In God’s Image?
by Andy Hanson
by Andy Hanson, April 30, 2014
I have nothing positive to say about In God’s Image: Scripture, Sexuality and Society, the March 17-20 General Conference Cape Town Summit in South Africa. In fact, reflecting on it has compelled me to question if I want to remain a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
The opening address by church president Ted Wilson clearly indicated that the event’s conclusion had already been predetermined. Church policy would not be up for discussion, nor would scientific evidence regarding gender determination or the legitimacy of homosexual love.
In his opening address to the conference, Wilson left no doubt that any change in Church policy would not be considered: “There are many voices today that are unwilling to acknowledge the brokenness of homosexual behavior,” he said. “God intended wholeness for all of us. Homosexual behavior is a departure from God's plan. There are people, of course, who twist the Word of God into saying something it does not say. It is critical that we explain the plain teaching of Scripture and the Spirit of Prophecy.”
Wilson quoted Ellen White's Desire of Ages, page 258: “History is repeating. With the open Bible before them, and professing to reverence its teachings, many of the religious leaders of our time are destroying faith in it as the word of God. They busy themselves with dissecting the word, and set their own opinions above its plainest statements. In their hands God’s word loses its regenerating power. This is why infidelity runs riot, and iniquity is rife.”1
Although conference speakers often referred to “loving our gay brothers and sisters,” there will be no softening of the words in the Church Manual that refer to “homosexual practice” as a sexual perversion along with “incest” and “sexual abuse of children and vulnerable adults.”2
Lawrence Geraty, reporting as a Spectrum online observer commented: “This conflict over gay people is very likely a proxy war. The real war is about authority, hermeneutics, belonging, power, ownership, membership, etc. This is merely a convenient battlefield on which some choose to fight the war because they feel very sure of the terrain. . . .
“No specialist was able to present evidence as to the etiology of homosexuality — the closest to it is a combination of genes and environment. So it appears likely that a very few LGBTIs3 have chosen their homosexuality. We have not come to terms with the implications of this.”
I echo his conclusion:
“I believe the Church should not simply allow gay people into its midst but welcome them, and so be obliged to face that which is unwholesome in ourselves. Maybe Jesus said we should ‘love our enemies’ primarily for our own sakes not theirs.”4
Finally, I recommend “The Seventh-day Adventist Church Should Remember the Greatest Commandment,”5 a column posted online by Eliel Criz, as a well-thought-out presentation countering the conference in South Africa that did nothing to soften the church’s hardline approach to the gay community.
___________________________________________________________
1https://record.net.au/items/wilson-speaks-on-human-brokenness-at-summit
2From the Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual, 17th Edition, page 195 (emphasis added):
“CHURCH DISCIPLINE
1. Denial of faith in the fundamentals of the gospel and in the cardinal doctrines of the church or teaching doctrines contrary to the same.
2. Violation of the law of God, such as worship of idols, murder, stealing, profanity, gambling, Sabbathbreaking, and willful and habitual falsehood.
3. Violation of the seventh commandment of the law of God as it relates to the marriage institution, the Christian home, and biblical standards of moral conduct.
4. Such violations as fornication, promiscuity, incest, homosexual practice, sexual abuse of children and vulnerable adults, and other sexual perversions, and the remarriage of a divorced person, except of the spouse who has remained faithful to the marriage vow in a divorce for adultery or for sexual perversions.
5. Physical violence, including violence within the family.
6. Fraud or willful misrepresentation in business.
7. Disorderly conduct which brings reproach upon the church.
8. Adhering to or taking part in a divisive or disloyal movement or organization. (See p. 190.)
9. Persistent refusal to recognize properly constituted church authority or to submit to the order and discipline of the church.
