Membership of the SDA Church....

[Twilight]

Quote:

Where the white witch takes the whole congregation off as her own new denomination?

If the people believe in the white witch they should be free to wonder off and have their own denomination. YES. Now you get it.

So, this white witch gained influence over this church, led the people astray, whilst we stood by with no standards to help them ascertain her true motives.

And that is ok?

[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.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: teresaq(sda)

perhaps you could show how your question ties in with what ellen white was asking us to do?

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

Do you agree with those statements?

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.

well, john that is what you got out of testimonies 3. ok. im not sure if that chapter is based on the letter i posted or not.

[Twilight]

God will not prevent men's actions from have serious and negative consequences. He's allowed all kinds of things to happen, including the fall of the Old Testament church. If the SDA church made such a foolish decision as to reject all the guidance that God has given it through the Bible and His prophet, you can be sure He wouldn't stand in the way and prevent their rejection of Him from leading to very tragic consequences. This is a pattern that God has shown all through history.

Indeed, look at the "mystery of iniquity" that Paul predicted would arise in the Catholic Church, was that not the apostolic church that was infiltrated, when pagan principles were adopted in the name of ecumenism?

When standards where dropped.

When Jesus' character was lost sight of...

[Woody]

Quote:

But we are not talking about imposing legalistic requirements that are not biblical on people.

You may not be. But that IS the issue that I am addressing in this thread.

[John317]

They think their beloved "membership" protects them. But it does not.

Who says membership "protects them"? I don't know of anyone who believes this.

But I do know people who believe the fact that they accepted Christ protects them. And that also is false. There will be many lost who claimed to accept Christ. But their actions say otherwise, and God doesn't go by people's profession of faith but by what they do.

I haven't heard anyone on this discussion claiming that "membership" protects them from anything. That is not the purpose of membership in the church.

[Woody]

Quote:

So, this white witch gained influence over this church, led the people astray, whilst we stood by with no standards to help them ascertain her true motives.

And that is ok

The wheat and the tares grow together till the Harvest. Both to receive the sun and be blessed.

But the witch is not allowed leadership positions so as to influence people. She is only allowed to promote her error on an individual basis through fellowship with believers. Hopefully the believers will have more influence on HER rather than the other way around.

[Twilight]

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.

You sound very strong here Woody.

Would you include evolutionary theory as part of the error that when people believe, that they should no longer be a part of the Adventist Church?

Considering that evolutionary theory is directly opposed to the stated SDA position.

As this is clearly error, as defined by the SDA church, then they should no longer be a part of the SDA church?

[teresaq]

Mark. There must be order. But my issue with membership is that we use it as a club to hit people over the head and judge their individual sins and behaviours. We create a class system. We have some people who attend who are 'better' than others with labels such as members. When all who attend should be equal.

Now when it comes to leadership ... different rules apply. We must have order. Our beliefs must be preserved or evolve as a concensus.

yes, i quite agree...and if we all started in heart with the counsel ellen white gave...

[Twilight]

Quote:

But we are not talking about imposing legalistic requirements that are not biblical on people.

You may not be. But that IS the issue that I am addressing in this thread.

Well you have my full support that we should not impose legalistic sanctions on anyone in the church.

But not my support if we do not impose standards God has called into place.

[John317]

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

Do you agree with those statements?

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.

Originally Posted By: teresaq (sda)

well, john that is what you got out of testimonies 3. ok.

Sure. And my question is do you agree with what Ellen White wrote here, and what is your response to what I have written in this post?

Do you stand with the church and Ellen White in the matter of membership? Or do you oppose them?

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Woody

They think their beloved "membership" protects them. But it does not.

Who says membership "protects them"? I don't know of anyone who believes this.

But I do know people who believe the fact that they accepted Christ protects them. And that also is false. There will be many lost who claimed to accept Christ. But their actions say otherwise, and God doesn't go by people's profession of faith but by what they do.

I haven't heard anyone on this discussion claiming that "membership" protects them from anything. That is not the purpose of membership in the church.

I agree.

[Woody]

Quote:

I haven't heard anyone on this discussion claiming that "membership" protects them from anything.

What I was referring to and what I have consistantly heard in this thread ... is that membership will somehow protect the CHURCH. This I disagree with.

[Woody]

Quote:

I agree.

Me 2

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: John317

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

Do you agree with those statements?

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.

Originally Posted By: teresaq (sda)

well, john that is what you got out of testimonies 3. ok.

Sure. And my question is do you agree with what Ellen White wrote here and what is your response to what I have written here?

