We don't talk about being BORN AGAIN

[Stan]

When asked about going to heaven, Jesus answer "You must be born again".

Yet we never talk about that, seems to be the key thing. Perhaps we are too afraid that we might sound like, ehmmm, "Them".

[John317]

When asked about going to heaven, Jesus answer "You must be born again".

Yet we never talk about that, seems to be the key thing. Perhaps we are too afraid that we might sound like, ehmmm, "Them".

"You have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and abiding word of God." 1 Peter 1: 23

"...Children of God...who are born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." John 1:12, 13.

"No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: any one who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother." 1 John 3: 9, 10.

"Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God...No one has beheld God at any time; if we love one another, God abides in us, and His love is perfected in us." 1 John 4:7,12

"This is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome. For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that has overecome the world-- our faith...We know that no one who is born of God sins; but He who was born of God keeps him and the evil one does not touch him." 1 John 5:3,4, 18.

[Gerr]

Perhaps the reason we talk more about growth rather than being born again is because newborns make a lot of messes, and if not changed quickly,will become real stinky. They seem to be doing nothing but #1 or #2, or both. We want them to grow up real fast, often an unrealistic expectation. That is something many of us who have been in the church a long time tend to forget.

Gerry

[John317]

I agree with you. A major problem related to this is that the church is baptizing or accepting into membership many who have never known either true repentence or conversion, and many who know almost nothing of what the Seventh-day Adventist church represents or even of what the Bible teaches.

[Woody]

I have to opposite view of John317.

I think the problem is that we wait to long to baptize. We have such a long list of sins that they need to overcome before they are baptized that is creates a legalistic perception of our church. Jesus says ... come to me as you are. And that includes what limited knowledge you might have.

Baptism is a sign that we want to know Christ. Even those of us who have been baptized for years still do not know of Christ as we should.

All those who believe on the name of Jesus should be baptized. The gospel is very simple. The saving power of Jesus is simple. If we accept Christ as our Savior then we should be baptized. And that means that we will just have to learn all 28 of the doctrines a little later.

None of the early Christians understood the 27 now 28 doctrines before baptism. I think we can commit our lives to Jesus and He and His Spirit will guide us into all truths. But these truths are not required BEFORE baptism.

[GreatLakesGramma]

I was an adventist for 13 years before I understood what it really meant to be born again, and finally experienced it. It was the most important event of my life, the one that finally made it possible for me to really change inside, and begin to gain victories over temptation and sin. I feel that it is the most important thing the church should be teaching. Without it, all the doctrines are worth nothing. So long as "self" is on the throne of our lives, we are lost, not matter how closely we adhere to doctrines and practises. And once a person is born again, everything else follows.

[Woody]

Thank you Catherine. That was a beautiful testimony and so true.

[Neil D]

A major problem related to this is that the church is baptizing or accepting into membership many who have never known either true repentence or conversion, and many who know almost nothing of what the Seventh-day Adventist church represents or even of what the Bible teaches.

I question the latter part of the above statement....but be that as it may, what I am wondering about is the concept John has mentioned.... "many who have never known either true repentence or conversion..."

My question is this, is 'true repentence" or 'true conversion' able to be distinguished from a common repentence/conversion? If so, how?

[Naomi]

Originally Posted By: John317

A major problem related to this is that the church is baptizing or accepting into membership many who have never known either true repentence or conversion, and many who know almost nothing of what the Seventh-day Adventist church represents or even of what the Bible teaches.

I question the latter part of the above statement....but be that as it may, what I am wondering about is the concept John has mentioned.... "many who have never known either true repentence or conversion..."

My question is this, is 'true repentence" or 'true conversion' able to be distinguished from a common repentence/conversion? If so, how?

Good question Neil, additionionally I am wondering if we are discussing baptizing people into the family of God or into the SDA Church?

[Naomi]

If we baptize them into the Family of God/SDA Church why do we then have to "vote" them into the Church?

[Woody]

Good question Naomi.

I will tell you my perspective.

The Bible describes Baptism as joining the body of Christ or Family of God. The SDA chruch has tied Baptism to Membership.An SDA minister is not suppose to Baptize you unless you agree to join the church. Joining the church is like joining a club and therefore needs a vote. The church is getting into legal problems because of its practice.

A Texas Conference church was sued by a member that got kicked out of an SDA church. They claimed discrimination based upon their sexual behavior and won. The church was required to restore this person's membership . I am not sure of what damages were won. But it demonstrates the problem with a club type membership with the church. The laws of the land do not allow for you to discriminate against an American citizen based on their sexual orientation.

