Membership of the SDA Church....

[Woody]

yeah, here 'tis: http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthread...html#Post379181

Well stated Bravus. We are privileged to have you here.

[Woody]

Quote:

How are we to guard the flocks from wolves, if we are not to have any means of defining them at all?

By example brother. By example and preaching it. Preach brother Preach. It is then left between them and the Holy Spirit.

[Twilight]

Remember, there are two things Jesus is talking about with the Fish and Tares analogies and False Shepherd analogy.

1. The Fish and Tares represent those that are "hidden" in the church - professing the truth.

2. The False Shepherds are those that are clearly open and teaching error.

We do not deal with both groups the same.

In fact, we can only deal with the second group, as we are instructed to.

[John317]

i quite agree with ellen whites thoughts in the two posts i posted. i also agree with the bible texts i posted.

Yes, I agree with the Bible texts also. But where do the texts show anything different from what Ellen White is saying? They don't disagree, do they?

What I am asking you is whether you agree with the position of the SDA church on the question of membership?

[Woody]

Quote:

What I am asking you is whether you agree with the position of the SDA church on the question of membership?

The current postion of the church is one of methodology and could easily be changed if the Spirit lead. It's not one of Gospel. Our prophet indicated that we should be open to changes in methodology. Perhaps some day we will be. Until then ... as for me ... I will personally support the method the church is currently opperating under.

[John317]

How are we to guard the flocks from wolves, if we are not to have any means of defining them at all?

Originally Posted By: Woody

By example brother. By example and preaching it. Preach brother Preach. It is then left between them and the Holy Spirit.

You mention example. But if the church has no membership and anyone can call themselves an SDA, what example would there be? Who would be able to know what an SDA is or what the church stands for or what it believes?

And as for preaching, if we have no organization and if anyone can preach on Sabbath morning or on other days, who is to say what is being preached?

Isn't the giving of Bible studies also a way of guarding the flocks from the wolves?

But without membership, anyone could give Bible studies in the name of Christ and claim to represent the SDA church and no one would have any way of being sure whether the teacher really represents the church.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

yeah, here 'tis: http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthread...html#Post379181

Well stated Bravus. We are privileged to have you here.

The question of enjoyment of Bravus presence amongst us is not the issue Woody.

I enjoy his discussions and look forward to many more.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

So a White Witch could walk into our church and say that the Holy Spirit wants her to be a leader and that would be ok?

Originally Posted By: rudywoofs

"White" witches do just that, whether you know it or not.

Originally Posted By: John317

Do you believe there should be any attempt to determine who they are and prevent them from being a leader in the church? Should White Witches be allowed to teach in the church or to be a pastor or elder, for instance?

There actually is NO SUCH THING as a "White" witch... that's why I used quotes around the word. It is only an attempt to use power emanating from the wrong source and mingling it within Christianity. So your questions are moot.

Very difficult to discern whether one is, in fact, a witch.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

So a White Witch could walk into our church and say that the Holy Spirit wants her to be a leader and that would be ok?

Originally Posted By: rudywoofs

"White" witches do just that, whether you know it or not.

Originally Posted By: John317

Do you believe there should be any attempt to determine who they are and prevent them from being a leader in the church? Should White Witches be allowed to teach in the church or to be a pastor or elder, for instance?

There actually is NO SUCH THING as a "White" witch... that's why I used quotes around the word. It is only an attempt to use power emanating from the wrong source and mingling it within Christianity. So your questions are moot.

Very difficult to discern whether one is, in fact, a witch.

I would agree.

But we both know that there are many witches that claim to be "white", right?

Therefore justifying their actions as good intentions. :-)

[John317]

Yes John. I think you're right. If people are going to believe error ... God is not going to stop them.

But when they do so ... they are no longer part of the Seventh day Adventist Church.

Are you saying that when people in the church believe and teach error, even though they are officially SDA, they are really no longer a part of the Seventh-day Adventist Church?

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Woody

Yes John. I think you're right. If people are going to believe error ... God is not going to stop them.

But when they do so ... they are no longer part of the Seventh day Adventist Church.

Are you saying that when people in the church believe and teach error, even though they are officially SDA, they are really no longer a part of the Seventh-day Adventist Church?

I have asked the same question. :-)

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Woody

Yes John. I think you're right. If people are going to believe error ... God is not going to stop them.

But when they do so ... they are no longer part of the Seventh day Adventist Church.

Are you saying that when people in the church believe and teach error, even though they are officially SDA, they are really no longer a part of the Seventh-day Adventist Church?

They are not representing the church might be a better way to state it.

