Membership of the SDA Church....

[Bravus]

I did answer that I did not see that Fundmental Beliefs as being about finding ways to exclude people. That seems to be a concept you've struggled to understand my perspective on, so let me clarify.

You asked whether 'excluding' referred to fellowship or membership. I later clarified that I don't believe membership is a Biblical concept. Implicitly, that means the distinction you draw is not one that is useful.

The relevant Fundamental is all about including everyone of whatever race, sex, ethnicity, social class and so on. You've somehow implicitly read into that the words 'but not every set of beliefs', but that's not there in the wording.

My view on church is simple, and I said it, and supported it with Scripture at the very start: Jesus said 'go out to the highways and byways and compel them to come in'. He did *not* say 'if they fit'.

Jesus wants everyone saved. In my opinion any club that tries to limit that is wrong. It's as simple as that.

And my point, all along, is that there's lots of argument from the logic of clubs and exclusion and not letting in 'just anyone' and so on, but no solid Scriptural guidance that shows where my simple view is in error.

[John317]

Let's see the Biblical evidence for the idea that the church must be an exclusive club with rules for membership.

Your language here, though, is not objective but reflects a foregone conclusion that having any rules for membership is wrong. It seems to me that is exactly the issue what we need to look at and decide.

May I ask you, who do you think should be baptized? What would the prerequisites be if you could decide them?

Let's say you're a pastor of an SDA church. What do you do with respect to baptisms and membership if you are completely free to do what you want rather than what the conference office wants?

[Bravus]

Nope: I'm asking for the evidence. If it was a foregone conclusion I wouldn't be interested in the evidence.

And you're back to appealing to personal opinions...

[John317]

I'm simply asking you what you think and what you believe is the right thing to do in regard to church organization.

I assume that's the "personal opinion" you refer to that I'm "appealing to." But in reality all I'm doing, Bravus, is attempting to understand your thinking on the issue.

Why would you refuse to answer such a question?

It seems like a reasonable question and one that has a clear bearing on the issue.

But perhaps it would be fairer and more reasonable to turn the question around and ask you to prove that the church is wrong and that the Bible doesn't support the practice and doctrine of the church.

You could do this by discussing the NT's verses dealing with church organization and showing that none of them support the concept of church membership.

[Bravus]

I'm not sure why I have to do all the work to challenge a position that you are continually refusing to even state. I've stated my view clearly and simply several times already. You have, as far as I can recall, *never* stated your own view. Seem unbalanced to you?

Here's my answer to your question. "Go out to the highways and byways and compel them to come in." And yes, baptise them all into the Body of Christ when they ask. Simple.

[John317]

Here's the thing: as I read the thread, I get the distinct impression from the answers asked that people are saying things about membership and the church organizations before they've even really studied the question and thought through the Bible and SOP evidence. And you confirm this viewpoint by refusing to discuss it until someone lays out all the Bible evidence. It's as if you haven't researched it yourself.

The verse you're quoting isn't valid evidence that the church has no reason to have standards or expectations for membership. All it is saying is that we are to do all we can to persuade people to accept the gospel and come into Christ's kingdom.

Have you studied the verses I referred you to on page 2 of this thread--

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.

If you did, did you see any material relevant to the question of church standards?

[John317]

Here's my answer to your question. "Go out to the highways and byways and compel them to come in." And yes, baptise them all into the Body of Christ when they ask. Simple.

Is there no teaching or asking questions beforehand to find out if they understand what baptism means and what it means to be in the Body of Christ?

When it says "compel them to come in," that is more than baptizing them when they ask, isn't it? It seems to me that Jesus' words indicate that we are to be urging and persuading them to get baptized and join Christ's body rather that waiting for people to ask to be baptized.

Your thoughts?

[Bravus]

How much of that was there on the Day of Pentecost? 3000 baptised on the day, I seem to recall. Either they were pretty efficient catechisers or they... just went ahead and baptised them on profession of faith.

[John317]

OK, but who were the people who heard Peter's preaching that day? I mean what does the Bible say about them? Were they people who didn't know the Scripture?

Compare those people to the people alive today and ask yourself if they are similar in their grasp of basic Bible truths. Can we assume that most people tooday have a good understanding already of the fundamental truths of the gospel? I am sure you would agree that we certainly cannot assume such a thing. Anyone would be foolish to do so. In fact, on the contrary: today we have to assume they probably know next to nothing and probably have a lot of mistaken ideas that may cause them a great deal of confusion about the step they are taking.

But in contrast to this, listen to what the Bible says about the people who heard Peter's preaching that Pentacost:

Acts 2:5-6

Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven. [6] And at this sound the multitude came together, and they were bewildered, because each one was hearing them speak in his own language.