The church is free to preach what it believes but when it has membership it can not discriminate against someone it doesn't like. I am not sure what would happen if they were to spell out specifically that if you did certain sexual acts that you could not be a member. I don't know. But the church has not spelled out these membership requirements in a specific manner. And I am not saying they should.

What I am saying is they should stop the voting and stop membership all together. It is not a Biblical approach.

The sooneer we can accept and love those who desire to follow Christ the sooner we can hasten our Lords return.

[Gerr]

I'd like to know more about the Texas incident. I don't see how the courts could breach the issue of separation of church and state and force the church to take back into membership someone openly practising immorality.

Stop voting and stop membership all together? Sorry, but that's the most ridiculous notion I've heard in a while.

Gerry

[Woody]

Gerry ... I would like to know more about the Texas Law Suit also. I watched it on 3ABN this weekend and I did not see the entire show about it. So ... my information is incomplete. I hope others on CA can fill us in a little better.

I will tell you my impression from listening to it.

I do not believe it is a separation of Church and State issue because they are not telling the church what they can believe or preach. What they are telling the Church is that you can not discriminate with membership in a club based on a sexual preference or activity. The problem is that the church does not have a clearly defined list of who can be members and under what circumstances. Now I don't believe we should. But the State is saying that in this country you can not discriminate against American citizens when you are having membership.

The State views the church as a club when they have membership. And I believe this is correct. I hope it will cause the church to do away with membership.

The question is if the church clearly stated and practiced rules of kicking all those who "openly practiced immorality" out of the church ... then would the State accept that as nondiscriminatory? I don't know. I do not have all the information on the courts decision against the Church.

But, the church would have to be consistant about inforcing such rules or it would be discriminatory. And I sure pray that the church does not get into the judging business.

[Woody]

Quote:

Stop voting and stop membership all together? Sorry, but that's the most ridiculous notion I've heard in a while.

I would like to point out to you Gerry ... that most churches in America ... and the biggest congregations in America have done this "ridiculous notion". They seem to be doing just fine without having membership and the need to vote on whether we view a person is "worthy" of being a member of the Body of Christ.

I would like to know how you can justify judging other Christians which is specifically prohibitied in scripture. Jesus said he was all about salvation and refused to judge until the time of the end. Judging is His job and He has refused to do it until the end of time. So ... how can you justify such a "ridiculous notion" as to do what Jesus himself refused to do?

You will not find anywhere in scripture where there was judgment and voting to determine if an individual was worthy of baptism. If there was membership then Phillip would have had to ask for a vote when he Baptized the Eunich. But since no one was around ... he obviously did not hold a vote before Baptism like the SDA church does. No SDA pastor is allowed to baptize unless the person agrees to be a "member" of the SDA church and a vote is held. In fact the Manual says that the decision to Baptize is such a serious decision that it is "theologically questionable for a pastor to take the sole responsibility". This is on page 127 of my Pastors Manual edition. It goes on to say that candidates for baptism should be approved before a group such as the elders or chuch board. Again this is on Page 127 of the Pastors Manual.

What I am saying is that the only way you can join the SDA church is through a vote of the congregation. In the early church you joined the Body of Christ through baptism and without a vote.

The Early Church did not have voting before membership. They did not have membership. IF they did then the Eunich would not have been able to be baptized as he was.

I would be interested to know how you can biblically support such a "ridiculous notion" like judging other Christians. Where do you find voting for Membership Before Baptism in scripture.

I would propose that this policy is not Biblical and is not efficient . The large nondenominational churches in America have proven that membership is not efficient. Personally ... I have seen both in a church. I was the church clerk for a 700 member SDA church. It was not effective to have such a large membership list when many of those were either dead or dead wood. Only approx. 250 - 300 were active to any degree with this church. Trying to communicate with such a large list was ineffective. The nondenominational churches have an unofficial list of those that want to be on the list and are active and interested in the church. This is much more effective.

I guess this may be a key as to why they are growing and so large. We start people off with the misunderstanding of legalism when we focus so much on behavioral requirements and judging our members. So ... if we do away with membership and the voting then we do away with the judging and the judging spirit of our church.

I would hope that you might reconsider your comment about this being "the most ridiculous notion I've heard in a while." Perhaps you were to quick in your judgment of my beliefs. I would not want to call your heartfelt beliefs "rediculous" just because I didn't understand them. I think that good Christian minds can disagree. And I hope we can repect each others different paths. I do not expect to change your beliefs. But I would hope to get you to respect that I have respectful beliefs that just happen to differ with yours.

[Gerr]

Quote:

I do not believe it is a separation of Church and State issue because they are not telling the church what they can believe or preach. What they are telling the Church is that you can not discriminate with membership in a club based on a sexual preference or activity.

