Membership of the SDA Church....

[Woody]

Well ... let's keep working at it Gerry.

[Tom Wetmore]

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

If memory serves me correctly, this text is the fundamental basis upon which the Catholic Church declares Papal Authority to change the Sabbath, execute eternal judgment by excommunication, binding all to salvation only through the Church, etc.

Is this the direction we should be heading?

[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.

Hmmm. Looks to me like 'someone' addressed Shane's text.

[Twilight]

Which Jesus are you all following?

Each church represents an understanding of the Character of Christ, through their teachings.

So if it does not matter what church one goes to, what some are in effect saying, is that it does not matter how Christ is represented to the world...

It doesn't matter if you present Jesus as someone who will burn everyone in hell forever.

You just have to believe on that Jesus and be saved?

Is that correct?

Of course not!

The reason God has raised up the SDA church, is because many had lost sight of the true Character of God.

And that the judgement had begun and God wanted the Gospel presented to the world.

Not any old Gospel that says "say Jesus' name out loud and you are in".

But the Gospel that is everlasting.

The Gospel that at this time proclaims the Three Angels Message.

There is order and structure to Gods church, always has been, and the argument that that needs to be proved, should not come from people that study Gods word...

So if we are part of Gods church, we will not be against order.

God is not the author of Confusion...

[Woody]

Okay Mark. I will attempt to answer your question.

I definately believe in a different Jesus than you do. That has become more and more clear to me.

[Twilight]

Okay Mark. I will attempt to answer your question.

I definately believe in a different Jesus than you do. That has become more and more clear to me.

Do you believe the Jesus I represent is different from the one the SDA church upholds in its doctrines?

If so, why?

[Woody]

If you want to send me a PM Mark. I will be glad to address your question.

[Twilight]

Woody, you have made a public statement.

Surely you should now explain what that means publically?

Unless it was just a "dig" at another poster? :-)

[Woody]

Nope. I won't be baited. If it is just a public audience that you seek ... sorry.

I've answered the question in public that I want to answer. It means what it states. The next question of your's ... I will not answer in public.

[Twilight]

Nope. I won't be baited. If it is just a public audience that you seek ... sorry.

I've answered the question in public that I want to answer. The next question of your's ... I will not answer in public.

If you are not willing to discuss it in public, why did you make the point in the first place?

You often appear to use the "drive by shooting" approach of debate when others are discussing something.

This involves making a statement that seems designed to cause offense, then drive off without actually discussing it, or the reasons for that statement.

Why should anyone engage in serious conversation with this type of behaviour?

[Woody]

It's very simple Mark. I am willing to answer your first question. But not the second one. End of story. I will not be baited. If you seriously want to know my answer ... send me a PM. If it's publicity and controversy that you desire ... I am not your man.

[Woody]

Thanks CoAspen.

The last thing we need here is people who want to bait this conversation into oblivion.

[Bravus]

Just acknowledging Gerry's Scripture-filled and thoughtful post a couple of pages ago. It's all I've been asking for all along.

[Gerr]

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 me, membership or belonging means that your name is listed as belonging to whichever church you joined and had your name registered. Association with a church is less formal. You can be a regular attender of a certain church, but unless you are committed enough to get your name in their books, it's nothing more than just a loose association.

My 2 cents.

[Gerr]

Just acknowledging Gerry's Scripture-filled and thoughtful post a couple of pages ago. It's all I've been asking for all along.

Thanks.

[John317]

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.

Originally Posted By: Twilight

I disagree with this John317.

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

I'm not denying that all of our doctrines should be established from the Bible and the Bible alone.

Of course all of our doctrines should be-- and, I believe, are--- established from the Bible and the Bible alone.

But I'm not talking in the above paragraphs about the fundamental doctrines.

There are many things that Ellen White said which are not in the Bible. For instance, she says, "God will accept nothing less than unreserved surrender." As another instance, she says, "The very last deception of Satan will be to make of none effect the testimony of the Spirit of God... It is Satan's plan to weaken the faith of God's people in the Testimonies. Next follows skepticism in regard to the vital points of our faith, the pillars of our position, then doubt as to the Holy Scriptures, and then the downward march to perdition. When the Testimonies which were once believed, are doubted and given up, Satan knows the deceived ones will not stop at this; and he redoubles his efforts till he launches them into open rebellion, which becomes incurable and ends in destruction." (LDE 177, 178)

While these statements are not in the Bible, they don't contradict it but are in agreement with what the Bible teaches. We can accept the above quotes from Ellen White without compromising our firm belief that our doctrines must be based on the Bible and the Bible alone. Similarly, we can accept what Ellen White wrote on the subject of the goverment of the church and at the same time base our fundamental doctrines on the Bible alone.

