A Question

[miz3]

Dr. Rich has some radical beliefs but I find no reason why he should be removed from SDA's. After all, isn't our ultimate goal to follow the words of Jesus? Let me ask you all, if we had to choose only ONE doctrine in our church, what would it be? I daresay we'd throw them all out and consolidate to "believe in the words of Jesus Christ". That is what Dr. Rich is arguing for, and while I don't agree with some of his other positions, he should not be chastised for stimulating debate and making us think. We should be able to debate in a civil manner and, at the end of the day, agree to disagree. One person's path to the cross is not another person's path to the cross.... don't try to make someone else follow right behind you, it just won't work.

As for Desmond Ford paying the "ultimate price", I find the choice of these words quite disturbing. Since when has there been a doctrine that suggested that one must be an SDA to get to Heaven? Losing out on Heaven (NOT losing one's voting right in an SDA church) would be, I think, the ultimate price!

There is MUCH to say on whether we should preach the word to all the world. MY position won't be popular at all, but at least it should stimulate some brain cells, but I must eat supper now. More later.

I agree totally with this point of view. Unfortunately the Church (SDA) is way too sensitive and they see anything that even hints of nonorthodoxy as a mortal threat to their existence.

I especially liked your points on Des Ford and the disturbing ideas concerning "excommunication". Smacks too much of Roman Catholicism (the antichrist and that arrogant little horn SDA hate so much).

[ClubV12]

My sincere apologies to anyone who miss took "the ultimate price" in referrence to Dr. Ford as anything more than disfellowship from the Seventh Day Adventist church!

That is the ultimate price the church can bestow.

It is ridiculous to claim the church, any church, including the Catholic church, should not exercise it's power to disfellowship a member who is radically opposed to the fundamental positions of an organization, a group requiring membership standards. Even the President of the USA cannot escape THIS most basic of human concepts.

You want to protest? You want to fight and oppose and change any given group? Fine!!! Knock yourself out, but DON'T expect to retain your membership in that group! At work, they call it, "getting fired". In the military they call it discharged. DUH,,,, is the concept that hard to grasp?

Why is Desmond Ford so special? He chose his path, no one forced him.

It is not my position to call for anyone to disfellowship anyone else on this forum. THAT is up to the local group who is responsible for their local membership standards. Those standards being set by the larger Governing body. But when such an event comes around in my local church, I have the option to vote for or against and I will exercise that option at that time.

Flyboy was out voted, it's as simple as that.

[Flyboy]

Should we try to spread Christianity to all places and people? I am personally challenged, but lean towards an answer of "no". I put the thoughts below out there for comment, I am interested in another perspective. I live in China so I will place these comments in the context of events in China, but similar events happened in many other places. It's a long post, but it will make you think, I hope, or it will make you angry.

In the 1890's through the 1920's, missionaries across denominations broke into two groups. One group argued that missions could really only be effective by reaching to the people through service. Education, health care, etc. The other group said that they could only be reached through preaching.

This debate was stimulated because missionaries in rural areas found that they were trying to preach to people about a Bible which the people couldn't read, using symbols that the people didn't understand. A dragon, for example, in China, is a symbol of power and good luck. So when you preach of a dragon in prophesy Chinese were confused. They couldn't read, could not write, only knew how to plant and farm.

Furthermore, the Chinese had a civil war, during the same period as America's civil war, except unlike America's civil war where only 600,000 people were killed, China's civil war saw 20 million die. The reason was because a man who had been instructed by a missionary, and who later claimed to have had a vision, claimed that he was the brother of Jesus and went to overthrow the emperor. He forbid marriage and sex, except for himself of course, indeed, he took on many wives.

This civil war took place right after two wars against the British and French in which these two European powers fought specifically for the right to sell opium in China despite the emperors forbidding it. Throughout the next 50 years there were several other very serious uprisings against missionaries and foreign powers.

By the 1920's the missionaries had come to the conclusion that there was simply NO way possible to separate the missionary's gospel message from his American (or British, etc) culture. The missionaries lived in nice homes, had a staff of Chinese servants, were subject to their own countries law rather than the laws of China, forced students at Christian schools to study Bible, and a lot of other things which the Chinese did not understand and resented. Very few missionaries were not like this. Just last week I visited a mountain top resort that was built in the 1920's for missionaries to escape to during the summer months, the weather was cooler up there. Negotiations for another summer resort nearby were in process with a clause in the contract that no Chinese could settle or buy plots of land on this territory.