10. The use, manufacture, or sale of alcoholic beverages.
11. The use, manufacture, or sale of tobacco in any of its forms for human consumption.
12. The misuse of, or trafficking in, narcotics or other drugs.
“The church cannot afford to deal lightly with such sins nor permit personal considerations to affect its actions. It must register its decisive and emphatic disapproval of the sins of fornication, adultery, all acts of moral indiscretion, and other grievous sins.” (Emphasis added by the column writer.)
3Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex
4Report from the Cape Town Summit: Fourth and Final Day, Spectrum online, March 20, 2014 https://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2014/03/20/report-cape-town-summit-fourth-and-final-day
5https://www.huffingtonpost.com/eliel-cruz/the-seventhday-adventist-_b_4997349.html
Andy: 'Although conference speakers often referred to “loving our gay brothers and sisters,” there will be no softening of the words in the Church Manual that refer to “homosexual practice” as a sexual perversion along with “incest” and “sexual abuse of children and vulnerable adults.”'
Andy, before chucking in your SDA membership, I suggest you check out how the Netherlands SDA Conference responded. You may be suprised and please by their response of love to such a thorny issue.
You are absolutely right – the issue of upholding the biblical 'ideal' of hetrosexual monogamy wouldn't be such an issue, in my view, if the Church did indeed nevertheless show love to homosexual people. But the reality is, normally the response is hate and scorn. We treat every member as a sinner given the chance of salvation despite our continued and continual repeated sinning, except for homosexuality, which is treated as an unpardonable sin.
Steve, You said: We treat every member as a sinner given the chance of salvation despite our continued and continual repeated sinning, except for homosexuality, which is treated as an unpardonable sin.
Is this the situation in Australia? I hope not, because I know of no one who has ever expressed that, and I have been fairly close to the "throne room" here and worked in Mecca. It may be true among the uneducated, I don't know.
I'm astonished that someone who has indicated she is near the throne room, whatever that is, would demean those with less education. Some of those with less education show more insight into Scripture than those who have drunk freely at the poisoned springs of liberalism in educational institutions of "higher" learning.
Maranatha
TS: Surprise! There are many around the world who are uneducated–probably the majority. But some do understand the principles of Christ and love others. They have a living relationship with Christ and are educated in caring, tolerance, and love. But they may not be aware of math, history, current news, science, etc. Among the same group are those who don't have empathy for others, and they might accept superstitions, rumors that build hate, nationalism, racism, etc. They are probably a majority.
And guess what! There are highly educated people who are divided in the same way. They may know all the science, news, history, etc. but only pretend to care about others to fit in.
On the other side are the honest and often religious scholars who love God. Because they have more access to education and facts, God expects more from them and from us who have this access.
Yes Ella, that is the reality as I understand it. One can struggle with any sin, and we all do, but homosexuality is often treated as a terminal illness.
Ted Wilson: 'God intended wholeness for all of us. Homosexual behavior is a departure from God's plan.'
From a biblical perspective, Ted is right. Monogomous hetrosexual marriage was indeed God's intended plan from the beginning, and an ideal Christians should strive to live up to. The destruction of that model is indeed a product of sin.
But we live in a broken world. Down Syndrome people are also not part of God's original plan either, but 'defective' people with an extra chromosone. And how do we say they should be treated? Do we expect Down Syndrome people to be 'cured' before given acceptance into our community?
It was actually the Social Darwinists of the Third Reich who took such ideas of 'unnatural' people to their most logical conclusion! Do not forget the little pink triangles, the mingled with the yellow stars. Christians are called to walk a different path.
I mentioned this is a recent thread eleswhere, but I recall Jesus' words of compassion to Eunuchs. And I recall the Torah's commands that they be excommunicated from the people for lacking wholeness, and Isaiah's prophecy that they will instead one day be accepted back into the Temple during the Messianic era. Finally, I recall this seems to be what the Eithiopian Eunuch may have been reading, from Isiah, when Philip came across him, and explained that the Temple is not that building in Jerusalem but Jesus Christ and the Christian community.
