Should I be surprised to see this coming from a Presbyterian pastor?

[BryanW92]

I have no interest in discussing non-Trinitarian beliefs, I'm afraid.

I can't find a post in this thread where anyone defends Sandlin's position.

 

[hedrick]

Part of the background behind Sandlin's statement, and the many other similar statements is an ambiguity about what it means to call Jesus God. In the NT, there's a certain flexibility in language, reflecting a similar flexibility in 1st Cent Judaism. John says that the Logos is with God and is God (or is divine — I’m sure you know the debate). This indicates a combination of distinction (with God) and identification (is God). However modern Christian thought has a tendency to turn poetry into prose, turning a statement of identification into a statement that they are the exactly the same thing. I think saying "Jesus isn't God" is really a protest against this, not a denial of John’s Christology. At least for many people. I don't know about Sandlin. As I've noted, I'm not very impressed with him, though he hasn't said quite enough yet to hang him as a heretic.

In case you think it's "liberal" to waffle about what it means to speak of Jesus as God, please consider how Jesus himself responded to people who accused him of making himself God.

“It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you, but for blasphemy, because you, though only a human being, are making yourself God.” Jesus answered, “Is it not written in your law ‘I said, you are gods’? If those to whom the word of God came were called ‘gods’—and the scripture cannot be annulled— can you say that the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world is blaspheming because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?” (John 10:33-36)

Jesus is making the point that the Bible is willing to speak of someone as god who is even less close to being identified with God than he is. This defense is interesting. Many Christians would have preferred him to say "but I *am* God." But he doesn't. Instead he points to flexibility in what it means to be identified with God.

Feel free to debate with him.

Just to be clear: I am not accusing the Nicene Creed of making this mistake. As far as I can tell it is intended to be a restatement of John's Christology, and as such as just fine. Use of a wider range of NT descriptions would have been welcome, but I believe they used the specific things that they needed to defend against Arius. After all, Nicea didn't really represent a final doctrine of the Trinity. That discussion continued for a couple of centuries, as I'm sure you know.

 

[tulipbee]

Coming from a UMC background, I was initially uncomfortable with the idea that women can't be teaching elders or ruling elders. But, that is how they do things. If it was a problem for me (or my wife), we'd still be UM.

However, my wife who is a trained Stephen Minister will be commissioned in our PCA church so they don't keep the women in the kitchen all the time.

The good thing about the PCA not allowing women pastors is that liberals can be sad about that, instead of being sad because they don't allow gay pastors--as the liberals in the UMC and PCUSA are doing right now.

I love the way Presbyterians apply the Bible to today's culture. Women can now wear pants and not require to wear head coverings. We don't have to worship on Saturdays. etc

If one is not sure, don't make rules and doctrine based on coin flips

 

[BryanW92]

I love the way Presbyterians apply the Bible to today's culture. Women can now wear pants and not require to wear head coverings. We don't have to worship on Saturdays. etc

If one is not sure, don't make rules and doctrine based on coin flips

They aren't alone in doing this. Every denomination applies the bible to culture. Most rules and doctrines are based on interpretations of scripture, which you call a coin flip. I think that a lot more thought goes into the decision than that. But, in the case of women pastors, the choice to have them is more of a contemporary cultural coin flip than the decision to not have them.

 

[tulipbee]

They aren't alone in doing this. Every denomination applies the bible to culture. Most rules and doctrines are based on interpretations of scripture, which you call a coin flip. I think that a lot more thought goes into the decision than that. But, in the case of women pastors, the choice to have them is more of a contemporary cultural coin flip than the decision to not have them.

Why base doctrine on one side of the coin when the third side don't exist? If a denomination votes on the winning side of the coin, why does the house divide? It seems political. If the Republicans don't like the winning democrats, they create division and trouble. Most trouble comes from the non existing third side of the coin. Men make up rules for others to follow and the followers become suckers

 

[BryanW92]

Why base doctrine on one side of the coin when the third side don't exist?