NOTE: These were devout men who were in Jerusalem to attend Pentecost. That means they were people who no doubt had heard many sermons preached and had either read the Bible a lot or had heard it read. In those days, it was common for such people to memorize whole chapters of books. So we're no doubt talking about people who not only read the Bible but knew much of it by heart, since they couldn't carry a Bible around with them as we can today.

Also, there's the fact that we live at a different time and in circumstances far different. That is to say, in the last 2000 years since Satan has been at work to bring in false doctrines, there is greater confusion over truth, and the doctrines of the church are much more sophisticated than they were in 31 AD. This last point means that people need to study more and far deeper than before because there is much more to learn.

In sum, then, the situation of the church and the people themselves are not the same as they were at that time. As the books of Daniel and Revelation show, the church today faces different challenges than the church faced in the first few months of its existence. The purpose of the church today is also different than it was in those first few years. All these things need to be taken into consideration.

Here's a very important question that if people don't understand, they will probably be confused about the issue of membership:

What is the primary purpose and mission of the Seventh-day Adventist Church? Is it the same as, say, the Baptist church or the Methodist Church? What's the difference?

Tomorrow, God willing, I shall give you some of the Bible evidence and reasons that you've been asking for, along with relevent statements by God's messenger to the Remnant. I hope you find them worthy of your consideration if not worthy of a change of mind on your part.

Till then, I'm

[Twilight]

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.

Have you considered this verse Bravus?

Rom 12:5 So we, [being] many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

What is the "church" in scripture?

The body of believers.

Paul uses the analogy that the body is made up of members.

So by default, if someone is not a "member" of the body, they are cut off.

There are lots more texts on this, but what are your initial thoughts on this one?

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: 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.

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 disagree with this John317.

We should establish all of our doctrines from the Bible and Bible alone.

When someone has difficulty with the SOP, we should not bring that to the table or indeed need to.

This point can be shown from scripture.

I am not condemning the SOP or the usage of it, but rather judiciously using it when the audience are open to it.

The other danger to avoid, is that Ellen White can be quoted out of context and her writings are so vast, it is not always easy to balance her statements.

Whereas the Bible is much more compact and easier to compare line upon line.

I also think, that many spend so much time in the SOP, they cannot share the truth from the Bible.

The Bible is the common ground of Christianity, that is where we should make our arguments from, when the SOP will not be received.

As Bravus has requested that we do not use the SOP, I for one will honour that request, out of respect for his reservations about the SOP and my own reservations on misuse of the SOP.

Your thoughts brother?

[Twilight]

Nope: I'm asking for the evidence. If it was a foregone conclusion I wouldn't be interested in the evidence.

And you're back to appealing to personal opinions...

Again, you are questioning my technique of discussion, rather than dealing with the points made Bravus.

If we are going to invalidate an argument my invalidating the proposer of that argument, then we are on very dangerous ground.

I know you yourself, have raised concern when this is done to you.

Can we stick to the argument, rather than trying to undermine techniques of argument please?

:-)

[Twilight]

I'm not sure why I have to do all the work to challenge a position that you are continually refusing to even state. I've stated my view clearly and simply several times already. You have, as far as I can recall, *never* stated your own view. Seem unbalanced to you?

Here's my answer to your question. "Go out to the highways and byways and compel them to come in." And yes, baptise them all into the Body of Christ when they ask. Simple.

John317 has a good point.

The church has adopted organisation on biblical grounds.

You are arguing that they should not have done this from this verse above.

So how does God sending us out to find those not in our fold an argument against church organisation?

Christ Himself, organised the Isrealites.

Christ Himself, organised the Apostles.

Christ Himself organised the early Christian Church through the Holy Spirit.

I see Christ organising a lot.

I see Christ setting up requirements continually.

But you are saying that we should not do this based on this verse above?

That does not make sense to me.

[Bravus]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

Nope: I'm asking for the evidence. If it was a foregone conclusion I wouldn't be interested in the evidence.

And you're back to appealing to personal opinions...

Again, you are questioning my technique of discussion, rather than dealing with the points made Bravus.

If we are going to invalidate an argument my invalidating the proposer of that argument, then we are on very dangerous ground.

I know you yourself, have raised concern when this is done to you.

Can we stick to the argument, rather than trying to undermine techniques of argument please?

:-)

Sorry, forum stuff again: that response was to John317, not you.

[Bravus]

I agree that the church is the body of believers. And very, very diverse, too, if you read the rest of that metaphor.

