Membership of the SDA Church....

[John317]

Let's see. There's someone who claims he's SDA but don't believe in the Sabbath. There's also someone who claims to be SDA be is of the position that Paul was a liar. There are also SDAs who don't believe in the Biblical account of creation. So when someone asks what do SDAs believe? What would the response be? That SDAs believe in NOTHING?

Thanks very much for that observation, Gerry. That's beginning to get at some of the reasons church organization is necessary.

[Gerr]

(waits for some Scripture)

Mt 28:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold I am with you always, to the end of the age." ESV

Mk 16:15 "Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned...." ESV

In order to proclaim the gospel, one must have a doctrine of what the gospel is. In order to be able to make disciples, one must have a doctrine of what a disciple is. Ditto baptizm, who is saved & who is not, what it means to believe, who is the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit, when the end of the age, etc.

While I am willing to see less than the 28 that would fundamentally define what an SDA is, without a defining set of doctrines, there would be confusion, total chaos, and NO mesage.

Unless the trumpet gives a certain sound, who will pay attention? {Paraphrase - I am away from my computer to give you the Bible passage]

[John317]

I guess for me Jesus' own words are the final word.

Do you have any doubt that Jesus' words recorded in the Bible are true in regard to His resurrection from the dead? Do you have any doubt at all that the God of the Bible exists?

My own answer to both questions is an unqualified, no.

[Dr. Shane]

I am glad that I don't belong to a church that I don't agree with. To me, that would be misery. I know where I stand. I stand with God's remnant church. I don't have to make excuses or explanations. I am happy to belong to a church based on the love of God.

[Gordon1]

Aren't we all guilty of "evilspeaking"? And if this is the case, I know a few pastors and conference leaders who should be separated from church membership.

What's with a "trial"? and a "misdemeanor"? Sounds like a criminal court proceeding to me.

Is this a statement that must be considered within its social and historical context?

Alex

Hi Alex,

I'm sure we're all accountable for evil speaking, for we all are sinners. But those who Love their fellow man will have no wish to hurt or denigrate another. Evilspeaking only comes from an evil heart.

Yes there are quite a few pastors & leaders in this boat.

The trial is to set the church in order when faced with dis-order and rebellion. Few realize the high and holy calling of membership, so today most aberrant, unChristian behaviour is tolerated such as clergy adultery, etc. And the church is allowed to sail on, uncorrected and off course.

[John317]

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."

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.

[Bravus]

It's not really about me - except that it sorta is due to the origin of the thread.

Anyway, let's wrap the issue of Bravus/David Geelan up in a neat bundle so we can move on to the more general discussion of beliefs and doctrines around the issue of church membership.

For myself, I am a follower of Jesus Christ first and foremost. That's even narrower in some sense than that much-sullied label 'Christian', since most Christians draw on the entire Bible roughly equally. I draw on the words of Jesus first, and if Paul or anyone else seems to contradict those then I interpret that author in the light of Jesus. And yes, that's controversial in itself.

But for me, follower of Jesus first, and Seventh-day Adventist a very distant second. I'm an SDA only to the extent that that is compatible with being a follower of Jesus.

So there are a number of points on which I disagree with SDA Fundamental Beliefs. The point is, though, that I believe the SDA denomination is closer to the Bible on more doctrines than any other Christian denomination. I do believe, for example, that Saturday is the Biblical Sabbath and that has never been changed.

So those who suggest, overtly or covertly, that I should leave the SDA denomination if I don't agree 100% with its doctrines are in effect suggesting I should abandon Christianity entirely, since I would disagree *more* with any other denomination than with SDAism.

And, once again, in the Great Commission that was quoted above, and in everything else Jesus said, I see him saying 'bring them in - compel them to come in', never 'push them out'. Those who are trying to push me and people like me out ought to be looking very closely at themselves and their motivations, and the alignment of that with Jesus' goals.

[John317]

See nothing here that contradicts my statement, although it is someones interpretation of the Biblical statements.

The question is, do you and I understand and believe what those statements say? It's true that there is interpretation, but is the interpretation valid on the basis of the Bible evidence?

Do you believe that there's nothing in those paragraphs that contradicts the concept of the church as simply a place where people congregate and meet and pray together?

If so, we definitely need to look at the Bible's and the Spirit of prophecy's teaching on the nature and purpose of the church.

[olger]

Should someone be a member of the SDA church if they do not agree with the 28 fundamental doctrines of the church?

Should they claim full membership?

And should the church grant them membership?

Please explain your reasoning for your answer.

Mark :-)

People who do not agree with the things a church stands for ought to have the integrity to find a place that fits them. It is disingenuous to join the Amish and demand that you have an exception to drive your Ford Excuse. If that make me "Old School" I gladly accept the charge .

[Bravus]

And if there is no such place?