What does that even mean? You and I are talking about women pastors. This is a binary decision: you have them or you don't. The PCA does not make decisions for the PCUSA (or the UMC or ELCA or any other denomination).

If a denomination votes on the winning side of the coin, why does the house divide? It seems political. If the Republicans don't like the winning democrats, they create division and trouble. Most trouble comes from the non existing third side of the coin. Men make up rules for others to follow and the followers become suckers

Your mixed metaphor here is confusing. A coin flip, which you brought into this conversation, is an expression of randomness. Voting is an expression of intent. We can vote on a coin flip, but the outcome of the vote cannot influence the result of the coin flip. That is basic probability. You seem to think that the PCA chose to not ordain women based on nothing but a random coin flip or a vote of the untrained masses. It has a certain theology and doctrine, just as every other denomination has a certain theology and doctrine.

The gender diversity of all the pastors that you've ever listened to has no effect on your salvation. But, if it does, I had a female pastor in the UMC for two years so I'm covered.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Thanks for your response. You seem to have a well-developed understanding of this story.

Thank you. I have had a while to mull it over, especially during a great personal trial of my own.

 

[tulipbee]

What does that even mean? You and I are talking about women pastors. This is a binary decision: you have them or you don't. The PCA does not make decisions for the PCUSA (or the UMC or ELCA or any other denomination).



Your mixed metaphor here is confusing. A coin flip, which you brought into this conversation, is an expression of randomness. Voting is an expression of intent. We can vote on a coin flip, but the outcome of the vote cannot influence the result of the coin flip. That is basic probability. You seem to think that the PCA chose to not ordain women based on nothing but a random coin flip or a vote of the untrained masses. It has a certain theology and doctrine, just as every other denomination has a certain theology and doctrine.

The gender diversity of all the pastors that you've ever listened to has no effect on your salvation. But, if it does, I had a female pastor in the UMC for two years so I'm covered.

It was abstract. I was hoping to simplify a difficult conversation but you did good in listening. You're about the only one that listens to my riddles and koans. Sometimes we talk in riddles due to rules on this forum but I may be breaking them in this conversation. You're a flexible person. After reading your reply, We both must understand that to ordain women or not is 50/50. One side of the coin proves with Bible quotes that women can be ordained. The other side of the coin proves with Bible quotes that women can't be ordained. I believe with this 50/50 gamble, the PCA would rather stick to the old saying or old fashion way since they can't relate the Bible to today's culture. The PCUSA knows 2000 years ago the culture was different and the writers were writing to apply to that time in culture. If a denomination isn't sure, they stick to the old saying meaning no equality of women and men. If PCUSA isn't sure, they don't make rules not to ordain women. Witch denomination is playing sure. Are the conservatives behaving like the middle East?

 

[hedrick]

One side of the coin proves with Bible quotes that women can be ordained. The other side of the coin proves with Bible quotes that women can't be ordained.

Or you carefully balance the coin on its edge, as in one of the conservative Presbyterian denominations. To my knowledge, while there are signs of women holding positions similar to elder in the NT, the only explicit statement involves deacons. So this group (I forget which) allows women to be deacons but not elders.

 

[BryanW92]

Are the conservatives behaving like the middle East?

How many women has the PCA stoned to death?

My wife went to her first Stephen Ministry meeting at our new church last night. The pastor welcomed her with open arms (literally) and said that he was so glad to have her there as a new Stephen Minister. He also mentioned to her that she needs to talk to the person in charge of the Deacons about becoming a Deacon Assistant (which is what they are calling the new female Deacons). No one has talked to me about becoming a Deacon (and I intend to keep it that way).

So, our medieval church is Progressing towards your image of what the culturally-compliant church should be.

 

[Petruchio]

You really think God would make a bet with Satan over Job's reaction to losing it all?

It seems pretty obvious that someone used a folk tale as a setting for a reflection on theodicy. The real content is that reflection, not the story in the prolog.

