What Women Can Do in the Church

billdljr · 09-05-09 8:19 pm

Bob, You must get a lot of exercise from jumping to false conclusions. Justification by faith is not an excuse for not persevering in sanctification. Justification is the only true motive for true sanctification. If you would carefully read what I said you will see that. None of the Reformers denied the fruit of justification was loving obedience to the Law of God but they denied that sanctification was ever good enough to give ones conscience rest and peace before God because our sanctification always falls short. Your spirit and accusations in your post reveal an evil heart of unbelief akin to that of the Council of Trent.

don · 09-05-09 9:46 pm

Your spirit and accusations in your post reveal an evil heart of unbelief akin to that of the Council of Trent. Bill, this is quite a judgmental leap. You may think you know what Bob's questioning style reveals. But, none of us have the inside track as to what is going on in another person's heart. Sometimes we have to look further to see faith shrouded in questions. The issue addressed is overcoming, literal conquering of sin; moral victory. The Great Controversy theme is that we all work out a life role akin to Job. Jesus did it by depending on His Father. We do, in our practical sphere, by depending on Jesus. The accomplishments of Jesus save us. Our moral accomplishments demonstrate the power of Jesus to save. We do not come to eternity depending on our moral deeds for our salvation. Our good deeds are merely doing what God has asked us to do. We know all too well that our deeds are woefully inadequate compared to the righteousness of Christ. On a practical level, those depending on Justification in Christ, become living testimonies to the power of Christ in their daily lives; in their sanctification. The "last generation", if they attain a freedom from sin is a practical freedom not an absolute freedom. Only Christ was without sin. The "last generation" do not become duplicates of Christ. Rather, they are mere followers who have overcome in His power. (Message edited by Don on September 05, 2009)

john8verse32 · 09-05-09 10:21 pm

Brinsmead always seemed a decade or so in front of the church's evolution. so what does it suggest now that he no longer believes most anything?

don · 09-05-09 11:54 pm

so what does it suggest now that he no longer believes most anything? I wonder what stages of thought he went through to get to his present outlook. From Adventist, strongly Ellen White based. (1960's) To Reformation, strongly Bible based. (1970's) To "Liberal Christianity", critically based. (1980's) To "Christian Atheism", To practical humanism with a theistic component. (present?) .

bob_2 · 09-06-09 11:33 am

Bill Diehl, all you have to do in subsequent posts if you don't like someone's comment is answer the allegation. You choose to accost the poster. Very unbecoming one assured of salvation.

elaine · 09-06-09 11:57 am

One can claim to be a Christian without much thought. One doesn't usually become a secular humanist without considerable reading and deep thinking before arriving at that point. One may question the logic, but no one is born an atheist or simply adopts it as readily as Christianity or other religious beliefs.

john8verse32 · 09-06-09 1:53 pm

Brinsmead always seemed a decade or so in front of the church's evolution. and he has been called the greatest SDA theologian... so so what does it suggest now that he no longer believes most anything? he goes From Adventist, strongly Ellen White based. (1960's) maybe he abandonned the White Way because he finally understood the "sources" of some of the false details...(she made most of it up!! or just copied and exaggerated what people believed in her day) ...like coal fired volcanoes and earthquakes,and ...like certain races came from amalgamation ...like the non existant tall, majestic people presumably inhabiting Jupiter To Reformation, strongly Bible based. (1970's) ...and then by wide reading maybe he found that there are many, many versions of "truth", all "bible Based"... because the Bible itself is so often inconsistant, if not often contradicting itself. To "Liberal Christianity", critically based. (1980's) ...when he found that Christs improved interpretation of Buddah's golden rule is a vast improvement over Mosesianity's God inspired rule of invading your neighbors, killing any women who have had sex, and saving the virgins, and Christs way just may be the best way to run society......if one could get everybody to agree in common... (just not communism) he went beyond Moses rule: "do to to others before they do to you....and if you're too late, do it to them 10 times over". he graduated thru the old gold rule, Buddah's way: ..."do not do to others what you don't want them to do to you". all the way To "Christian Atheism", "do for others ...even if they won't "do" for you... and even if there's no guaranteed reward in heaven." and ended up at practical humanism with a theistic component. "do for others, because maybe that will make a better world....which would be a nice place to spend some time while we're here hoping to find out what its all about" now all we have to do is follow him, since we've almost reached the top. <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/messages/6/1810.gif" alt="">

