Ordination service

[evangelist6589]

I attended one today and was in the audience. The man being ordained got his MA in Biblical Studies and was very humble, has a heart for youth, and people. Also a man filled with grace. The pastors asked questions and the statement of doctrine was an application of systematic theology. I recognized much of what was presented however I do not understand how someone could not know what Open Theism was nor know if it's a heresy, nor do I find the view that he was not sure if Christ could sin while on the earth accurate as it was IMPOSSIBLE for Christ to sin. Also I did not agree with his loose interpretation of the Hebrew term "yom" and his view that it could mean extended periods of time.

He emphasized a 2 Pt Calvinism but in reality it was semi- pelagainism as no one can claim to hold to Total Depravity yet reject the doctrine of Irrestible Grace or the Effectual Call of the Spirit planing faith and repentance in the elect. No God does not make people evil as Hyper Calvinism teaches but God knows his elect and chose them before the foundation of the world and died for the elect on the Cross.

He also did not know whom TD jakes is and his heresy of modalism on the view of God (God takes on different modes) but is not a triune God. Nor the Emerging Church and Brian Mclarrens lies and deceptions.

The man admitted areas he needs to grow and had no pride which was good. However being a Biblical studies graduate does not make one at expert in theology it just makes one an expert in exegesis and the Original languages which is a field I am not as savvy in.

Besides some few short falls he seemed to have a general grasp in theology and having never done this I have no idea what it would be like.

 

[Jkdbuck76]

That's ok. The Apostle Paul didn't know TD Jakes either. lol!

I love an ordination service.

 

[Winman]

I attended one today and was in the audience. The man being ordained got his MA in Biblical Studies and was very humble, has a heart for youth, and people. Also a man filled with grace. The pastors asked questions and the statement of doctrine was an application of systematic theology. I recognized much of what was presented however I do not understand how someone could not know what Open Theism was nor know if it's a heresy, nor do I find the view that he was not sure if Christ could sin while on the earth accurate as it was IMPOSSIBLE for Christ to sin. Also I did not agree with his loose interpretation of the Hebrew term "yom" and his view that it could mean extended periods of time.

He emphasized a 2 Pt Calvinism but in reality it was semi- pelagainism as no one can claim to hold to Total Depravity yet reject the doctrine of Irrestible Grace or the Effectual Call of the Spirit planing faith and repentance in the elect. No God does not make people evil as Hyper Calvinism teaches but God knows his elect and chose them before the foundation of the world and died for the elect on the Cross.

He also did not know whom TD jakes is and his heresy of modalism on the view of God (God takes on different modes) but is not a triune God. Nor the Emerging Church and Brian Mclarrens lies and deceptions.

The man admitted areas he needs to grow and had no pride which was good. However being a Biblical studies graduate does not make one at expert in theology it just makes one an expert in exegesis and the Original languages which is a field I am not as savvy in.

Besides some few short falls he seemed to have a general grasp in theology and having never done this I have no idea what it would be like.

Lots of Reformed folks believe(d) Jesus could sin.

The best theologians, past and present, have been divided on the question of whether Jesus could have sinned. I believe that since Jesus was fully human, it was possible for him to sin.

http://www.ligonier.org/blog/could-jesus-have-sinned/

The great Reformed theologian Charles Hodge believed Jesus could sin;

“This sinlessness of our Lord, however, does not amount to absolute impeccability. It was not a non potest peccare. If He was a true man, He must have been capable of sinning. That He did not sin under the greatest provocations; that when He was reviled He blessed; when He suffered He threatened not; that He was dumb as a sheep before its shearers, is held up to us as an example. Temptation implies the possibility of sin. If from the constitution of his person it was impossible for Christ to sin, then his temptation was unreal and without effect and He cannot sympathize with his people.”

Second Volume of Systematic Theology pg. 457

Millard Erickson (Calvinist) believed Jesus could have sinned, but wouldn't.

Jesus could have sinned, though it was certain that He would not sin.

A Concise Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1987), 720.

So what do you say now?

 

[Revmitchell]

I attended one today and was in the audience. The man being ordained got his MA in Biblical Studies and was very humble, has a heart for youth, and people. Also a man filled with grace. The pastors asked questions and the statement of doctrine was an application of systematic theology. I recognized much of what was presented however I do not understand how someone could not know what Open Theism was nor know if it's a heresy, nor do I find the view that he was not sure if Christ could sin while on the earth accurate as it was IMPOSSIBLE for Christ to sin. Also I did not agree with his loose interpretation of the Hebrew term "yom" and his view that it could mean extended periods of time.

He emphasized a 2 Pt Calvinism but in reality it was semi- pelagainism as no one can claim to hold to Total Depravity yet reject the doctrine of Irrestible Grace or the Effectual Call of the Spirit planing faith and repentance in the elect. No God does not make people evil as Hyper Calvinism teaches but God knows his elect and chose them before the foundation of the world and died for the elect on the Cross.

He also did not know whom TD jakes is and his heresy of modalism on the view of God (God takes on different modes) but is not a triune God. Nor the Emerging Church and Brian Mclarrens lies and deceptions.