Ugh, and this combined with your tolerance of anti-Christian doctrines such as Arianism, and your apparent denial of the Trinity (your equivocation aside) you give us all a bad name. The PCUSA should disintegrate already or at least merge with some denomination that's closer to these ugly views.

 

[Petruchio]

So, our medieval church is Progressing towards your image of what the culturally-compliant church should be.

Luk_6:26 Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.

 

[Petruchio]

However modern Christian thought has a tendency to turn poetry into prose, turning a statement of identification into a statement that they are the exactly the same thing. I think saying "Jesus isn't God" is really a protest against this, not a denial of John’s Christology.

First, the argument is absurd. How is Christ being described as the "Word", existing from "the beginning" with God and being God, being incarnated into flesh, having life in Himself, creating the world, etc etc, really just a statement of "identification" with God and not really being God, as the words plainly say? Not even the heretics can stand up well to the whole sentence, hence the Jehovah's Witnesses just retranslate it entirely. It is basically like saying "I am a God like being and the creator of the world... who only identifies with God, never mind how the verb 'is' works."

This is not a matter of "modern" Christians somehow misunderstanding the verb "is" in the scripture and somehow missing that Christ only meant that He was a man with some sort of ambiguous divine nature. It is a matter of the clear teachings of scripture and about 2,000 years of Christianity.

Ignatius

"For our God Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost."( Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians 4:9)

Justin Martyr

"For Christ is King, and Priest, and God and Lord..."(Dialogue With Trypho, 34)

Iranaeus

"In order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King..."(Irenaeus Against Heresies, 1.10.1)

Theophilus


"For the divine writing itself teaches us that Adam said that he had heard the voice but what else is this voice but the word of God, who is also his Son." (To Autolycus 2:22 ,160 A.D.)

Clement of Alexandria

"The Word, then, the Christ, is the cause both of our ancient beginning, for he was in God, and of our well-being. And now this same Word has appeared as man. He alone. is both God and man, and the source of all our good things" (Exhortation to the Greeks 1:7:1).

Tertullian

"The origins of both his substances display him as man and as God: from the one, born, and from the other, not born" (The Flesh of Christ 5:6-7).

Athanasius

"[The Trinity] is a Trinity not merely in name or in a figurative manner of speaking; rather, it is a Trinity in truth and in actual existence. Just as the Father is he that is, so also his Word is one that is and is God over all. And neither is the Holy Spirit nonexistent but actually exists and has true being." (Letters to Serapion 1:28).

The Athanasian Creed

"Whoever desires to be saved should above all hold to the catholic faith.

Anyone who does not keep it whole and unbroken will doubtless perish eternally. Now this is the catholic faith:

That we worship one God in trinity and the trinity in unity,
neither blending their persons
nor dividing their essence.
For the person of the Father is a distinct person,
the person of the Son is another,
and that of the Holy Spirit still another.
But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one,
their glory equal, their majesty coeternal.

What quality the Father has, the Son has, and the Holy Spirit has.
The Father is uncreated,
the Son is uncreated,
the Holy Spirit is uncreated.

The Father is immeasurable,
the Son is immeasurable,
the Holy Spirit is immeasurable.

The Father is eternal,
the Son is eternal,
the Holy Spirit is eternal.

And yet there are not three eternal beings;
there is but one eternal being.
So too there are not three uncreated or immeasurable beings;
there is but one uncreated and immeasurable being.

Similarly, the Father is almighty,
the Son is almighty,
the Holy Spirit is almighty.
Yet there are not three almighty beings;
there is but one almighty being."

When you "waffle" as you confess, you do not stand against modern day stupid Christians, but against the entire Church for 2,000 years. Sit with the anti-Christian PCUSA sophists who are the real modern day aberrations. A Christian will sit with the Bible and with the church of God.

Jesus is making the point that the Bible is willing to speak of someone as god who is even less close to being identified with God than he is. This defense is interesting. Many Christians would have preferred him to say "but I *am* God." But he doesn't. Instead he points to flexibility in what it means to be identified with God. Feel free to debate with him.