For the purposes of this discussion, I agree that the main text for the discussion of the structure and government of the church should be the Bible. My only point here is that this doesn't rule out references to Ellen White's writings.

Originally Posted By: Twilight

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

That would be true if this discussion were being made only with someone who doesn't accept Ellen White, but we're writing here to many people who do accept Ellen White as a prophet and as an authority. On the Adventist Forum, most of the participants quote Ellen White as an authority, so it is only reasonable in a discussion among SDAs that we also look at what Ellen White teaches.

If I'm talking to an individual who either doesn't accept her or who for whatever reason doesn't want to know what she says, I don't bring her up. And this is especially true when I'm talking to people who aren't SDA and haven't talked first about her. But this discussion is for all the participants and for many SDAs who read the posts on the Forum. In short, this is an exchange of views among Seventh-day Adventists. I don't think it would be fair to ignore all these people in order to avoid talking about what God has shown us through the very instrument that God has chosen to communicate with His last-day church. That would only be allowing negative views of Ellen White to determine how SDAs discuss among themselves the doctrines and teachings of the church.

If Bravus or anyone else doesn't want to accept what she says, they're free to ignore that aspect of the evidence. But it would be wrong in my judgment for his viewpoint of her to prevent other SDAs from including what she had to say on the topic of membership in God's church.

[Gerr]

That is just it...no name!!! You have already put up some of the texts about Christ/Gods and none had a name in them.

The .church is based on belief in Christ as outlined through out the NT, numerous examples and texts can be found there.

So then, if God's church has no name, why do you object to churches that have a name and you therefore consider man-made have certain doctrinal requirements for membership?

And if you require belief in Christ, if you can require one, why not two, or three, or maybe 28?

Quote:

What must I do to be saved, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ....I believe one NT writer put it that way along with the whole context of the NT.

And belief in Christ is all one needs to be saved?

My Bible also says, "Repent and be baptized..."

And, "Even the devils believe and tremble..." etc. etc.

[Bravus]

OK, here are various reflections and thoughts, largely addressed to the whole thread and all participating unless particular individuals are named.

1. As I was going to sleep last night (but was too sleepy to get up and post!) I was thinking that part of the source of the confusion is the odd (and, IMO, unScriptural) practice of blending baptism into the Body of Christ and baptism into a particular denomination and congregation into a single incident. I believe that it's difficult or impossible in an SDA church to be baptised into Christ without being baptised into SDAism. But that blurs the requirements: profession of faith is sufficient for baptism into Christ, but if people want to join a specific denomination with particular doctrines they may need to know more about what they're assenting to. In my opinion it would be better to baptise people into Christ immediately and then 'disciple' them in further doctrines and beliefs. There would be no formal church membership, since there's no sensible dividing line: all of us have grown in Christ but all of us still have a lot of growing to do. Who decides when we reach the 'standard'? (I should acknowledge that CoAspen came at the issue of the distinction between kinds of membership from a different angle while I slept. And I would argue strongly that the 'members' mentioned in the texts Gerry quoted are members of the Body of Christ, i.e. all Christian believers of whatever denominaton.)

2. John317 said the following in explaining why the methods of the Day of Pentecost are no longer appropriate, but Gerry said something similar about the differences between now and then:

Quote:

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.

... (small elision for space but you can go to the original)

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.

So (my paraphrase, correct me if I'm wrong) 'what worked in Bible times doesn't work now due to different circumstances'. That's a HUGE and extremely controversial claim to make. What if we apply it to other things 'in Bible times they didn't understand science the way we do now, so obviously we need to adapt their account of origins for current circumstances' and so on... (and please, let's not tangent on that example). The idea that the teachings of the Bible are reinterpretable based on context is considered a slippery slope by almost all here - are you sure you want to embark on it?

3. We need to trust in God to take care of his church, and the Spirit to 'lead us into all truth'. The arguments here seem to be that humans need to erect barriers to keep out the riffraff from the churches, but Jesus came to seek and to save the riffraff... and gave us the Spirit to teach each of us to be more like him. Do we trust God to do that? Or do we feel we need to develop codes and laws and tests of our own to keep the church 'pure' - in the process risking pushing out of heaven those for whom Christ died?

[Gerr]

Gods church is His people, those that choose to follow Him. Can't seem to find a formal name for it though. Wait a minute, there is a .org church called The Church of Christ!!

So by what criteria are you using to tell that one is following Him and therefore one of His people?