Why are you asking John317 this?

It is clear he holds to these standards.

I do not see why you are questioning his stated position?

John317 has presented a position fully in line with the above quotes.

He is not seeking to overturn the church position...

He is arguing that it remains the status quo...

[Woody]

Quote:

Well you have my full support that we should not impose legalistic sanctions on anyone in the church.

I am very pleased to receive that support. But I highly suspect that we differ in the meaning of it.

[Bravus]

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. 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.

2. Instead, hundreds more of those posts I described: logic (falsely so-called, hehe) drawn from exceptional cases that are entirely hypothetical, and aghast 'You'd let just anyone in?!' posts. That really does seem to be all that's on offer: the 'white witch argument'. Where's your Scripture?

3. I don't think I *am* a member of the SDA denomination in the on-the-roll sense any more, and I'm certainly not seeking any leadership positions. So those worried on that score can relax. I think I actually did a personal run-through of the 28 here a while ago, showing that I agree with the great majority.

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.

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Woody

Mark. There must be order. But my issue with membership is that we use it as a club to hit people over the head and judge their individual sins and behaviours. We create a class system. We have some people who attend who are 'better' than others with labels such as members. When all who attend should be equal.

Now when it comes to leadership ... different rules apply. We must have order. Our beliefs must be preserved or evolve as a concensus.

yes, i quite agree...and if we all started in heart with the counsel ellen white gave...

Good Point Teresa. I agree.

[Bravus]

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

[Woody]

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. 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.

2. Instead, hundreds more of those posts I described: logic (falsely so-called, hehe) drawn from exceptional cases that are entirely hypothetical, and aghast 'You'd let just anyone in?!' posts. That really does seem to be all that's on offer: the 'white witch argument'. Where's your Scripture?

3. I don't think I *am* a member of the SDA denomination in the on-the-roll sense any more, and I'm certainly not seeking any leadership positions. So those worried on that score can relax. I think I actually did a personal run-through of the 28 here a while ago, showing that I agree with the great majority.

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.

TU Woody Likes and Agrees with Bravus.

[teresaq]

Originally Posted By: John317

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

Do you agree with those statements?

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.

Originally Posted By: teresaq (sda)

well, john that is what you got out of testimonies 3. ok.

Sure. And my question is do you agree with what Ellen White wrote here, and what is your response to what I have written in this post?

Do you stand with the church and Ellen White in the matter of membership? Or do you oppose them?

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

[Twilight]

Quote:

I haven't heard anyone on this discussion claiming that "membership" protects them from anything.

What I was referring to and what I have consistantly heard in this thread ... is that membership will somehow protect the CHURCH. This I disagree with.

No it will not completely protect the church.

I agree.

But it does focus the body of believers so they know where they stand.

[Woody]

Quote:

No it will not completely protect the church.

I agree.

But it does focus the body of believers so they know where they stand.

Good. No. No one expects that it will completely protect our church. From my observation it does more harm than good. That is all. Just my experience and observations from being an elder on a church board.

Take it or leave it. It's just my annocdotal experience.

[Twilight]

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. 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.

2. Instead, hundreds more of those posts I described: logic (falsely so-called, hehe) drawn from exceptional cases that are entirely hypothetical, and aghast 'You'd let just anyone in?!' posts. That really does seem to be all that's on offer: the 'white witch argument'. Where's your Scripture?

3. I don't think I *am* a member of the SDA denomination in the on-the-roll sense any more, and I'm certainly not seeking any leadership positions. So those worried on that score can relax. I think I actually did a personal run-through of the 28 here a while ago, showing that I agree with the great majority.

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.

2. Do you question the logic of the exagerated example or just condemn it Bravus?

3. Thank you for clarifying that.

4. Scriptural evidence:

- A. Test the spirits.

- B. Beware false shepherds.

- C. Do not take the Lords name in vain.

- D. Worship the Creator.

All of these are standards that define "church membership" in the spiritual body.

They also must be upheld (as they were in the NT as we can see evidence of church organisation).

There has always been standards for Gods people to uphold.

That is biblical.

Maybe you could be a little more specific in your "no biblical support" claim?

Mark :-)

[Twilight]

Quote:

No it will not completely protect the church.

I agree.

But it does focus the body of believers so they know where they stand.

Good. No. No one expects that it will completely protect our church. From my observation it does more harm than good. That is all. Just my experience and observations from being an elder on a church board.

Take it or leave it. It's just my annocdotal experience.

But the option you propose allows for no protection for the members.

Surely you do not think that no protection would be better?

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