don · 09-06-09 3:38 pm

One may question the logic, but no one is born an atheist or simply adopts it as readily as Christianity or other religious beliefs. I had a Grade 10 student who proclaimed himself to be an atheist. After some discussion, he mentioned that his parents were atheists as well; Adventist background. I believe that atheism can be a response to learned dialogue, but it can also be another way of fitting in to one's personal world. I think this explains why the scientific community often seems unforgiving toward one who opposes the evolutionary model. Dissent is difficult to manage. Brinsmead referred to this as "The Battle for the Mind". One doesn't usually become a secular humanist without considerable reading and deep thinking before arriving at that point. Perhaps. However, there are many people who live the lives of secular humanists. They may not have the literary backing; just as some Christians cannot quote Augustine. But, humanism has a natural base. We are all humans; we all understand the experience. Re: Brinsmeads personal path I believe we see in his life's path the result of insisting on a doubt-free way of life. He seems to have reduced his assertions to those for which there need be no personal doubt. An alternative would be to mold one's view of God based on basic premises, such as "God is Love"; there is a God and He has revealed Himself; however inadequate that revelation may seem. (Message edited by Don on September 06, 2009)

elaine · 09-06-09 6:25 pm

Childern are great imitators and pick up the beliefs of their parents. Note the signs carried by small children at rallies--with no sense of its meaning--but merely props of their parents. If a child is habituated to attending a church, any church, it is more likely that they will continue until they are an adult and must make choices of their own. Secuar humanism has been excoriated, when it reality, it is a view that all humans are valuable and worthy, regardless of their race, religion or other factors. This SHOULD be the view of all religions, but in reality, religions have been decisive since their origin: separating peoples, and forming barriers. Perhaps it is inevitable that people have, and will always choose to erect barriers of race, ethnicity, religion, etc., but "it should not be so among us" as Christians. Would that it were true.

don · 09-06-09 6:36 pm

A School Official's View of Humanism While teaching in a one-room school in Nova Scotia, the inspector of schools came for a visit. One of his tasks was to visit all the private schools in the district. He mentioned how the public system has been criticized for being "too humanistic". "I thought that was a good thing," he said. .

bob_2 · 09-06-09 6:41 pm

Elaine, I can never figure if you are trying to build a better society or seeking how one is saved. Both objectives aren't necessarily bad, but usually are mutually exclusive, since secular humanism won't cross the finish line regarding salvation. You may get along with more posters, but might not reveal how they will live for eternity. <img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/uhoh.gif" border=0>

john8verse32 · 09-06-09 8:11 pm

Re: Brinsmeads personal path .... He seems to have reduced his assertions to those for which there need be no personal doubt. and why should there be any doubt? if... ...1) God exists like His word says, and ...2) He is love (unlike what the Old Test seems to suggest), and if ...3) He wants us all to be saved from death at His hands, for breaking His rules, and if ...4) He gave us His innerrant word in a format easy to understand and accept ... ...5) and this Word asures us that if we follow its rules, then the God who wrote and controls the rules will hopefully not kill us...but only if ...6) we believe, have faith, and don't break any of the rules, even once, for which we haven't been forgiven, on time, and sincerely apologized, etc.... then... ...7) there should be no doubt that all the above will work out for the best... unless you ask the relatives of the victims of Hitlers final solution who thought their God shudda saved them. is that one of the reasons there are doublts? because the promises in the past didn't always get kept on God's side? because some people's makeup (usually inherited, and not their fault) require more consistant, convincing evidence than seems to them to have been provided.... is a failing grade the fault of the students? or the teacher if lessons are inadaquately prepared and presented and the kids can't understand, learn or fully appreciate what they are supposed to learn and do? if the teacher teches one thing, and then tests on another, is it any wonder that some will not pass? is it the piano players mistake if the music given him is incompletely prepared and the concerto is ruined? and is it just and fair that God will murder folks, possibly millions of people in the end, for not understanding the evidence which it is claimed that He has presented? but which seemed unconvincing to some? why did God leave so much room for doubt? is it a way of keeping the size and population of heaven down to manageable numbers? possibly because the amount of food, water, and especially air cold be limited up there? or down there, whichever way it is... and the sewer plant might become overloaded if everybody got in? just wondering....as usual, frustrated with so much personal doubt....