The man admitted areas he needs to grow and had no pride which was good. However being a Biblical studies graduate does not make one at expert in theology it just makes one an expert in exegesis and the Original languages which is a field I am not as savvy in.

Besides some few short falls he seemed to have a general grasp in theology and having never done this I have no idea what it would be like.

When a man is being ordained what is looked for is that the man in question can reasonably defend his positions. I may disagree with him but if he can defend his positions soundly and show he has done his study and he is not a novice I would agree to ordain him.

The only exception would be if he held some grievous heresy such as the doctrines found in progressive Christianity or just flat out denies that Christ is the only way.

Not being knowledgeable on some of those other issues is not a big deal but if I saw that he was ignorant on a great many of them I would begin to question if he is ready.

I would also add that formal education is not nearly important to me as having been discipled by another pastor for some period.

 

[evangelist6589]

Hmm.... Let me get back to you on this one. I will look at some of my Christology books and or systematic theologies and look at the verses.

 

[annsni]

At all ordination services I've been to including my husband's, it was a service for the ordination. The ordination council had already met and approved the candidate and it sounds more like what you went to was his council.

 

[Tom Butler]

The way to avoid any embarrassment is for the candidate's views to be known well in advance of the ordination. His pastor would be the ideal person to question him about the areas mentioned in the OP. The pastor needs to know the answers anyway.

An ordination is not the place for surprises.

 

[preachinjesus]

It's odd that there wasn't an ordination council prior to the service. Is this a normal practice in independent baptist churches? I'm not familiar with it.

 

[evangelist6589]

Lots of Reformed folks believe(d) Jesus could sin.



http://www.ligonier.org/blog/could-jesus-have-sinned/

The great Reformed theologian Charles Hodge believed Jesus could sin;



Second Volume of Systematic Theology pg. 457

Millard Erickson (Calvinist) believed Jesus could have sinned, but wouldn't.



A Concise Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1987), 720.

So what do you say now?

Looking at some systematic theologies which unfortunately did not dive into the doctrine very deeply (Erickson & Grudem) I got a far deeper response from The Moody HandBook of Theology which affirms that Calvinist generally hold to the doctrine of Impeccability which means that Christ could not have sinned (p.248).

Looking at the scripture there is plenty of evidence for this.

The Immutability of the Christ
Heb 13:8-Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

The Omnipotence of the Christ
Mt 28:18-Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

The Omnisceicne of the Christ
John 2:25-He did not need any testimony about mankind, for he knew what was in each person.

The Will of the Christ
Christ could only do the Will of His father, but if he could sin then his human will would have been stronger than his divine will.

The Authority of the Christ
John 10:18-No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”

So WinMan what do you say? Do you believe Christ could sin? If so what verses do you use?

 

[Winman]

Looking at some systematic theologies which unfortunately did not dive into the doctrine very deeply (Erickson & Grudem) I got a far deeper response from The Moody HandBook of Theology which affirms that Calvinist generally hold to the doctrine of Impeccability which means that Christ could not have sinned (p.248).

Looking at the scripture there is plenty of evidence for this.

The Immutability of the Christ
Heb 13:8-Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.

The Omnipotence of the Christ
Mt 28:18-Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

The Omnisceicne of the Christ
John 2:25-He did not need any testimony about mankind, for he knew what was in each person.

The Will of the Christ
Christ could only do the Will of His father, but if he could sin then his human will would have been stronger than his divine will.

The Authority of the Christ
John 10:18-No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”

So WinMan what do you say? Do you believe Christ could sin? If so what verses do you use?

Yes, I believe Jesus could sin, but WOULD NOT sin as Millard Erickson wrote. The whole point of Jesus becoming a man was to defeat Satan as a man where Adam had failed. God in heaven could easily defeat Satan no problem, what would that do for man?

No, Jesus had to be victorious as a man over Satan to defeat Satan and win back man. He had to be EXACTLY like us, and that is what I believe much scripture teaches. Hebrews 2:14-18 says he took on "the same" flesh as us, that he took on the "nature" of the seed of Abraham, that he was made like his brethren the Jews in "all things", that he "suffered" being tempted. Hebrews 4:15 teaches that he could be "touched" with the "feeling of our infirmites" (weaknesses) and that he was tempted in "all points" as we are, yet without sin.

So, Jesus had to actually fight off temptation just like we do, in fact it was much worse, because he NEVER gave in. Oh, how he must have suffered. But he was victorious, and never obeyed temptation when it would have caused him to disobey God's laws and sin. Thank God for that!

There would be no point in Jesus being tempted if it simply bounced off of him, or if he did not truly feel the pull and tug of the flesh. He would not have been a real man if he did not suffer and feel what we do.

And Jesus directly tells us he could have done differently. He could have called on his Father in the garden and been rescued if he had decided not to obey his Father and die for us. He was under no obligation to die for sinners, and his Father could not demand it from him. It would have been no sin.

But Jesus could have refused, and his Father would have honored his request and save him. Imagine that, God the Father changing his eternal plan.

But that MUST be so, otherwise Jesus's statement would be a lie.

Mat 26:53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?