[John317]

Right! Woke up this morning, read the 96(!) new posts in this thread since I went to sleep! Here are some reflections:

1. John317 dropped in a number of quotes from EGW (but no actual Scripture), without context, and repeated his assertions (<-- note neutral word choice) that others were throwing out the guidance of the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy.

As we discuss this, there will be plenty of Bible texts given, and we will be talking about church government from the viewpoint of both the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy.

Do you believe what Ellen White wrote in the quotes I gave below? (The references are given so that if you want to look for yourself at the contexts, you can do that.)

Ellen White said, "The Redeemer of the world does not sanction experience and exercise in religious matters independent of His organized and acknowledged church, where He has a church." 3 T 433

"The word of God does not give license for one man to set up his judgment in opposition to the judgment of the church, neither is he allowed to urge his opinion against the opinions of the church. If there were no church discipline and government, the church would go to fragments; it could not hold together as a body." 3 T 428

What we need to do is be willing to submit our ideas and opinions to the Bible and the Spirit of prophey. If we do that, there will be agreement on this matter. If we don't, it will be every person for himself, and it will be chaos and confusion.

The Devil would like nothing better than for the church to go to fragments and not hold together as a body, as Ellen White said would happen without church discipline and government. Such would only lead the SDA church to be a church of confusion, which is exactly what characterizes Babylon. Let's listen and obey what God's prophet for these last days has written on this topic.

What say you?

Quote:

Then Teresa quoted some EGW, and was extensively challenged about context and what it meant. Still, 22 pages and hundreds of posts later, no clear, solid, well argued Biblical case for a church membership that excludes those with some doctrinal differences.

No one challenged any quotes. I asked her to explain what she believes the quotes have to do with the question of church membership. In other words, I merely asked her to give some comments so we could understand what her point was in posting the quotes. That is not challenging the quotes. It is asking what she thinks and how she believes those quotes relate to the discussion.

Do you believe this is a perfectly reasonable request or do you still maintain that it was an "extensive challenge"?

[Woody]

Quote:

You mention example. But if the church has no membership and anyone can call themselves an SDA, what example would there be?

No different than it is now.

Quote:

Who would be able to know what an SDA is or what the church stands for or what it believes?

No different than it is now.

Quote:

And as for preaching, if we have no organization and if anyone can preach on Sabbath morning or on other days, who is to say what is being preached?

Who said there is not organization? I've not read that ANYwhere. Please provide a quote you are referring to. The organization would not change. It would just be that anyone who wanted to be members could be members. OR ... no one would be called members. Either way. The organization would stay the same.

Quote:

But without membership, anyone could give Bible studies in the name of Christ and claim to represent the SDA church and no one would have any way of being sure whether the teacher really represents the church.

Just as it is now. The 28 Fundamentals would remain and be the judge of what is SDA and what is not.

[John317]

It's been an interesting discussion, but it's gone around and around in circles an enormous amount without getting to the heart: without Scripture it has no force at all.

This was posted several pages before, Bravus. I'd be interested to know your thoughts about it.

Originally Posted By: Bravus

What I don't see anywhere in those Fundamental Beliefs is anything about excluding people. Rather, I see:

"The church is one body with many members, called from every nation, kindred, tongue, and people. In Christ we are a new creation; distinctions of race, culture, learning, and nationality, and differences between high and low, rich and poor, male and female, must not be divisive among us. We are all equal in Christ, who by one Spirit has bonded us into one fellowship with Him and with one another; we are to serve and be served without partiality or reservation."

Originally Posted By: John3:17

Here are the standards according to this paragraph:

1) They are called into one body.

2) They are a new creation.

3) They are bonded by one Spirit into one fellowship with Christ and with one another.

4) They are to serve one another and be served by each other.

This, then, means that if people

----aren't "called into the one body,"

---- aren't a new creation,

---- aren't bonded by one Spirit into one fellowhip with Christ and with one antother

----- and aren't serving one another,

then they are really excluding themselves from membership in the church and the church therefore has no reason to accept them into membership. The church has an obligation to Christ as well as to the church at large to require evidence that people fulfill the above qualifications before they are accepted into membership. This is not true of being able to worship, pray, study, and fellowship with members of the church.

As I said before, membership in the church and the freedom to worship in the church are two separate issues. They have different purposes.

To put it simply, the church has a right and a duty to know who is being accepted into membership in the church. Christ gave that power and authority to the church. See Matt. 18: 15-20; 16: 19; Acts 15; 1 Cor. 5; Eph. 2, 3, 4, 5; Phil. 3; 1 & 2 Timothy; Titus; Rev. 1 to 3; 12, 14.

What are your thoughts on the points made and the texts used in support of those points?

There will be many more texts given as well as Ellen White statements as soon as I have an idea of what your thinking is on the issue of membership and the organization of the church.