elaine · 09-06-09 8:11 pm

Bob, worrying about eternal life is not consuming any of my time. It is all in God's hands and I confidently leave it there. What can you do about your eternal life--is it something you must do, or, are you not assured.

don · 09-06-09 9:38 pm

John, it would be interesting to hear you and Brinsmead share notes.

bob_2 · 09-07-09 1:36 am

Elaine, yes there is a formula for eternal life, that is part human part God. One can say it is forensic, but if their are no fruits (effort or production like a fertilizer or empowerment) then salvation is not won. Your passive approach you suggest, not worrying, but no effort on man's part that produces fruit cooperatively with God, running the race, fighting the fight, might just not produce the desired effect, eternal life. So, yes, it is worth study, and not passive ignorance.

renie · 09-07-09 6:26 pm

Thanks Elaine. I'm not going to worry about eternal life either. I'm TIRED of worrying. Nothing is ever enough. There's aways another sin to worry about, another selfish act. We're told not to focus on our performance, then in the same sentence, we're told we must focus on ourselves and our spiritual condition. Max Ludado's little book 'It's Not About Me' has helped me a lot. He says it's not about us at all. It's about God and His glory and forgiveness. We are to focus on what He has done through Christ for all humanity.

elaine · 09-07-09 7:31 pm

Renie, we need to constantly remind ourselves of this most reassuring statement by Paul: "For I am certain of this: neither death, nor life, no angel, no prince, nothing that exists nothing still to come, not any power, or height or depth, nor any created thing, can ever come between us and the love of God made visible in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom. 8:38).

john8verse32 · 09-07-09 10:26 pm

There's aways another sin to worry about how bout this one: did you know that it is immodest for a woman to show her face and head ? and that like the Muslims you should wear your burkas, or at least a veil.... <a href="http://www.truthorfables.com/EGW_Crazy_Quotes.htm" target=_top>http://www.truthorfables.com/EGW_Crazy_Quotes.htm</a> so many sins....so little time....

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#26 09-05-09 8:19 pm

Re: What Women Can Do in the Church

#27 09-05-09 9:46 pm

Re: What Women Can Do in the Church

#28 09-05-09 10:21 pm

Re: What Women Can Do in the Church

#29 09-05-09 11:54 pm

Re: What Women Can Do in the Church

#30 09-06-09 11:33 am

Re: What Women Can Do in the Church

#31 09-06-09 11:57 am

Re: What Women Can Do in the Church

#32 09-06-09 1:53 pm

Re: What Women Can Do in the Church

#33 09-06-09 3:38 pm

Re: What Women Can Do in the Church

#34 09-06-09 6:25 pm

Re: What Women Can Do in the Church

#35 09-06-09 6:36 pm

Re: What Women Can Do in the Church

#36 09-06-09 6:41 pm

Re: What Women Can Do in the Church

#37 09-06-09 8:11 pm

Re: What Women Can Do in the Church

#38 09-06-09 8:11 pm

Re: What Women Can Do in the Church

#39 09-06-09 9:38 pm

Re: What Women Can Do in the Church

#40 09-07-09 1:36 am

Re: What Women Can Do in the Church

#41 09-07-09 6:26 pm

Re: What Women Can Do in the Church

#42 09-07-09 7:31 pm

Re: What Women Can Do in the Church

#43 09-07-09 10:26 pm

Re: What Women Can Do in the Church

Board footer