I am not a lawyer, so I cannot be dogmatic about this. But what you are telling seems contradictory, i.e. that they cannot tell the church what to believe or preach and yet say they cannot exclude certain people on the basis of those beliefs?

Quote:

The problem is that the church does not have a clearly defined list of who can be members and under what circumstances.

No clearly defined list of who can be members? What defines a Catholic? A Methodist? A Baptist? A Seventh-day Adventist?

Quote:

Now I don't believe we should. But the State is saying that in this country you can not discriminate against American citizens when you are having membership.

Have the Courts disbanded the Boy Scouts of America yet? They don't allow known homosexuals as leaders. The ACLU? They don't allow known conservatives who are not in agreement with their agenda.

Do you realize what can happen when we don't have some sort of criteria as to who is what? You'll have a priest openly preaching abortion. A SDA preaching Sunday-sacredness. A Baptist preaching eternal damnation even after one has professed belief in Christ!

Quote:

The State views the church as a club when they have membership. And I believe this is correct. I hope it will cause the church to do away with membership.

I'll leave it to the lawyers to tell me if this is correct or not; it just doesn't sound correct to me.

Quote:

The question is if the church clearly stated and practiced rules of kicking all those who "openly practiced immorality" out of the church ... then would the State accept that as nondiscriminatory? I don't know.

[color:blue] I suggest you read your church manual. It will tell you who has the authority to disfelloship wayward members and by what criteria.

Quote:

But, the church would have to be consistant about inforcing such rules or it would be discriminatory. And I sure pray that the church does not get into the judging business.

Actually, the churches (not just SDA) have been very lenient with wayward members. As for your prayer about the church not getting into the judging business, I doubt that that prayer would be answered affirmatively because it is contrary to Scripture. Read 1 Cor 5.

Gerry

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Quote:

...most churches in America ... and the biggest congregations in America have done this "ridiculous notion". They seem to be doing just fine without having membership....

Here's a quote from one of the largest churches in the US - Saddleback...note the requirement for MEMBERSHIP towards the end of the statement:

Quote:

WHO SHOULD BE BAPTIZED?

1. Every person who has believed in Christ.

**snip**

2. At Saddleback, we wait until our children are old enough to believe and understand the true meaning of baptism before we baptize them.

Some churches practice a "baptism of confirmation" for children.

**snip**

This is different from the baptism talked about in the Bible which was only for those old enough to believe. The purpose is to publicly confess your personal commitment to Christ. At Saddleback, it is a membership requirement that every member must have been baptized the way Jesus demonstrated, even though many of us were "confirmed" as children.

saddleback membership

[Woody]

Gerry ... I would encourage you to re-read 1 Cor.5 .

[Woody]

And Pam ... you are so right ... NOT every big church has done away with membership but many have. I think the point is that we don't need it as evidenced by MANY churches big and small.

All I can say is that I have been involved in churches that found that membership was counterproductive and they just did away with it.

[Gerr]

Quote:

Stop voting and stop membership all together? Sorry, but that's the most ridiculous notion I've heard in a while.

I would like to point out to you Gerry ... that most churches in America ... and the biggest congregations in America have done this "ridiculous notion".

Could you tell me ONE church that has no membership and no voting? How do they choose their pastor? Their deacons?

Quote:

They seem to be doing just fine without having membership and the need to vote on whether we view a person is "worthy" of being a member of the Body of Christ.

Can I be a Catholic and preach against the Pope as the anti-christ?

Quote:

I would like to know how you can justify judging other Christians which is specifically prohibitied in scripture.

Methinks you are misunderstanding what Jesus said. As I said in my other post, read 1 Cor 5 & Mt 18:15-20. Do you share the gospel? Why? Is it not because you have correctly judged that if they do not have it they would be lost?

Quote:

Jesus said he was all about salvation and refused to judge until the time of the end. Judging is His job and He has refused to do it until the end of time. So ... how can you justify such a "ridiculous notion" as to do what Jesus himself refused to do?

See 1 Cor 5 & Mt 18:15-20.

Quote:

You will not find anywhere in scripture where there was judgment and voting to determine if an individual was worthy of baptism.

Saul the persecutor was not accepted as a believer until his belief in Christ was ascertained and the "pillars" of the church gave him "the right hand of fellowship." Gal 2:9. In places where Paul & his companions raised churches, they "appointed to them by VOTE elders in every assembly," Ac 14:23 YLT. God told the Israelites that no Moabite, Ammonite, were to be admitted into the congregation "to the 10th generation. The Gospel is at once very inclusive but also at the same time exclusive. And that is not an oxymoron.