As you read the thread, do you see disagreements that you have with anything Woody or CoAspen have said, or can I assume that since you didn't disagree with them at all, that you agree with them?

[John317]

One of the things that concerns me as the moderator here and as a moderator on other discussions is that participating members tend to group together against another group rather than all having a genuine and sincere discussion of the issues by expressing what they believe. Instead, people seem to tend to either hide or ignore their true disagreements with others for the sake of presenting a united front. That is not a good way to get at the truth of something. Whether we agree or disagree with someone's viewpoint or statements shouldn't have anything to do with what "side" of an issue we are on.

Do you agree with this?

In order to understand where you stand on this issue, would you be willing to look at Woody's post##400781, which immediately preceeds this one, and tell if you agree with what he says in response to a post of mine? Woody says that having no members would not change anything substantially in the church. Are you in agreement with this opinion? How do you see the lack of membership affecting the church and its mission?

[Bravus]

I won't be responding to EGW quotes either way. The SDA position is that doctrine ought to be able to be established on the basis of Scripture alone. If we can't do that we're on shaky doctrinal ground.

What I'm looking for is not snippets and bits and pieces of Scripture, but someone willing to put in the work to develop a clear, well laid out, well argued Scriptural doctrine on church membership. No-one has even gone close to that, and without that to discuss it *does* all come down to personal opinions.

I also won't be commenting on the views of Woody, CoAspen or other posters. They're quite capable of speaking for themselves. I think I've made my own views clear in my own words and that'll do for me.

Church membership is not, as far as I can tell, a Biblical concept at all. I'm happy to be shown where that view is in error.

[Bravus]

Your post above mine doesn't seem at all coherent, John317 - first and second paras are about *not* agreeing or disagreeing with others' comments, and in the third you ask me to agree or disagree with Woody's comments. As I said above, I think it's healthier if we each speak for ourselves. I don't see there being two 'sides' at all on this issue, but a variety of perspectives.

[Woody]

Quote:

Church membership is not, as far as I can tell, a Biblical concept at all. I'm happy to be shown where that view is in error.

This is the point on this issue. We need to go by the Bible and the Bible alone. There are those who push the idea or method of membership and try to claim that it is Biblical. Yet, they have not risen to your challenge and provided ANY Biblical proof. So, until that is done ... I will remind on the side of the anti-membership crowd.

BTW ... I agree with Bravus in opposition to the charge that there are sides here. This issue is not a matter of siding with one group or another. My differences with Bravus are well known. I just happen to agree with him on this particular issue.

[Dr. Shane]

"I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matt. 16:19)

Does this text not grant the church membership authority? I am interested in hearing how many understand this verse and what Christ was trying to communicate.

[Woody]

Quote:

Does this text not grant the church membership authority?

No. It simply states that whatever Jesus stated her on earth would be true. It states we can believe in God's word.

[Dr. Shane]

Here is the entire passage with bracketed commentary.

16. And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father who is in heaven.

18. And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter[meaning pebble], and upon this Rock [the Son mentioned in verse 16 and the Father mentioned in verse 17] I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

19. I will give unto thee [the church] the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou [the church] shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou [the church] shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Roman Catholics believe this passage sets Peter up as the first pope. Protestants believe it simply establishes the church as an organization to continue after Christ's ascension.

[John317]

I won't be responding to EGW quotes either way. The SDA position is that doctrine ought to be able to be established on the basis of Scripture alone. If we can't do that we're on shaky doctrinal ground.

Our position is not that Ellen White's writings are irrelevant or should not be understood and viewed as authority. Our position as a church is that our fundamental doctrines must be supported by the Bible. Ellen White has a great deal to add to that biblical evidence. While the fundamental beliefs are supported by Scripture alone, Ellen White was many details and additions in visions and dreams.

God raised up Ellen White as a spokesperson for Him in order for her to speak directly to us in our own language so we can't say that we didn't understand. She applies the principles of truth in Scripture to modern times.

So the question is, does Ellen White teach something on this topic that clearly contradicts the Bible. We don't believe that everything she says must also be said in the Bible.

Therefore, while you may not consider anything Ellen White says on the topic, most other SDAs will and so it is appropriate to quote and refer to her writings. After all, almost all the members who are participating in this discussion accept Ellen White as a prophet of God, and most of them quote her at length-- some at very great length-- on many subjects. It seems to me only appropriate, then, that we also quote both Scripture and Ellen White on this important question.

I think it's sad that you apparently refuse to take her writings into serious consideration on the question of church membership.