So who is a Eunuch – like asking who is your neighbour? I note Jesus never said a single word of condemnation against homosexual people. Instead, He mentioned with sympathy a range of Eunuch-like conditions, of sexual and gender aberrations, including those who were 'born' that way in Matt 19:12.
Now Jesus certainly supported celibate behaviour for such Eunuchs. But note Jesus didn't actively condemn these people. And far from prerogative insults about being unwhole, Jesus suggested in Matt 19:12 that these people, if celibate, are just as much living up to an 'ideal' as hetrosexual married couples.
Something to think about?
Good analysis.
Discussions on this topic make me think of the photography studend whose teacher gave them an "F" on an assignment. Their close-up photos of tree leaves were excellent, but the assignment was to photograph a giant, old oak tree standing alone in a field in silhouette against the sunset. The fact that we are having these discussions should shows how far we have wandered away from the power of God and how greatly we need to be seeing that power at work transforming us and others. We debate the smaller points because we have not seen what God can do and would be doing if we were willing to be His servants. God calls us to become conduits for His love and power to flow through to the world around us. If we spent as much time seeking the power of God in our lives and to minister His redeeming and transforming love then the focus of our lines here would be celebrating how we have seen God change sinners. How I wish to see that day soon!
Brother Hanson,
You can throw away your membership but that will not change what the Bible teaches on the subject however..
Lawrence Geraty's comment about hermeneutics being at the center of this conflict is spot on though. The historical-critical hermeneutic used by the liberal scholars who are now promoting homosexuality within the church is itself unbiblical and therefore erroneous. And if you begin with an erroneous hermeneutic you will be led to erroneous conclusions about what the Bible teaches.
So who were the eunuchs, and what did Jesus mean in the above verse?
tqm 144000
You are right on target and I appreciate your standing for Biblical truth; we need more persons posting who subscribe fully to the the tenets of the Bible.
All this business about accepting practicing homosexuals into the church as members is driven by the culture which has succumbed to the gay lobby and its supporters.
Maranatha
TS: Where did you get the idea that "practicing homosexuals" are being accepted in the church as members? I didn't say that. The problem is that as soon as someone is labled "gay" they are often treated badly even when celibate. If we could get over that hurdle, we wouldn't have such a problem. All singles are expected to be celibate, aren't they?
What I would be against is making this a law outside the church. The Right would have to make laws against adultery as well to be consistent.
Where do you get these ideas? They need to be backed up with evidence, or they are just rumors.
Netherlands Union……
Much of Adventism is the result of poor hermeneutics. Recall that the founders who established the major doctrines that began the church were NOT Bible scholars, had little or no education in the Biblical languages, and were using crude analyses to establish specific dates that were of no importance whatsoever to Christian doctrines and requirements for salvation., yet formed the entire reason for beginning a new religion.
In spite of this beginning, there has been absolutely no departure or change in the basic tenets made by these early founders. This is why Adventists will always be a poor stepchild to Christianity. In adopting major Jewish beliefs and attempting to merge those with the simple Christian message, it can never be anything but a hybrid Jewish-Christian half-breed.
Can you substantiate (from the scriptures) the idea that one needs to be a scholar or understand the original languages in order to understand what the Bible teaches? These premises are themselves unbiblical. It is also interesting to note that when you look at scripture and history, it is often the scholars who have been at the helm of leading God's people astray. And it is often non-scholars who God has committed with testing truths.
Elaine, I'll accept that label. Jesus never intended to start a new religion, only have it written in the heart.
Sorry, Ella. Not exactly. The fact that Jesus chose 12 disciples and not 11 or 13 tells us that He fully intended to morph Judaism into its true fulfillment in Himself, which became the movement we call Christianity. We learn that from the sanctuary service, especially as interpreted by the book of Hebrews. And look at the names of the tribes on the gates of the New Jerusalem! And the apostles then picked up the ball and under the Holy Spirit organized churches all over the place in the Roman Empire.
