Leaderboard

I like the "big tent" approach. This means that the tent ought to be large enough also to include those who would like a narrower tent. It's a bit of a paradox, but it should be done (IMO). Jesus also showed unconditional Christian love to the Pharisees of his day, and after His death and resurrection, selected one of them to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles.

Love all; respect all; hold true to your principles and beliefs. Far easier said than done. The church has to be welcoming and accommodating also to those with more traditional beliefs/standards. Welcoming the nonconformists while showing no love or tolerance to the more traditional or conservative brethren is no solution (in my opinion)> It's not easy, but we try. In many ways my congregation is rather "liberal", and I'm probably on the liberal end of the liberals. But we do have more "conservative" members, including very good friends of ours. Our fellowship lunches are strictly vegetarian, even though the majority of the members are not. We do not serve/consume caffeinated beverages at church functions even though a sizeable minority do in private. Even though the vast majority of our members (including our pastor) have no issues with church business meetings (including the discussion of church financial affairs) on sabbath, out of respect for a handful of members with different views, we hold our business meeting Saturday after sunset. On the other hand, our music is decidedly contemporary; but we have one traditional hymn each sabbath. Dress is rather casual for men, but we ask those leading out to wear jackets and ties; the speaker will almost always wear a suit. We have no women elders; but a few times per year women do preach. It is announced well in advance so that those who are uncomfortable with women preachers can attend another congregation that sabbath. We try to make a place for everyone; we don't always succeed.

I don't believe jackson said he didn't believe he was saved. He said there is no such thing as "past" salvation. I agree that I wasn't "saved" in the past. The opportunity to be saved was presented to me, contingent upon my CHOICE to believe in Christ. That being said, I am confident in my salvation as long as I keep believing it is God who saved me through Jesus Christ. I am also confident that I could very well lose that salvation if I permanently turn my back on Jesus, no matter how much I "overcome evil with good", whatever that means.

In Jesus' last prayer, He prayed for those who would believe through the teaching of the disciples. That means Jesus understood that He would carry their sin also - though they themselves, had not yet believed in Him, or confessed their sins (John 17:20). Also in this prayer to His Father, Jesus specifically said, "I DO NOT PRAY for the world" (Jn 17:9). This fits will with Hebrews 7:25. "Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them."

Bonnie asked in the quote below: Sabbath observance, dress, and many other standards differ, sometimes considerably among SDAs from differing countries. while we may be shocked at some of what we witness as we travel on other countries, they are often just as shocked at us as we are at them. Like it or not, many of our standards are based upon cultural norms and not explicit Biblical standards. That may not be bad in itself as religion must exist in society. It should be noted that when people migrate to the U.S. they will likely bring with them the standards that they experienced in the SDA congregations that they attended in their home country. Should we expect them to change their lives and conform to our standards. I have experienced this both as a student at the Seminary in the lives of the students from other countries and in the congregations in which I worshiped when I was living on other countries. I can't help but think of an elected General Conference who traveled a lot. In talking with us Seminary students he told us how when he visited certain countries he would be asked not to bring a specific musical instrument with him as in that country that instrument was not allowed to be played in a SDA church. Folks, whether we know it or not, some of what we consider to be foundational to Adventism, may not be so considered in other parts of the world. And in turn in those parts they may consider some thing to be foundational to Adventism that we do not so consider here.

The "one man" - "one body" is now made up of Hebrews who believe in Jesus, and non-Hebrews who believe in Jesus. But ALL (in the body) must believe in Jesus. No-one is "grafted in" to "the congregation of Israel", the betrothed BRIDE of Christ, who does not believe in Him. Jesus abolished "the hatred" between Hebrews and non-Hebrews. He abolished the commandment to regard the physically uncircumcised as "unclean" (to be avoided, so far as any covenant, and not allowed to enter the Tabernacle). This was reinforced in the roof vision of Peter. But the admonition to avoid the "ungodly" or the "worldly" still applies. Those who "walk together" are agreed, so far as their belief in Christ. The "one man" and "one body" IS NOT the entire world.