[teresaq]

(quote)... Evilspeaking should be dealt with as a misdemeanor that is subject to church trial and separation from church membership if persisted in; for the church cannot be set in order in any other way.--Ms 74, 1897. {VSS 31.2}

[olger]

Originally Posted By: abelisle

Aren't we all guilty of "evilspeaking"? And if this is the case, I know a few pastors and conference leaders who should be separated from church membership.

What's with a "trial"? and a "misdemeanor"? Sounds like a criminal court proceeding to me.

Is this a statement that must be considered within its social and historical context?

Alex

Hi Alex,

I'm sure we're all accountable for evil speaking, for we all are sinners. But those who Love their fellow man will have no wish to hurt or denigrate another. Evilspeaking only comes from an evil heart.

Yes there are quite a few pastors & leaders in this boat.

The trial is to set the church in order when faced with dis-order and rebellion. Few realize the high and holy calling of membership, so today most aberrant, unChristian behaviour is tolerated such as clergy adultery, etc. And the church is allowed to sail on, uncorrected and off course.

I like this post, G. So is it possible for a person with a homosexual disposition to be a Christian? Absolutely. But can one live practicing that and then become part of a teaching community and a community of committed believers? I think we would have to raise serious questions. Where does one draw the line then? Is it ok for the pastor to be a practicing adulterer or polygamist and be a pastor of the church at the same time? It ends up dying the death of a thousand qualifications, and the character of God is impugned in the process.

That's all I have to say about that..

[olger]

I am glad that I don't belong to a church that I don't agree with. To me, that would be misery. I know where I stand. I stand with God's remnant church. I don't have to make excuses or explanations. I am happy to belong to a church based on the love of God.

olger likes this post.

[olger]

And if there is no such place?

Then they have to choose between starting one, or surrendering (submitting) their pet objections through humility. That's the way it seems to me.

[Dr. Shane]

I use to have the attitude "the world needs to change to suit me" or "my parents need to change to suit me" or "my wife needs to change to suit me" Then it dawned on me... maybe I was the one that needed to change.

I don't want to come off as harsh but I want to make what I think is a valid point.

There are about 22 major religions in the world and each has various sects within it. Christianity has over 500 denominations within it. If a person cannot find one of those religions or sects that he or she fits into, maybe the problem is with the person in the mirror. In 12 step circles we call this terminal uniquness.

[Aliensanctuary]

Not so obvious to us, in this life we live in a Shadow World. The commandments and ceremonies of fledgling Israel point to those things which will occur in the next life. In the NT, Earthly baptism points to the real wash-up in the River of Life. Although Jesus' teachings apply to this life, they also are more true for the next life.

In its beginning, Israel had no synogogues or churches or Sabbath schools or prayer meetings. From time to time the people would gather to hear the reading of the Law, given to them by the LORD from the mountain. Over the centuries, humans have created churches and preachers and sermons and religions and denominations.

If we compare early Israel, and its Tent of Meeting, with all of the "spin-off" religions of today, we can see that they are all man-made, created by one or more individuals whose beliefs happened to differ from others. Some of the creators of new religions and denominations even claimed special revelations from God to back up their beliefs with divine authority. In the end, though, all religions are still man-made. Obeying the commandments of the LORD is not a religion, but a business contract.

Perhaps we should be gathering together to listen to the Scriptures, not for sermons, suits and ties, special music, bulletins, stand up-sit down rituals, etc. If we understand and carry out our responsibilities to the LORD in this life, then perhaps, we will have the will-power to be overcomers in the Last Days.

By the way, a religious liberty speaker spoke at church last Sabbath, and mentioned that whenever SDA preachers get together for convocations, in-room orders for porn increased at the hotels they were staying in.

Membership may be a big deal to some, but Jesus didn't create a new denomination and sign everyone up as tithe-paying members. I suspect the institutionalized churches of the world today are better suited for propagation of error than for teaching scripture.

[Dr. Shane]

whenever SDA preachers get together for convocations, in-room orders for porn increased at the hotels they were staying in.

[Kevin H]

Should someone be a member of the SDA church if they do not agree with the 28 fundamental doctrines of the church?

Should they claim full membership?

And should the church grant them membership?

Please explain your reasoning for your answer.

Mark :-)

I find this sort of a baffaling question. I remember with the 27, Graham Maxwell, and others told how they were deliberately written vague enough to include the different flavors of Adventism; his views, ATS, Historic Adventists, Evangelicals who would give 1844 the benifit of the doubt, etc. And that the ATS was not too happy about the vague writing of the official 27 and thus wrote a companion book to interpet them according to their views.

I amagine that the 28 are the old 27 with one more (I don't even know what it is) but since they were purposefully written to be includsive of a wide range of interpetation, how far away from the 27 (or 28) do you picture a person being?

[Dr. Shane]

I think John summed it up well.