[Bravus]

Surely that's for God to judge, not us.

[Neil D]

Which Jesus are you all following?

Each church represents an understanding of the Character of Christ, through their teachings.

So if it does not matter what church one goes to, what some are in effect saying, is that it does not matter how Christ is represented to the world...

It doesn't matter if you present Jesus as someone who will burn everyone in hell forever.

You just have to believe on that Jesus and be saved?

Is that correct?

Of course not!

there is a problem with the logic....As you insist that each church has it's own understanding of the character of Christ, and it teaches that character of Christ. The obvious elephant in the room is that each of the churches has a [up to now, an unnamed ] source of information that it is using....that source is the bible. The Bible, therefore, has the most clear revelation of the character of Jesus.

It also follows that if one reads the bible, and follows it's teachings, then that source will guide and modify a person's understanding of Jesus....as Jesus Himself molds and shapes the individual into His image.

Therefore, it is not the church that is predominate in guiding the individual....but rather, if an individual chooses to use the source that all the other churches uses, that individual will be a member of God's church...not a man made institution...

And each person is under direct control of God....not man...or a man made church...

[phkrause]

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

Nice reply Gerry, or should I say great reply. Back than there was only one church so when you where baptized you became a member of the body of Christ. And I do believe that when you were baptized you became a member. Today of course we have many choice's, even if they are splinter's of the original.

[SivartM]

Um, I'm pretty sure that the early church was quite splintered also. And there were no non-profit organizations or club memberships.

[Gerr]

1. ... I was thinking that part of the source of the confusion is the odd (and, IMO, unScriptural) practice of blending baptism into the Body of Christ and baptism into a particular denomination and congregation into a single incident.

I had already explained that the first thousands of converts to Christianity were Jews. They already had the basics. The only thing they had to add was acknowledgment that Jesus was the Messiah. No controversy about the Sabbath, diet, etc. I have no doubt that it was different when it came to the Gentiles. They needed more indoctrination.

Quote:

I believe that it's difficult or impossible in an SDA church to be baptised into Christ without being baptised into SDAism. But that blurs the requirements: profession of faith is sufficient for baptism into Christ, but if people want to join a specific denomination with particular doctrines they may need to know more about what they're assenting to. In my opinion it would be better to baptise people into Christ immediately and then 'disciple' them in further doctrines and beliefs. There would be no formal church membership,

I have no problem with the notion that if someone genuinely professes to accept Jesus as their personal Savior that they should be baptized but not accepted into a formal membership into a particular church without further indoctrination. The can then join ANY church they want.

Quote:

There would be no formal church membership, since there's no sensible dividing line: all of us have grown in Christ but all of us still have a lot of growing to do.

Do you mean here - a church without ANY formal membership? That's totally impractical! No membership means also no leadership, no organization, and NO EXISTENCE!

Quote:

Who decides when we reach the 'standard'?

To me meeting/reaching the standard for membership is nothing more than professing belief to a certain set of doctrines. Growth after that that is not only a deeper dnowledge of what he has accepted, but more importantly, growth in becoming more like Christ.

To say that requirements for membership do not change is to deny different times and circumstances. To join Noah in his 'church' only required belief in a coming Flood and to get into the boat. To join the Israelite congregation is not only to accept the Law of Moses, but also to accept circumcision. To join the early Christian Church, one also had to accept certain basic beliefs.

Quote:

3. We need to trust in God to take care of his church, and the Spirit to 'lead us into all truth'. The arguments here seem to be that humans need to erect barriers to keep out the riffraff from the churches, but Jesus came to seek and to save the riffraff...

But to have no set of doctrinal beliefs as requirement for membership to me means that our predecessors were not let by the Spirit into ANY truth. That may not be your intention, but that is the implication to me.

And by riffraff, do you mean bad people in terms of behavior? Or do you mean it's not ok to keep these kinds of people that Paul warned us about? Act 20:29-30 "I know that after my departure fierce wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away the disciples after them." Act 20:29-30 ESV.

What happened to the early Church when ALL the pagans that merely professed belief in Christianity?

[Woody]

Quote:

No membership means also no leadership, no organization, and NO EXISTENCE!

Repeating error Gerry ... doesn't make it truth. There are many nondenominational churches that do not have membership. Yet, they have a good organization and leadership. In fact ... they are much larger 'organizations than the majority of most SDA churches.

But as I have stated ... if you must insist on members ... just lower the standard so that anyone who wants to put their name on the membership list can do so. Then ... there you have your members. And the leaders and organization can still exist in your eyes.