The Greek word translated as "church" IS the same Greek word used in the Septuagint. But in the OT Septuagint - it is translated into English as "the congregation" or "the assembly". From Exodus onward "the congregation" is always "the congregation OF Israel" or "the congregation OF the LORD". Never - does "the congregation" refer to the whole of mankind. When we get to the New Testament, unbelievers are "broken off" FROM "Israel" and believers are "grafted in" to "the congregation of Israel" (the CHURCH). Christ "has been made the head of all things to the congregation". [He IS NOT YET "head" over this world, because He has NOT YET been given DOMINION over this world. THAT will come at the end of this age.] He is HEAD of the congregation, because He is the espoused "husband" OF "the congregation of Israel". The intended "wife" must consent to the marriage - by covenant. THIS is how we are "written in the Book". Just as the LORD divorced the 10 Northern Tribes of Israel, Jesus will "divorce" those who are unfaithful to their covenant with Him (without confession/repentance). These will be "broken off" and "blotted out". In the New Testament Scriptures - "the church" is always used to describe those who believe in Christ, and seek to serve Him. It is never used to refer to "the whole world" or "the whole of mankind". "the congregation of Israel" IS "the body of Christ". Conclusion: All of mankind WAS NOT made into the Body of Christ.

Keep in mind: We were both having fun.

A few years ago, I was attending Catholic Church with my mom. I was sitting along the aisle. The deaconess in charge asked me if I would bring the bread and wine up for the Offertory Prayer. I informed her that I was not a Catholic. She responded "So? are you a Christian?" I responded "Yes". She said "Then you are welcome to bring the gifts to the altar to be offered to your God". I was touched; and I did.

What is the attraction for some wanting to define themselves as a SDA and have so little in agreement with the denomination? Especially considering "duck and oysters and a pepperoni accidentally touching your garlic wholewheat bread topped with yummy cashew butter at a family holiday gathering". I have never had oysters and pepperoni at a family gathering but certainly doing so would void any importance of all biblical instruction. With the focus of some on the hypocrisy of "those other" christians in good standing it must be a very important consideration when trying to justify one's own behavior. It would seem Paul is hopelessly outdated and should be dismissed as having any application for conduct of those within the church. Obviously many feel they have more divine insight. Should we do away with the Seventh Day portion of our official name? Why not If there is resentment towards the biblical teaching of the Sabbath or the unfair expectation that those that CHOOSE voluntarily to request membership understand the reason for Sabbath observance and accept it. What right does anyone have to chastise me for anything if there has been a comparable behavior on their part as in duck and oysters and a pepperoni accidentally touching your garlic wholewheat bread topped with yummy cashew butter at a family holiday gathering" These type of issues keep being repeated so they must be important. It does serve the purpose of making the lifestyle choices of some just a little more acceptable My relational life choices should not enter into my membership regardless. Why can't I be head deaconess on Sabbath after spending FRi night at the local bar? This thread has several references to "those others" I know for a fact there is not one that doesn't have something. In a situation very close to me concerning relational life choices,the legal representative of the MNSDA conference agreed with you. In a interview following the settlement of the deliberate destruction of two families, very negative impact on a large congregation,the "affair" by the pastor with a troubled member was explained away as it was just their time to fall in love. Sometimes children are unfortunate by-products . I am sure there are those that think I am wrong but I want some consideration as to lifestyle,belief, and example to those that lead out in our denomination. I would not want someone that drinks,or believes it is just fine to hold a non critical job on sabbath or after all grab some overtime. Relational life issues would be very important to some of us as to those that teach our children. Whether or not they ever ate chips or not I would not want someone teaching my children that adultery, alcohol, living a gay lifestyle,choosing to work on sabbath,or keeping an eagle on on all "those others" to somehow make relational life choice more acceptable regardless of what they are. For me,I will stick with poor outdated and irrelevant Paul and the biblical instruction that is available to all.