Originally Posted By: Bravus

What I'm looking for is not snippets and bits and pieces of Scripture, but someone willing to put in the work to develop a clear, well laid out, well argued Scriptural doctrine on church membership. No-one has even gone close to that, and without that to discuss it *does* all come down to personal opinions.

For one thing, that can only be said if one believers Ellen White's writings are "personal opinions."

Do you in fact believe her writings are little better than "personal opinions"?

What you suggest about the development of a "clear, well laid out, well argued Scriptural doctrine of church membership," is something that could be done here on the Forum, but I find it interesting that you are insisting on approaching this subject quite differently than most discussions on Club Adventist Forum. Why not approach it like we do most topics-- that is, as a conversation, or like a Socratic dialogue, a dialetic if you will? Why insist that someone write virtually a complete essay on the topic, which is what you appear to be doing?

That would be a neat thing, actually, and certainly worth while, but what I dont' understand, Bravus, is why you seem to insist that this be done first in order for you to be what I would call fully engaged in the discussion.

As I say, such an essay or paper wouldn't be hard to do, but it wouldn't be as much fun and as interesting (or, need I say, engaging) as simply talking about it with each other as if we were in the same room. I look upon these forums as conversations and informal exchanges, and that's the way I would hope to approach this topic with you, if that's possible.

Quote:

I also won't be commenting on the views of Woody, CoAspen or other posters. They're quite capable of speaking for themselves. I think I've made my own views clear in my own words and that'll do for me.

Each one of us is capable of speaking for themselves, so what does that have to do with anything?

I am also quite capable of speaking for myself, as is Twilight also, but yet I notice you comment quite a lot on our views. It's great that you comment on our views, but I wonder why you don't want to comment on the views of others if you don't agree with them.

This is precisely the point I made earlier about members only commenting when certain people write instead of feeling free to comment on everyone's posts.

Why is this?

I think it's an unhealthy way of conducting dialogues and exchanges, because it tends to group people into two groups and doesn't lead to a true exploration and expression of viewpoints. People who have disagreed with someone before now ignore their disagreements for the sake of looking as if they are all in agreement when they aren't.

To my thinking, that would be like if, on the Origins forums, everyone was either in a creationist corner or an evolutionist corner, and the people in those groups never questioned each other's viewpoints, but only those in the other group. True dialogue can only take place if people are willing to question the views of everyone, including the views of those they usually agree with. Whether someone is "friends" of someone else should have nothing to do with an intellectual inquiry but it should be as objective as possible.

Originally Posted By: Bravus

Church membership is not, as far as I can tell, a Biblical concept at all. I'm happy to be shown where that view is in error.

We're just getting started on the discussion. We have hardly even touched the surface of the Bible testimony on the topic.

I've been trying to find out what your belief is up to now, and it ain't easy. You won't answer most of my questions, such as what you mean by "exclusion." That is a very key concept and much depends on what your meaning is.

I sincerely look forward to seeing your response to this post. :-)

[Bravus]

OK. For what it's worth, I have no fundamental disagreement with what Woody and CoAspen posted, but they did not put it the way I would have put it. There was no real point (for the purposes of taking the conversation forward) in my either endorsing or challenging their wording. It was better and more useful for me to explain what I meant in my own way.

I accept what you say about EGW, but reiterate that a doctrine established on any footing other than pure Scripture - even her - is on sand not rock. That's a pretty orthodox view.

What I'd like to see is an actual argument made, with thesis, antithesis and either synthesis or agreement to disagree. What I'm seeing instead is picking at the edges of ideas in terms of challenging people's words, and challenging them to respond to the words of others, and so on.

Since drawing you (John317) to clearly lay out your own position and support it with Scripture seems to be impossible, I just find it difficult and frustrating to read through hundreds of picky, niggly posts. That's not an argument, and doesn't ever feel like progress.

[John317]

...Since drawing you (John317) to clearly lay out your own position and support it with Scripture seems to be impossible, I just find it difficult and frustrating to read through hundreds of picky, niggly posts. That's not an argument, and doesn't ever feel like progress.

This is rather unfair, in my judgment, since I have told you several times that we are just beginning to look at this question from a biblical viewpoint.

You have not even answered my questions about the Fundamental Beliefs of the SDA church on the topic of Church's purpose, structure, and government. And when I did answer your post about it, I didn't see you reply to it.

(If you did reply to that post, but I didnt' see it, I apologize. I will go look again to see if you responded.)

It's important to me to learn what you agree and disagree with in those Fundamental Beliefs regarding the Church before I can be sure of knowing how you understand the doctrine of the church. Most of the time, when people have misconceptions of the church and its organization, it typically leads to misunderstandings of related issues. So a discussion of these matters is much better than simply jumping in and writing an essay on church structure that may or may not answer your questions or objections.