Membership of the SDA Church....

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: CoAspen

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.

I think one of the problems here is a lack of understanding what the Bible teaches about the church. It is definitely not just a place to congregate, etc.

It seems to me that what many of us are doing is throwing the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy counsels on this topic to the wind, almost as if they don't have any authority. Is this subject to be decided by human opinion and human desires? Or by the testimony of the Spirit of Christ?

Many in the church today do not accept Biblical Authority though John317.

And to suggest it to them often just brings charges of "legalism".

It is amazing how many different ways a person will justify their position, by using the word legalism in a sentence.

Is this because the mystery of iniquity works amongst us?

Of course.

This idea that "Love" and "Doctrinal Truth" are different things is most confounding...

[Twilight]

Quote:

It seems to me that what many of us are doing is throwing the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy counsels on this topic to the wind, almost as if they don't have any authority. Is this subject to be decided by human opinion and human desires? Or by the testimony of the Spirit of Christ?

That's quite a judgment you're making on other forum members. I happen to think that it is you who are doing this and not the ones you are accusing.

Do you happen to own the ownership of the exclusive ability to interpret scripture and our prophet?

Of course we could start throwing quotes pro and con for each side. But I doubt that the proof would change your mind.

If John317 sins here are so apparent, why did you just do the same thing?

[Woody]

Quote:

"Let busybodies and accusers be visited and rebuked. If after thorough labor, they do not hold their tongues in check, they should be suspended from church membership." --Manuscript 43a, 1898, pp. 12-14. (Written March 22, 1898, "The Laborer Is Worthy of His Hire.") {15MR 163.2}

I wonder if the same thing applies to Forums?

[Twilight]

Let's see the Biblical evidence for the idea that the church must be an exclusive club with rules for membership. There's always lots of aghast rhetoric on this topic of the 'You'll let in just anyone?!!' kind, but a marked lack of strong Scriptural support.

Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved.

That in itself contains the seed of the request here.

Because "which" Jesus are we worshipping?

The Catholic Jesus?

The agnostic Jesus?

The Biblical Jesus?

I have joined the Adventist Church because they have the fullest revelation of the Person of Christ revealed in their doctrines.

Their description of Jesus matches the biblical Jesus.

The Gospel they preach for our time, is the biblical Gospel for this time.

So if someone wants to accept Jesus, they should be clear about who they basically believe Jesus to be.

That will be reflected in their doctrinal understanding.

Unless of course "any old Jesus" will do?

:-)

[Twilight]

(In very brief, I've already quoted my own key scripture on the topic, but here it is again: Luke 14:23 (King James Version) "And the lord said unto the servant, Go out into the highways and hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled.")

This text refers to the Christians that are to bring in Gods people to His house.

That means they are not in Gods house and have to be brought in.

Which also means there is an identifying feature to those in and those out.

[Woody]

Quote:

Which also means there is an identifying feature to those in and those out.

No doubt Mark. I agree. But the difference is those that have heard the name of Jesus and those that have not. It's not those that have heard the name of the 28 Fundamentals and those who have not.

[Twilight]

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.

I do not think you should take it so personally Bravus.

But rather explore the discussion.

[Woody]

Quote:

I do not think you should take it so personally Bravus.

But rather explore the discussion.

I see no evidence that Bravus takes it personally. But Bravus brings out an important issue here. What has been done needs to be looked at and addressed. It should not be dismissed simply at the accusation that he might take it personally.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

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?

Please could you clarify your question, I am not sure exactly what you are asking? :-)

[Twilight]

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

Quote:

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.

You and others are setting up 'issues' that are only that to you. 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. I will repeat again, it was tried before and Christ took care of that. There is only one church and it is Christ Church, all else are but wavering shadows.

The only reason I am continuing, not for long, is to support Bravus and others who are honest in their experience with Christ. The very idea that such individuals should be castigated or suggested they find an other church is abhorrent to me. 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.

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.

Which Jesus are you talking about?

I know of people that believe Jesus is a spirit guide.

I know of others that believe Jesus is a prophet but not the Son of God.

I know of others that believe that Jesus was just a moral man.

So which Jesus are you pointing people to?

[Twilight]

Quote:

Which also means there is an identifying feature to those in and those out.

No doubt Mark. I agree. But the difference is those that have heard the name of Jesus and those that have not. It's not those that have heard the name of the 28 Fundamentals and those who have not.

Which Jesus?

[Woody]

Quote:

Which Jesus?

You might not be familiar with Him. But I would be glad to introduce Him to you. Send me a PM if you are interested.

[Twilight]

Quote:

I do not think you should take it so personally Bravus.

But rather explore the discussion.

I see no evidence that Bravus takes it personally. But Bravus brings out an important issue here. What has been done needs to be looked at and addressed. It should not be dimissed simply at the accusation that he might take it personally.

And what has been done Woody?

[Woody]

I think Bravus explained that.

[Twilight]

Quote:

Which Jesus?

You might not be familiar with Him. But I would be glad to introduce Him to you. Send me a PM if you are interested.

Please share this Jesus publicly Woody, if you feel you have a revelation of Him that I do not, I would love to hear about it.

But the question still stands, do we need to define who Jesus is?

[Twilight]

I think Bravus explained that.

I am asking you explicitly as you have made a charge.

What exactly has been done that should be dealt with?

[Twilight]

I am just considering the argument that "no standards" are necessary.

I am not quite sure how one would derive that from the Bible?

[Woody]

Quote:

Please share this Jesus publicly Woody, if you feel you have a revelation of Him that I do not, I would love to hear about it.

I think most here have a clear understanding of this. So, it would be something more personal for you. And I would be happy to share it with you in a PM. IF you are sincerely interested ... please send me a PM so I can share this good news.

Unfortunately ... I doubt you are that interested. I suspect you are more interested in debate than serious Bible study.

[Woody]

I think Bravus explained it quite adaquately.

[Woody]

Quote:

I am asking you explicitly as you have made a charge.

What "charge" are you referring to?

Please provide an accurate quote.

[Woody]

I am just considering the argument that "no standards" are necessary.

I am not quite sure how one would derive that from the Bible?

JESUS is the standard. We are judged by HIS behaviour ... not our own. We are saved by HIS works. Not our own. Jesus is the First and the Last. It's ALL about JESUS. Man made "standards" like the Jews made ... are NOT our salvation. JESUS IS.

THIS is the Jesus I would like to introduce you to.

[Twilight]

Quote:

Please share this Jesus publicly Woody, if you feel you have a revelation of Him that I do not, I would love to hear about it.

I think most here have a clear understanding of this. So, it would be something more personal for you. And I would be happy to share it with you in a PM. IF you are sincerely interested ... please send me a PM so I can share this good news.

Unfortunately ... I doubt you are that interested. I suspect you are more interested in debate than serious Bible study.

Are you trying to bait me into an argument Woody?

It sure seems like it. :-)

[Woody]

IF that was true Mark. I am inviting you to do it in a PM. Which SO far ... you are refusing.

[Twilight]

Quote:

I am asking you explicitly as you have made a charge.

What "charge" are you referring to?

Please provide an accurate quote.

[Twilight]

IF that was true Mark. I am inviting you to do it in a PM. Which SO far ... you are refusing.

What are you inviting me to do in a PM Woody?

If you have a revelation of Christ that you think you should share with me, then please share it here publically.

We have nothing to hide I hope?