Danny Shelton Marries....again, 3abn Options

[Johann]

- - -

Church members are called to forgive and accept those who have failed as God has forgiven them (Isa. 54:5-8; Matt. 6:14, 15; Eph. 4:32). The Bible urges patience, compassion, and forgiveness in the Christian care of those who have erred (Matt. 18:10-20; Gal. 6:1, 2). [/indent]

Christ taught us that we must always forgive. The question is, what do you do when the person shows no remorse and keeps hurting other people? Do you still plead with him to stop? Is it wrong if you then warn other people not to get hurt?

[seeshell]

I have a question...if you know a crime is happening and you do nothing about it, do you then become party to the crime?

Forgiveness is a must, but I don't believe that means allowing continued evil behaviour if there is something that can be done to stop it. All I have to go on in the 3ABN saga is what other people have said, but if one tenth of it is true it's my opinion that a leader like that ought to be removed, particularly from a spiritual leadership position. I know it must be very difficult for those with firsthand information and I have sympathy for them, but I hope that if these things are so, someone in the know will take steps to "clean house".

[summertime]

I have a question...if you know a crime is happening and you do nothing about it, do you then become party to the crime?

Forgiveness is a must, but I don't believe that means allowing continued evil behaviour if there is something that can be done to stop it. All I have to go on in the 3ABN saga is what other people have said, but if one tenth of it is true it's my opinion that a leader like that ought to be removed, particularly from a spiritual leadership position. I know it must be very difficult for those with firsthand information and I have sympathy for them, but I hope that if these things are so, someone in the know will take steps to "clean house".

Welcome,seashell--I see that you are in the same observant and conclusion minded state that I too am in. Sit back with me in the observation seats and wait and watch for the people with first hand knowledge to follow the way that the Lord leads. I applaud and encourage them. If the ' house' needs to be cleaned, and I believe that it does, then it will happen. As we sit back and watch, lets pray that the Lord's will be done. I believe that you are right in what you say, and I also believe that forgiveness is to be given, but first the sinner, whoever he may be, needs to make his ways right with God. If we continue to let evil rear its ugly head, then evil will win, and I do not believe that is part of God's plan.

This post has been edited by summertime: May 11 2006, 03:53 PM

[beartrap]

Sometimes wheels that grind exceeding fine, grind agonizingly slow, but at least they are in motion.

[seeshell]

I'm glad the wheels are in motion. I have an impatient streak (well OK, it's more than a streak! ) and my attitude to a problem like this is "clean it up quick and move on!" But I need to remember God's plans "know no haste nor delay" and He is still in control. I will pray that those He would have assist Him in this matter will have the strength, the courage, and the grace to deal with it as He would have them do. As well as His protection!

[beartrap]

Impatient streak? You and me both. But, as I said, the wheels are in motion, and they are grinding very fine.

[NormF]

I have only two things to say. 1. The Creator had never performed a marriage on this earth. 2. This statement of the church's position does not recognize the biblical teachings on marriage.

1. So do you think then that Adam and Eve lived in sin, i.e, unmarried?

2. It is difficult to see how you can refuse to accept the plain words of the General Conference in Session in the preamble to this section of the Manual titled The Church’s Position on Divorce and Remarriage ...

"Acknowledging the teachings of the Bible on marriage ...", and "The church adheres to this view of marriage and home without reservation" -- and the fact that every point made thereafter is Biblically based, citing chapter and verse

... and then claim to the exact contrary that she does not recognize biblical teachings on marriage. That denies the clear, common sense reading of the words and flies in the face of reality.

I cannot find anything in this section of the Church Manual that is not derived from the Bible. Playing word games and proposing private interpretations as if they are pronouncements from on high serves only to muddy the water. It does nothing to provide clarity. And muddy water is the last thing needed here.

Examine what the Manual states, and it becomes quite clear: in the case of Danny and Linda, one side is out of place and one is not.

