the husband instead of the consequences of sin; a form of calling evil good.

The angel's message is: "Fear GOD and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgment is come." So we are trying to define "God". Who is God? Is "God" one or two or three divine beings? The Greek word translated as "god" simply means "divine being". There is no command to worship the "spirit". So if "God" is the always existent, all knowing, all powerful, everywhere present "spirit" that Martn believes in, the lack of any command to specifically worship, or glorify, or serve, or pray to this "spirit", seems strange. Jesus words to the woman at the well come to mind. NRS John 4:23-24 "But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such as these to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." It looks to me, like the supreme "God" IS "the Father". The Father then gives of His spirit. Luke 11:13 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!" (NRS) This agrees with Paul. 1 Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (NRS) God the Father has only one "begotten" Son - "brought forth" from Himself. He has many created (and sub-sequentially indwelt) "sons". Proverbs 8:24-30 "When there were no depths I was brought forth, when there were no springs abounding with water. 25 Before the mountains had been shaped, before the hills, I was brought forth -- 26 when he had not yet made earth and fields, or the world's first bits of soil. 27 When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep, 28 when he made firm the skies above, when he established the fountains of the deep, 29 when he assigned to the sea its limit, so that the waters might not transgress his command, when he marked out the foundations of the earth, 30 then I was beside him, like a master worker; and I was daily his delight, rejoicing before him always, (NRS) I believe that God the Father BEGET a Son in His exact "image" before He created anything. That begotten "son" then became the agent of His Father in creation, mediation, and redemption. Proverbs 30:4 "Who has ascended into heaven and descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has wrapped the waters in His garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name or His son's name? Surely you know!" (NAU) The "hour of His judgment" is the hour of HIS judgment - the judgment is handed down by the Ancient of Days. The "Ancient of Days" presides as judge, at the judgment of Daniel 7:9-10. The "son of man" is brought before HIM. That makes "the son of man" the defendant. He is the one being judged. The outcome of this judgment? Dominion of this earth is given to "the Son of man". He then will execute judgment upon those who have opposed him - namely Satan and all his servants. "The hour of His judgment" is that day when the Son of Man is brought before the Ancient of days. On earth - the Little Horn will be making war with those who "keep the commandments of God, and have the faith of Jesus". The Little Horn may actually be standing "in the holy place", demanding worship. That "hour" has NOT YET ARRIVED.

Tom, who is it that bruises the serpent's head? Who actually has their head bruised? Many Christians, myself included, think this is the first blessed promise of a Saviour. Do you agree? So, is God directly giving a promise, a curse, or the fact of the matter when he tells Eve... "And he shall rule over you.”

Ezekiel 44:9 “Thus says the Lord GOD: ‘No foreigner, uncircumcised in heart or uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter My sanctuary, including any foreigner who is among the children of Israel.’” Only those who are circumcised in HEART and in FLESH will be allowed to enter this future Temple. Those who died believing in Jesus Christ, while uncircumcised in flesh, WILL be circumcised when they are "changed in a moment". The old FLESH will be gone. They will then live again in spiritual bodies. This change - from flesh body to immortal spiritual body - will be the fulfillment of the circumcision symbolism.

My little grandson just finished his week. He was a pig in a skit about Mary and Joseph and baby Jesus.

ESV | ‎Mt 19:17 And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good.

@Charity the point of the direction Denmark is taking is that all of their pastors, male and female be treated the same. Since it seems that the word "ordination" is the singular sticking point, then just stop using that designation altogether. On one level you are correct about question why all the fuss. Why indeed! If it doesn't really matter all that much, why on the other hand do those opposed feel so strongly? It is about recognition and respect. And it is not about the women that are pastors striving for it and needing a title or status. It is about those opposed who refuse to see and recognize that women indeed are capable and qualified and do in fact satisfy all the criteria the church has set down in its policies and practices for pastors from the very beginning of the Church just the same as their male counterparts. Even though this is not about pay, it is the same sort of sense of fairness. If a man and a woman equally qualified and experienced doing the very same things, hold the very same position, why treat them differently? The Danish solution simply says, let's remove the the inflammatory word form our vocabulary and change the terminology to reflect the reality.