Jesus's question demands a YES answer, so he could have refused to die for us if he wanted. Again, if this is not true, then this verse scripture is a lie. And we know that cannot be true.

 

[SolaSaint]

Me thinks Winman needs help. Sounds like you may be the one who follows Open Theism. Possibly?

 

[JamesL]

That's ok. The Apostle Paul didn't know TD Jakes either. lol!

:laugh:
What ?!?!?
:laugh:


Good stuff :thumbs:

 

[Winman]

Me thinks Winman needs help. Sounds like you may be the one who follows Open Theism. Possibly?

Tell me how I misinterpreted scripture. I'm all ears.

 

[evangelist6589]

Me thinks Winman needs help. Sounds like you may be the one who follows Open Theism. Possibly?

No question about it but I did not think of him as a Open Theist, but then again I could be mistaken.

 

[Winman]

No question about it but I did not think of him as a Open Theist, but then again I could be mistaken.

Do you believe everything people tell you?

 

[evangelist6589]

Yes, I believe Jesus could sin, but WOULD NOT sin as Millard Erickson wrote. The whole point of Jesus becoming a man was to defeat Satan as a man where Adam had failed. God in heaven could easily defeat Satan no problem, what would that do for man?

No, Jesus had to be victorious as a man over Satan to defeat Satan and win back man. He had to be EXACTLY like us, and that is what I believe much scripture teaches. Hebrews 2:14-18 says he took on "the same" flesh as us, that he took on the "nature" of the seed of Abraham, that he was made like his brethren the Jews in "all things", that he "suffered" being tempted. Hebrews 4:15 teaches that he could be "touched" with the "feeling of our infirmites" (weaknesses) and that he was tempted in "all points" as we are, yet without sin.

So, Jesus had to actually fight off temptation just like we do, in fact it was much worse, because he NEVER gave in. Oh, how he must have suffered. But he was victorious, and never obeyed temptation when it would have caused him to disobey God's laws and sin. Thank God for that!

There would be no point in Jesus being tempted if it simply bounced off of him, or if he did not truly feel the pull and tug of the flesh. He would not have been a real man if he did not suffer and feel what we do.

And Jesus directly tells us he could have done differently. He could have called on his Father in the garden and been rescued if he had decided not to obey his Father and die for us. He was under no obligation to die for sinners, and his Father could not demand it from him. It would have been no sin.

But Jesus could have refused, and his Father would have honored his request and save him. Imagine that, God the Father changing his eternal plan.

But that MUST be so, otherwise Jesus's statement would be a lie.

Mat 26:53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
54 But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?

Jesus's question demands a YES answer, so he could have refused to die for us if he wanted. Again, if this is not true, then this verse scripture is a lie. And we know that cannot be true.

So you think Jesus is being tempted to sin today?

It was not possible for Jesus to sin as his divine attributes were in Him as a man and one of these is Holiness.

1 Pet 1:16-16-because it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am holy.”

You think that because he was tempted he could sin, but this is not what being tempted always means.

Psa 106:13-15-13--They quickly forgot His works; They did not wait for His counsel, 14 But craved intensely in the wilderness, And tempted God in the desert. 15 So He gave them their request, But sent a wasting disease among them.

So in the desert the Israelites tempted God to sin? Is this what you believe?

 

[evangelist6589]

It's odd that there wasn't an ordination council prior to the service. Is this a normal practice in independent baptist churches? I'm not familiar with it.

Yes I sat in on it but was not allowed to participate even when some of their questions and responses where not in favor of Reformed theology.

 

[evangelist6589]

The way to avoid any embarrassment is for the candidate's views to be known well in advance of the ordination. His pastor would be the ideal person to question him about the areas mentioned in the OP. The pastor needs to know the answers anyway.

An ordination is not the place for surprises.

He was there along with 6 other pastors from other IFB and Fundamentalist Arminian churches.

 

[evangelist6589]

At all ordination services I've been to including my husband's, it was a service for the ordination. The ordination council had already met and approved the candidate and it sounds more like what you went to was his council.

Yes indeed. The service is today. Not all churches allow members to join in on this, but I am glad to have gotten the experience. I only regret not bringing my digital voice recorder as it was very interesting...

 

[evangelist6589]

When a man is being ordained what is looked for is that the man in question can reasonably defend his positions. I may disagree with him but if he can defend his positions soundly and show he has done his study and he is not a novice I would agree to ordain him.

The only exception would be if he held some grievous heresy such as the doctrines found in progressive Christianity or just flat out denies that Christ is the only way.

Not being knowledgeable on some of those other issues is not a big deal but if I saw that he was ignorant on a great many of them I would begin to question if he is ready.

I would also add that formal education is not nearly important to me as having been discipled by another pastor for some period.

Well he was not familiar with the Emerging Church and there is an emphasis on Progressive Christianity in that movement. Besides that and some of his other views he affirmed the essentials of the faith, although from an Arminian POV. I would agree on the formal education part. Too often seminaries cram too many books and teachings down ones throat that one will never read again. This man a Youth Pastor I doubt even uses a third of the books he read in seminary. Me as a street evangelist my main skills I use are my open air preaching abilities, and my ability to reason and use apologetics with skeptics, and cults.