TW knows where the voting power is, and is prostitute to the vote, rather than standing up with Christ, who speaks to every living soul "COME UNTO ME", yoursins are forgiven. There is no sex in heaven.
Agree Earl, especially your last comment about there being no sex in heaven. And I have likewise been hounded for pointing out that biblical truth.
There is no sin in Heaven either. That does not mean we are to excuse it, practice it or encourage it here.
If there will be celibacy in heaven, should we practice it here, also? Or should we enjoy while we have it?
Actually Jesus suggests (and Paul supports) the notion that celibacy is an 'ideal' sexual state, which is to be practice here in earth, perhaps because it is our future in heaven.
It is fascinating to read how clear people are about heaven considering there is nothing on which to base any expectation. The concept emanates from an ancient mental creation of a two level universe, subscribed to by the Biblical authors, heaven above and earth below, which has no validity, except as a metaphor supporting the human desire for there to be something good beyond this life. .
One can filter and parse the Scriptures for a personal understanding and definition.
The outcome is a convoluted proof text argument for a "Biblical" opinion affirming ones idealized bias. Discussion of what it is, where it is, if it is, and how one qualifies to get there is an exercise in mental stimulation, nothing more.
Live life to its fullest now and tomorrow. Since you won't really know what follows death until you get there it is best not to pretend you do.
It just may be that death is eternal life. Without death, time (and life as we know it) has no meaning.
.
Ok at the Resurrection then. I don't see how you can so dismiss Jesus' explanation about there being now marriage in the Resurrection. It may be a proof text but so what? And it isn't a proof text in the sense Jesus made similar sentiments elsewhere, about Eunuchs and the 'ideal' of celibacy.
You can live your 'today I will eat and drink, for tomorrow I will die'. And there is an element of truth to that. But it seems you really might not believe anything about anything.
Death might be eternal. But that is not an excuse to live a selfish life here, which is what I see you suggesting.
Steve, believing something, even intensely, with key texts galore, only creates truth in the mind. It is the elixir called hope. (I disagree with Paul who elevated love to prime value; should have been hope, I think)."
It seems to me that life on this earth is a one time, temporary, phenomenon, the meaning of which is channeled by death. If you were alive forever now would you need a watch? Would God matter? Would you need to eat, defecate, breath? Would you have blood flowing through veins, would you have any interest in anyone (they will never disappear), wouldn't tomorrow be a meaningless concept. And this barely touches on the issues of "eternal life."
My point only is that we don't really have a clue as to what life after death might be if there is such a thing. Most people have an extrapolated, idealized mental creation of a continuation of our current life with improvements. Reuniting with loved ones, no errors or problems, harmony in every respect, absence of "evil" ones, human perfection, a nice home with a view, conversations with God, a presumption that it is far superior to here and now, and no death enemy, that is, eternal life benefits. Hope is the operative emotion. It all assumes there is life later, postmortem.
Over the eons, it appears that everything in the universe is recycled. Every piece of us, every single element of our bodies is identical to the components in what appears to be churned in this endless process.
If there isn't anything following death, it doesn't matter to the deceased. I hope there is, I'm content to let it be, during my life, undefined. And I do hope it is an improvement!
This is interesting. Your views are a throwback to a philosophy class I took while attending a secular university.
My question is this (if you don't mind answering it) – why are you bothering with a Christian forum?
I would also pose the same question to Elaine Nelson who has been dexterously and continuously spewing vitriol against historic Adventism on this and other Adventist fora – and yet is a self-confessed agnostic.
Why bother at all with it?
144000, not quite sure how my views can be a "throwback" but will almost let that go. Is not 144000 a throwback? The "secular" university is curious. I went to religious schools (including SDA) through an MDiv degree, and found them to be "secular."
You dismiss my post with a puff of wind. A reasoned rebuttal of my statement would be very much appreciated. I enjoy the dialogue I sometimes experience on this forum.
Hi Bugs,
Maybe "throwback" is the wrong expression. To put it simply your views reminded me of things I heard in my philosophy class some years back.