Quote:

That doesn't mean that they all agree with every detail in the explanations of those doctrines, but it does mean that the vast majority don't disagree with the fundamental doctrines as they're expressed in the official teachings of the church. I certainly don't.

The 28 fundamental beliefs themselves are doctrines that, I suspect, the vast majority of members take no issue with. However, the book that has been published includes commentary on each belief and there are portions of that commentary that I suspect many Adventists do take issue with.

[John317]

No, it is you avoiding the obvious truth of the matter and

How are am I avoiding the obvious truth? Is this obvious truth something that is found obviously in the Bible and in the Spirit of prophecy?

I think the SDA church's stand in regard to membership and church organization is the same one that I'm supporting.

[John317]

You and others are setting up 'issues' that are only that to you.

Like what? What issues have I "set up"?

Originally Posted By: CoAspen

It would seem that persons would rather sit around and define exactness of interpretations that support their own desires for 'purity', what ever their defs may be, for church membership.

Where have I done this? Are you speaking of me personally or of others?

Originally Posted By: CoAspen

The only reason I am continuing, not for long, is to support Bravus and others who are honest in their experience with Christ.

Does Bravus need support in this?

Remember that to deny somone's theological ideas is not to attack them personally. That is why we have the rule that we can attack ideas and evidence and theologies but not persons.

For instance, if I or anyone else says that someone viewpoint is not supported by Scripture, it cannot rightly or reasonably be understood as a personal attack or as an attack on that person's Christian character or experience. It is not at all calling into question a person's integrity or honesty. Anyone-- including the most loving Christian alive-- is capable of basing an idea on personal opinion instead of on the Scriptures.

Originally Posted By: CoAspen

The very idea that such individuals should be castigated or suggested they find an other church is abhorrent to me.

I have never made such a suggestion to Bravus, nor would I support any statement made that would suggest it to him.

But Ellen White did say that there are situations where it would be better for the church and for the individual concerned if they did leave the church. So there are times and conditions where it is the best thing that could happen.

I'm not saying that applies here. I am merely pointing out that we do need to keep in mind that the prophet of God did say that such a situation does occur. But it would never be a case where individual members of the church would make that decision. It can only be decided by a local congregation.

Originally Posted By: CoAspen

I believe such ideas of correctness and down the nose look are just what the parable of the publican and poor man praying in the temple was all about.

It's true that none of us have any reason whatsoever to have those kinds of thoughts, do we.

Originally Posted By: CoAspen

By the way, to all 'outsiders' reading this, NO, the SDA church does not give you a yearly 'test' to see if you can still be a member of the church...although some might like it to be that way.

Who do you believe would like it to be that way?

If you think I would want this, please point to anything I've ever posted on the Forum that shows this is my viewpoint.

[John317]

The 28 fundamental beliefs themselves are doctrines that, I suspect, the vast majority of members take no issue with. However, the book that has been published includes commentary on each belief and there are portions of that commentary that I suspect many Adventists do take issue with.

I agree completely.

Have you seen the SDA Theological Handbook? I bought it and am going through it now. It has a few things I don't totally agree with-- particularly in the way it's phrased in several places-- but it's a wonderful book and full of lots of good things. I especially appreciate what it says about Judgment and the heavenly sanctuary, but I'm sure I'll see a lot more that I like as I keep reading it.

[John317]

Post #400444 is in response to what you said about part of the Fundamental Beliefs regarding the church. You said that it didn't seem to "exclude" people. I'm not sure of what you mean by "exclude," because you haven't yet answered my questions. Are you thinking of people being excluded from fellowship or from membership? Or do you consider these as the same thing?

I'd be interested in understanding your thoughts with respect my post on the question of the church's beliefs about the church.

[BobRyan]

I find this sort of a baffaling question. I remember with the 27, Graham Maxwell, and others told how they were deliberately written vague enough to include the different flavors of Adventism; his views, ATS, Historic Adventists, Evangelicals who would give 1844 the benifit of the doubt, etc. And that the ATS was not too happy about the vague writing of the official 27 and thus wrote a companion book to interpet them according to their views.

I amagine that the 28 are the old 27 with one more (I don't even know what it is) but since they were purposefully written to be includsive of a wide range of interpetation, how far away from the 27 (or 28) do you picture a person being?

A lot of "imagination" goes into what people are "Told about" these statements. Better to just read them. first of all It is true that the 28th belief is simply "added" to the 27 (though not at the end of the list).

Read them for yourself - draw your own conclusion.

http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html

in Christ,

Bob

[Twilight]

I'm not in the error defining business, that be God's role. My role is to point towards Christ. That is essentially the role of all Christians. The church is merely a place to congregate, share, support and commune with God together at a special time.

27,28 or 29, what ever they may be, does not get me into heaven or keep me from heaven. The church can make what ever 'rules' it desires, that is it's right as an organization. But it can and does allow sinners into its membership, which we all are.

Which Christ?