This post has been edited by NormF: May 12 2006, 02:56 AM

[HUGGINS130]

1. So do you think then that Adam and Eve lived in sin, i.e, unmarried?

2. It is difficult to see how you can refuse to accept the plain words of the General Conference in Session in the preamble to this section of the Manual titled The Church’s Position on Divorce and Remarriage ...

"Acknowledging the teachings of the Bible on marriage ...", and "The church adheres to this view of marriage and home without reservation" -- and the fact that every point made thereafter is Biblically based, citing chapter and verse

... and then claim to the exact contrary that she does not recognize biblical teachings on marriage. That denies the clear, common sense reading of the words and flies in the face of reality.

I cannot find anything in this section of the Church Manual that is not derived from the Bible. Playing word games and proposing private interpretations as if they are pronouncements from on high serves only to muddy the water. It does nothing to provide clarity. And muddy water is the last thing needed here.

Examine what the Manual states, and it becomes quite clear: in the case of Danny and Linda, one side is out of place and one is not.

This post has been edited by HUGGINS130: May 12 2006, 06:33 AM

[Guest_statrei_*]

[indent][/indent][/size]
1. So do you think then that Adam and Eve lived in sin, i.e, unmarried?

The fallacy of the assumed premise. Sometimes I get the impression that Christians are more interested in identifying and creating new sins than in seeking after understanding.

[indent][/indent][/size]
I cannot find anything in this section of the Church Manual that is not derived from the Bible. Playing word games and proposing private interpretations as if they are pronouncements from on high serves only to muddy the water. It does nothing to provide clarity. And muddy water is the last thing needed here.

I assume you think that the words in the GC Manual are pronouncements from on high. That's fine by me. Stay high and dry.

[Clay]

Wasn't it the GC who has now stated that you can get divorced if you are abandoned by an unbeliever?

[Denny]

http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/church_ma...7th-edition.pdf

See page 204

[awesumtenor]

[indent][/indent][/size]
1. So do you think then that Adam and Eve lived in sin, i.e, unmarried?

It does not automatically follow Darius' statement such that if it is true, then Adam and Eve were "living in sin". Genesis chapter 2 is plain that we have marriage today because of the relationship of Adam to Eve, she being "bone of his bone" and "flesh of his flesh" . Their relationshp was unique and cannot be duplicated; it is only approximated by marriage... no ceremony, even if conducted by God, could make Eve more a part of Adam than the fact that God took part of Adam and made Eve from it.

In His service,
Mr. J

[beartrap]

The fallacy of the assumed premise. Sometimes I get the impression that Christians are more interested in identifying and creating new sins than in seeking after understanding.

Perhaps we need more attorneys in the church. The application of legalese can sometimes actually open a window of understanding on the level of broader principle. It could take me all day to say what is simply stated in the phrase, "assumed premise," which is a fallacy that seems to enjoy remarkable popularity, and is really one of the largest stumbling blocks in dealing with the issues in, and surrounding, 3ABN. It also seems to be the foundational pillar on which much interpretive doctrine rests ensconced in the sanctity it accords. Being wrapped in assumed sanctity, such doctrine is thereby rendered unchangeable.

I would suppose that even in personal scriptural study done with a sincere desire to keep an open mind, the assumed premise might often provide the light, and therefore the shadows, that keep the adherent locked into the walls of doctrinal interpretation that prevent new understanding.

[Guest_statrei_*]

Perhaps we need more attorneys in the church.

I will settle for people who understand the rules of logic. I know what they teach lawyers and many a lawyer has had to be admonished that his arguments are absolute balderdash. Even our esteemed SCOTUS has succeeded in making hash of the religious clauses of the first amendment. They were done in by the same fallacy of the assumed premise.

[beartrap]

Perhaps we need more attorneys in the church.

This was said partly in jest. The rest was not.

I will settle for people who understand the rules of logic.

True. However, as I see it, theology in its entirety is theoretical, and it would logically follow that any form of adherence to any form of theology would by neccessity be based on an assumed premise. I guess this would render any theological argument an assumption, therefore, weak at best, and now I have talked in a complete circle.