I agree with you about Adventist universities as well.
It was never my intention to rebutt your post. I was just curious as to your motivations. Personally if I saw things as you do I would not bother.
To each his own I guess.
You seem like a very kind and thoughtful person and I appreciate your perspective. I have disclosed on this forum on numerous posts my reason de etra (I recently thought I had been "disposted," but turns out I just had to re-log in). If you were to review them, you would probably flip me into the lion's den with Elaine!! I have no anger at anyone or the SDA church and don't expect to change any minds. I do like throwing up some ideas to see the response. And I do have an agenda, undisclosed until now. It involves a future publication. (No, it does not include dissing any organization or its followers)!+
Bugs: 'I went to religious schools (including SDA) through an MDiv degree, and found them to be "secular."'
Very interested by this comment Bugs. How as the SDA school through your MDiv 'secular'? And would you care to name that school?
Can I guess that you learnt about historical-criticism and other ideas, and that it destroyed many of your previous preconceptions. I take it you were a strong "believer" going into the MDiv, otherwise you wouldn't have bothered? And were those preconceptions somewhat destroyed by your studies, and if, so how?
Sorry you don't have to answer. Just very interested in this.
Ella: ' Where did you get the idea that "practicing homosexuals" are being accepted in the church as members? I didn't say that. The problem is that as soon as someone is labled "gay" they are often treated badly even when celibate…Where do you get these ideas? They need to be backed up with evidence, or they are just rumors.'
All4Him: 'Netherlands Union'
Both Ella and All4Him both raise interesting issues that need further exploration. First of all, is there a difference between:
1. Those who admit they feel a homosexual attraction (i.e. have a gay orientation) but resist that urge by living a celibate lifestyle?
2. Those who admit they feel a homosexual attraction (i.e. have a gay orientation), and even admit that they have at times adheded to those temptations (i.e. as we all do to temptations for sin), but who openly acknowledge such actions were sinful, repent of them, admit they struggle with the issue, but prayer for victory on the issue (i.e. as we all do, continually dying to sin and praying for sanctification, which is the work of a lifetime)?
3. Those who admit they feel a homosexual attraction (i.e. have a gay orientation), openly live as homosexuals, and suggest homosexual actions are not sinful?
Secondly, with respect to homosexuals in categories #1, #2 and #3, would you feel comfortable with accepting such persons:
a. Into your Church as a mere attendee?
b. Into your Church as a member?
c. Into your Church as a leader (i.e. deacon or elder)?
Let's see if we can have a sophisticated discussion here.
Here are a few more questions:
Would you be willing to accept into your church someone who has been divorced and remarried?
Would you be willing to accept into your church a couple known to have a child out of wedlock?
Would you be willing to accept a pregnant unmarried girl into your church?
Would you be willing to accept either sex, unmarried, who are not virgins?
Would you be willing to accept an elderly couple who are living together sans marriage because of loss of pension if married?
Would you be willing to accept an engaged couple who are living together before marriage?
Would you be willing to question all these individuals prior to membership?
Elaine, you need to qualify what you mean by 'accept'? As I mentioned in my original questions, within Christian Churches (you may have forgotten because it has no doubt been a while) there is a difference between 'accepting' someone:
a. Into your Church as a mere attendee?
b. Into your Church as a member?
c. Into your Church as a leader (i.e. deacon or elder)?
All of the above, unconditionally. No exceptions. When did Christ make conditions of acceptance?
Did he accept someone conditionally?
I think he did. Contrary to popular opinion, Jesus did seem to have double-standards. He treated those who were 'obvious sinners' with much leniency, whilst at the same time, actually expected a higher standard of behaviour, higher than what the Law itself even required, for religous leaders.
Steve and Elaine,
Actually I think Elaine has answered your question well by comparing it with other sexual behaviors that are no better or worse. But this kind of tolerance would be impossible for the church at this time. BTW my local church faced an unmarried pregnancy years ago with open arms and kept them in the church family which supported them with love. This seems a given.