Quote:

No SDA pastor is allowed to baptize unless the person agrees to be a "member" of the SDA church and a vote is held.

I personally believe that if a person professes to believe in Jesus as his Lord & Savior and wish to be baptized but not necessarily want to become SDA, they should be baptized.

Quote:

What I am saying is that the only way you can join the SDA church is through a vote of the congregation. In the early church you joined the Body of Christ through baptism and without a vote.

And that's the way it should be. It's not that we want to be exclusive. We just can't have Mormons proclaiming themselves to be SDAs and be telling people that we can become gods. Not have people claiming to be SDAs proclaiming we should bow to the authority of the pope.

Quote:

The Early Church did not have voting before membership. They did not have membership. IF they did then the Eunich would not have been able to be baptized as he was.

If they did not have membership, then why did they count how many baptizms they had? The silence of Scripture about a certain issue neither argues for nor against its inclusion or exclusion.

Gerry

[Woody]

Quote:

I suggest you read your church manual. It will tell you who has the authority to disfelloship wayward members and by what criteria.

Gerry ... If you will read your manual you will find that it is not specific. What you will find is that you can be disciplined for any sin. In fact you can be kicked out of the church "even though a sincere confession has been made" CM 162

The problem is that it is so comprehensive that it just means that you can have discipline whenever 51% who happen to attend a certain business meeting decide to do so. I found that if you could get less than 4 or 5 % of the membership to support an action then the person would get kicked out. I have seen it personally.

What the court was looking for I think was not to just say to the court that if the person sins then they can be kicked out. The court knows that ALL have sinned so the individual has been singled out because of their sexual difference.

Like I say ... I am only guessing because I did not hear the entire program on 3ABN. For some reason the President of the Michigan Conference was talking about it. But it happened in Texas.

[Gerr]

Gerry ... I would encourage you to re-read 1 Cor.5 .

Alright, I will. Here is what it says about the Corithians' tolerance of sexual immorality:

[color:red]How, then, can you be proud? On the contrary, you should be filled with sadness, and the man who has done such a thing should be expelled from your fellowship." 1 Cor 5:2 GNT.

"...should be put out of your group." NASB

"...put out of your fellowship." NIV

"...taken away from among you." NKJ.

Is that not clear enough?

Gerry

[Gerr]

How specific should it be before it is specific enough for you?

Gerry

[Gerr]

Friend, there may be problems as you describe having membership requirements, but I don't think you realize the chaos that would ensue if membership and voting are done away with.

Gerry

[Woody]

Gerry … I can tell you that most nondenominational churches do not have membership.

It is the Board of the Church that controls the hiring of a Pastor. I have been on such a Board.

There IS voting at the Board meeting. When a church is organized … a Board is established.

Leaders are assigned by the Board. This type of voting of the Spiritual Gifts of those that attend is good in my eyes.

It protects your concerns about people coming in and preaching Mormonism. Employers are expected to make judgments.

It is when you judge the sins of an individual and determine they are not worthy to associate with in Christian fellowship that it is wrong.

I think you are misinterpreting the scripture you have quoted.

Quote:

Do you share the gospel? Why? Is it not because you have correctly judged that if they do not have it they would be lost?

No Gerry .... I do not make that judgment. I leave judgment up to Christ. I give witness to Christ because I love Him and love to share about what He has done in my life. I share it with all who I come in contact with. I do not share it with just those who MIGHT be lost. I do not judge.

Quote:

Saul the persecutor was not accepted as a believer until his belief in Christ was ascertained

Yes Gerry ... Once an individual has expressed his belief in Christ and his desire to follow Christ through Baptism ... then we are to accept them into fellowship as a believer. But this does not mean a member as we know it. The early church did not vote on membership or baptism ... you were baptized and then accepted. The only way you can be a member of the SDA church is not through baptism as with the Early Church ... but it is through a vote of the people.

Quote:

then why did they count how many baptizms they had?

Baptisms are something to praise God for. But I do not see your point. Counting Baptisms is not the same as counting a membership. Membership is accomplished ONLY through a vote. Baptism is a public display of wanting to follow Jesus and going down into the water. The two are not the same.

[John317]

If we go back into the history of the Christian Church, it appears that the major reason the church began to go into apostasy is that a great many unconverted people brought false beliefs and practices into the church. The Church was so anxious to attract non-Christians that it accepted almost anyone, including pagans, who hadn't even left off their false beliefs. I think we as a church can have that same experience. Ellen White addressed that issue on a number of ocassions.

A difference has to be made (and I believe is made) between those who have demonstrated that they have experienced repentence and conversion and are ready for membership and those who simply choose to study and worship with us.