[Gerr]

How much of that was there on the Day of Pentecost? 3000 baptised on the day, I seem to recall. Either they were pretty efficient catechisers or they... just went ahead and baptised them on profession of faith.

Since the 3000 were already Jews, how much did they have in common with the disciples? How much more doctrine did they have to accept before they were baptized?

[Dr. Shane]

I see no one has been willing to take on Matthew 16:16-19.

[Gerr]

Here's my answer to your question. "Go out to the highways and byways and compel them to come in." And yes, baptise them all into the Body of Christ when they ask. Simple.

Jesus also said: Mt 22:14 “Many are called, but few are chosen.” ESV

"If the trumpet gives an uncertain sound, who will prepare for battle?" (1 Cor. 14:8) ESV

Day, C. A. (2009). Collins Thesaurus of the Bible. Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

If anyone is to be welcomed as MEMBERS of the SDA church whether they accept a set of beliefs or not, suppose then that Boonstra starts preaching the secret rapture, and Findley starts preaching that the Sabbath is no longer a holy day that is to be observed, and Carter spreads the word that sinners will be tortured forever ad infinitum, and someone else teaches that Gen 1-3 are just myths, are you comfortable with that?

[Gerr]

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.

Well, let's see if church membership is a Biblical concept or not.

1. Jesus said that He will build "my church", founded on the "Rock", himself, Mt 16:13-19. The Church is also called His body, of which He is the head, Col 1:18.

2. Those who belong to His body, the Church, are called, "members", "members of the household of God," Eph 2:19

They are also called, "disciples," Mt 28:19.

3. People become members through baptism by believing everything that Jesus commanded, Mt 28:19-20, Mk 16:15

4. Those who believe and teach a different gospel are "anathemna", Gal 1:8

5. Those who are already members of the body are to preach not only the gospel, Mt 28:18-20, Mk 16:15, but also to call people OUT of Babylon (confusion), NOT to join in the confusion, Rev 14 & 18.

6. Jesus pray that there be oneness in His body the Church, Jn 15, and members are to strive for "unity of the faith," Eph 4:13. The early church were of "one accord," Act 1

[Neil D]

can we clarify "church membership" abit here, guys? Are we talking about belonging or associating? Are we talking about church body or are we talking about the processes on how to become a member? Or are we talking about evangelizing?

To go into the byways and highways to compell people to come in to God's party, is more of a reason to use verious methods of evangelizing, rather than organizing church....It would seem to me that there could be various clicks and groups hanging around various areas of the party, ie the punch bowel, the intellectual group, the jocks and cheerleader group, the nerds and "make it happen" group, etc...

And don't we seem to make it difficult to bring people in with understanding adventist doctrine, when the party is really about Jesus and everyone's special relationship with Him? Doesn't that put a different order in bringing people in?

[Woody]

I see no one has been willing to take on Matthew 16:16-19.

I guess I am nobody.

[Woody]

So the question comes down to whose church are we talking about? The verses answer that question, God's church, not mans church, baptized into God's church, not mans church, etc, etc.

That is the important 'membership' association. We need to separate out .org from .church. Some seem to be confusing the two and making them synonymous. Each .org has its list of membership requirements with quite a bit of similarity to each other. Some are more stringent than others but all claim to be Bible or tradition based. The .church is based on belief in Christ as outlined through out the NT, numerous examples and texts can be found there. One may choose to be a member of both, but, only one really matters for eternity.

TU Right on target. And it is extremely difficult to have a conversation with those who don't understand this.

[Gerr]

So the question comes down to whose church are we talking about? The verses answer that question, God's church, not mans church, baptized into God's church, not mans church, etc, etc.

That is the important 'membership' association. We need to separate out .org from .church. Some seem to be confusing the two and making them synonymous. Each .org has its list of membership requirements with quite a bit of similarity to each other. Some are more stringent than others but all claim to be Bible or tradition based. The .church is based on belief in Christ as outlined through out the NT, numerous examples and texts can be found there. One may choose to be a member of both, but, only one really matters for eternity.

And the name of God's church? Where is it? How can I find it?

And what are the requirements for membership into it?

[Gerr]

So the question comes down to whose church are we talking about? The verses answer that question, God's church, not mans church, baptized into God's church, not mans church, etc, etc.

There was only one church in the beginning. So why did the church splinter?

ps

If God's church is not among the churches that you call man's church, why then should you concern yourself about membership requirements in some man-made church?

[Gerr]

TU Right on target. And it is extremely difficult to have a conversation with those who don't understand this.

Yeah, near to impossible to have conversation with anyone who thinks he is the only one with understanding.