I should hope the gay people listed in the groups #1 and #2 would be accepted as members and even in church activities.
My question is–Should a church question its members on their sexual lives? Do they hold gays to a higher standard than other single people? Why? Singles' activity outside church is between them and God and no one else's business unless it becomes public.
For a person who is openly practicing gay (and not in a same-sex commitment/marriage), they are practicing immorality and should be accepted as attendees only–just as a known adulterer. These people should be counseled and, if unwiling to repent, then membership can be taken away or denied. (The same for cohabitation and adultery.) At this point I believe they would want to find another church
How to relate to someone in a ss marriage, is not something the SDA church can deal with at this time. I would persuade them to attend. One does not need to have their names on some membership book for salvation through Christ, and I am not their judge.
Is it any different to break up a long relationship because of religion, than it was for those missionaries to break up familes of muliple wives when they became Christians?
Ella, not sure if you agree or disagree with me. If you read my response, you will see I advocate very different treatment for the unmarried pregancy versus the hypocritical leader, who engages in his own sexual sins but purports to lead the Church.
I agree with all your points about not judging other people's private lives, and that it is only when it becomes public that it is a problem. The reason is not so much the individual person (because who can judge), but by the problem of being a stumbling block to others. That is why, contrary to popular myth, there is in some ways a double-standard – and rightly so.
Jesus and the prophets upheld that double-standard. Consider how Jesus was to the woman at the well, in a de facto relationship. He mentioned it but didn't push it further. Then consider how John the Baptist slammed King Herod Agrippa, for marrying his brother's wife. The reason for the double standard is that King Herod was a Jewish leader, so should have known better.
The problem with Churches is they often have the double-standard all backwards. They cover up and protect those in leadership, whilst coming down like a ton of bricks on the least powerful (the young, and that indeed includes homosexuals).
I attended SDA schools from the seventh grade through graduation at Campion Academy, attended PUC, graduated from Union College, took courses at university of Nebraska and Missouri, attended SDA Seminary, Andrews U., and graduated from the Methodist school, the Iliff School of Theology at the University of Denver.
You imply that because of some weakness on my part I must have been overcome and overpowered by "historical-criticism and other ideas" serving to derail my orthodox SDA theology, and " [which] destroyed many [of your] previous preconceptions." No. I think, therefore I am where I am. Nothing, not one thing, was "destroyed by my studies." I started as a true believer. My private study of physics, astronomy, geology, cosmology, biology, and religious history get the credit for a new percipience.
Steve, have you spent time analyzing your beliefs in light of what is now known in physics, astronomy, geology, cosmology, biology and religious history?
Bugs: 'Steve, have you spent time analyzing your beliefs in light of what is now known in physics, astronomy, geology, cosmology, biology and religious history?'
Yes Bugs I have. And you mistook my tone. I only asked because I too have studied theology (amongst other degrees in law, anthropology, history, political science, management and military studies) at a "secular" non-demoninational seminary, and it certainly did challenge my belief. It did destroy some of my previous preconceptions, but not my faith, as it seems to have done to you.
So feel free to ask away, if you want to challenge me. I doubt there is anything you can throw at me that Elaine Nelso hasn't done in the last 3 or more years.
OK, Steve, do you accept that all religious discourse is metaphor? Is that the device that holds your participation in Adventism? If not, what criteria do you apply to ascertain "truth."
My faith, spiritual concerns, have not been destroyed. Modified. I am a Christian. However. I don't think for one minute the words exercised in Christian discourse are related to even one verifiable fact. They point to something unknowable and outside of human perception, therefore, a metaphor. Language, is a code, an attempt to precisely invoke an image in the mind of another a copy of an image in the speaker/writers mind. Metaphor admits to imprecision, entertains mystery, permits a direction to thought, operates without verification.