Jesus makes no such point, since such a point would mean that the Word, who existed with the Father from the beginning, who identifies as the "I am," and of being present even with Abraham, of creating the world, isn't really God, though, obviously, He must be. Christ's argument is not one of "you can identify as God too," but a "how much more than" does the Messiah deserve the right to call Himself God. All magistrates are called "gods," because they sit in God's seat as His representatives and receive His word, though the scripture immediately adds "but ye shall perish as men," of these same men who are called gods moments before (Ps 82:6). Christ is claiming to be greater than the magistrates because He is the Messiah, "whom the Father sanctified, and sent into the world," doing the "works of my Father [and] the Father is in me, and I in Him." In other words, He is claiming the Messiah is the ultimate representative of the Father, and is the almighty God Himself, being with the Father and the Father in Him. Rather than stating that He was sanctified by the Father and sent into the world, performing His works, you should have preferred that He said "But I'm not really God, or greater than you or the magistrates, and thus I will die as a mere man too."

Just to be clear: I am not accusing the Nicene Creed of making this mistake. As far as I can tell it is intended to be a restatement of John's Christology, and as such as just fine. Use of a wider range of NT descriptions would have been welcome, but I believe they used the specific things that they needed to defend against Arius. After all, Nicea didn't really represent a final doctrine of the Trinity. That discussion continued for a couple of centuries, as I'm sure you know.

I was reading the novel Barry Lyndon, and he describes his family as being the most famous and virtuous in all the world, "as everyone knows." I'm not sure we should take such people as you and Lyndon as authorities in and of yourselves. Although Lyndon is a less dubious person than you.

 

[BryanW92]

Luk_6:26 Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did their fathers to the false prophets.

Please explain what you mean by that.

 

[Petruchio]

Please explain what you mean by that.

What I mean is, as Christians we do not attempt to conform to the culture, to gain their acceptance, hence "woe unto you when all men speak well of you". We conform to the scripture under God, and take all the hatred that comes with it:

Joh_15:19 If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.

 

[BryanW92]

What I mean is, as Christians we do not attempt to conform to the culture, to gain their acceptance, hence "woe unto you when all men speak well of you". We conform to the scripture under God, and take all the hatred that comes with it:

Joh_15:19 If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.

The internet needs a sarcasm font.

 

[Petruchio]

The internet needs a sarcasm font.

Confused? I wasn't being sarcastic, and now I'm the one who is confused. (I'm probably the one who misunderstood you, I'm starting to think.)

 

[BryanW92]

Confused? I wasn't being sarcastic, and now I'm the one who is confused. (I'm probably the one who misunderstood you, I'm starting to think.)

I was being sarcastic about my medieval church following culture. I chose PCA because it does not chase after culture and a way be "relevant" in a culture the either hates God or turns him into a cheap idol that you keep on a shelf unless you need something.

 

[Petruchio]

I was being sarcastic about my medieval church following culture. I chose PCA because it does not chase after culture and a way be "relevant" in a culture the either hates God or turns him into a cheap idol that you keep on a shelf unless you need something.

Well done!

 

[tulipbee]

How many women has the PCA stoned to death?

My wife went to her first Stephen Ministry meeting at our new church last night. The pastor welcomed her with open arms (literally) and said that he was so glad to have her there as a new Stephen Minister. He also mentioned to her that she needs to talk to the person in charge of the Deacons about becoming a Deacon Assistant (which is what they are calling the new female Deacons). No one has talked to me about becoming a Deacon (and I intend to keep it that way).

So, our medieval church is Progressing towards your image of what the culturally-compliant church should be.

They walk along the pews smiling and looking each in the eye thinking, "Look! , I can do something a woman can't do !, collect money offerings". No ladies make announcements, read scripture nor talk about common things. I think it's more of a male ego thing. I look back into the eye thinking how can they be that extreme?