That means one can, if he wants, keep his traditional Christian language collection operating while knowing it isn't factually true while proclaiming his faith.
"God is love," to me, Is the ultimate metaphor. In a nutshell, that is Christianity. It is simple, I like that.
Bugs,
You are certainly not the only Christian or SDA who has studied these subjects extensively and had legitimate questions. To a spiritual person the answers may not even matter. I do not claim multiple degrees, but my study at Whittier years ago opened my eyes to the greatness of our Creator and built up my spiritual life at the time. The only reason, I believe, is because I prayed about it every day, and my eyes were opened to the real truths behind the scientific facts presented.
I still have a big interest in science and have read many books on astrophysics and quantum mechanics and still enjoy Scientific American, but from a different perspective. Theology could gain a lot from physics with some imagination. We just don't know it all; and that's exciting.
You position above dooes not seemed very "nuanced" at all. Nor does it seem very
Christlike. Oh well. I certainly am not at all tempted to attend your church.
Joe what makes someone "Christ like"? What was Christ like?
Who are you answering? I don't see anything in what I wrote that could be conceived of as insulting. Please explain, Joe. Or is it for someone else?
Ella, I think it was a dig at me, for my "nuanced" reply to Elaine. Just a subjective drive-by statement.
I apologize, Ella. My sniping comment was aimed at Steve.
Steve, I also apologize to you. Who am I to talk to anyone about what is "Christlike?"
My idea of what that means is very vague, at best.
Right on, Joe, we really don't know what Christ was. The record of what he did and said was transferred by memory and word of mouth. There is evidence he was attempting to reestablish theocracy at a time when Rome ruled and the priestly/temple was a hotbed of corruption. There is evidence of revision and reinterpretation by later followers to conform his legacy to meet needs of a new Christian orthodoxy. As is the case with all religious belief, humans adopt what they like and convert opinion to fact, universal truth.
All historians agree that the figure of Jesus as found in the Bible (there are no other sources), is that of an apocalyptic preacher. There were many in Judaism before and after Jesus, so he was not seen as unusual at the time. It was only after the disciples reported the empty tomb and Jesus began appearing as a "spirit" that the stories began to spread of his unusual life.
The earliest Gospel writer, Mark, began Christ's ministry at His baptism which is now called the adoptionist theory as compared with the incarnational view that Jesus position as more than a man began at His birth. John, the latest Gospel, is called the creationist view as his Gospel begins with Jesus as the logos or word that created the world. These each gradually elevated their description of Jesus which reflected the early Christians perceptions as they evolved.
While Paul, the earliest writer of the NT, wrote only of his perceptions as he was told by others and he perceived Jesus as always a man, but with extra God-given powers. The early writers are a clue to what Christians perceived in the earliest years of Christianity; and compared to the later ones, it is quite evident that there was a gradual transition in elevating Christ to a higher exalted state.
Reading the Gospels sequentially according to when they were written demonstrates that the oldest, Mark, assumes that it was at his batptism that Jesus became the Son of God. Matthew and Luke a little later, indicate that Jesus became the Son of God when he was born; and the the last Gospel, John, presents Jesus as the Son of God from before creation,.
Does God have a menu of "open" and "closed/private" sins.Are we not all in the same boat as sinners in need of a Saviour? Isn't all this "open" vs. "private" stuff made up by us so that we can think of ourselves better then the person whose sin we know of ? God gave us a list of the sins He really hates the most in Proverbs 6:16 and as far as I know no one has ever been denied the office of pastor or any other leadership position in S.D.A. church or general conference or been disfellowshiped while being guilty of one of these sins. So before using our puny,self-righteous, man-made list,let's use God's list first
Better yet, let's not have a list. Let God do the judging as he told us we are not to judge.
Yes, so the church really is a "club for saints" rather than a "refuge for sinners." Is that what you really want?
Who wants a club with only saints allowed?
Who so ever will, may come, and deny them not for of such is the kingdom of heaven.