Within the last two weeks I have spoken with two adults who grew up in China as missionary kids. One of them told stories about going up to the summer resort, in fact, I hiked with him to the top of a mountain to see the old cabins. The other told stories about how his parents refused to go up to the cabins because they wanted to be with the Chinese.... But that they were the only missionary family they knew that didn't go relax for the summer.

The missionaries, as a group, were simply viewed as rich and snobby foreigners among the Chinese.

At this point the missionaries began to consider, among themselves, whether other moral philosophies were acceptable as a path to Heaven. Confucianism, Buddhism, Islam, etc. The rationale being this: The canonical writings of all of these teach essentially the same thing. Really the only difference and it IS a BIG difference to Christians, is that there is no Saviour in these other religions. Also, of course, in modern practice these religions have devolved into something unlike what they were meant to be. Keep in mind that this debate was taking place among men and women during the 1920's, many of whom were born in China and spoke Chinese fluently, understood the culture, yet still felt inadequate as foreigners, unable to reach the people.

What if we have put God into a box, a box labeled "western culture and religion" and our interpretations are based, I should say LIMITED to the heritage and culture that we ourselves inherit from our forefathers? I would argue that there is simply no possible way to separate your culture from your presentation of anything to other people. In other words, you will always be a foreigner in China. Chinese will not get over the fact that when they see you the first thing they see is your big nose and your white skin. They automatically draw conclusions about you and your actions, collectively, reinforce their views. In essence, they are right about you.

Once missionaries processed this debate some of them began to question whether Christian missions in China was even appropriate. Imagine a debate like this among lifetime missionaries, born in China to parents who were lifelong missionaries, and many of whom had borne there own children in China.

I think that westerners give God no room to provide equally moral philosophies to other peoples. What if Christianity was really meant for western cultures? What if Buddhists, Muslims, and followers of Confucius are equally able to get to Heaven, even if by rejecting Christianity?

What do do with those two difficult verses then, where Jesus says "go unto all the world" and "I am the way"? Well, what if he meant that BECAUSE of his sacrifice, people everywhere are now able to get to Heaven, people in all places, in all periods of history, regardless of what moral philosophy they follow, that He is the ONLY person that can open the door to Heaven and that at the cross He opened that door. What if going unto the world doesn't necessarily mean being a Christian, what if it means encouraging people to do what they know, in their heart, is right: To love and serve others. Isn't this what Jesus said when asked which was the greatest commandment?

Thus, I am unconvinced that Christianity was meant for all people. I am convinced that the essence of the Christian message can be found in other moral doctrines and that despite our own cultural limitations God has provided culturally acceptable moral philosophies to different regions of the world. Makes me think that people should start focusing on doing missionary work, more missionary work, in their own countries.

Why do we, a limited people, try to impose our own limitations on God. How pitiful.

[ClubV12]

You have to adapt the method of delivering the message to the people's you are trying to reach, but cannot change the message itself. It is not "western", it is for the world.

I am reminded of how the early Adventist's wanted to modify the message(s) being brought to Europe. Ellen White counseled against this. The same message for the USA was the same message for the Germans or the French, for all peoples. The methods of delivery may vary, but the "books" (like Great Controversy) were to remain the same (except for translation of course).

The ten commandments are not for any special group of people, they apply equally to the native in the jungle who never heard the name of Jesus as they do to anybody else.

[doug yowell]

Thus, I am unconvinced that Christianity was meant for all people. I am convinced that the essence of the Christian message can be found in other moral doctrines and that despite our own cultural limitations God has provided culturally acceptable moral philosophies to different regions of the world. Makes me think that people should start focusing on doing missionary work, more missionary work, in their own countries.

Why do we, a limited people, try to impose our own limitations on God. How pitiful.

Given the reasoning and conclusion of your post I would have to conclude that you don't believe that "Christianity" was meant for any people. If the essence of the Christian message can be found in other moral doctrines then it, along with those other doctrines,should be easily recognizable and acceptable in any culture. That's not your argument. Christianity is founded on God's coming to a dying world, becoming a Human Being,living a perfect life, and offering to exchange that perfection for what every other human has become.The essence of Christianity is Christ not moral philosophy, and that message has been ordered by Him to be spread into ALL the world.Refusal to follow those instructions in the name of cultural morality is trying to impose our own limitations on God.

[Flyboy]

Why do we, a limited people, try to impose our own limitations on God. How pitiful.

Given the reasoning and conclusion of your post I would have to conclude that you don't believe that "Christianity" was meant for any people. If the essence of the Christian message can be found in other moral doctrines then it, along with those other doctrines,should be easily recognizable and acceptable in any culture. That's not your argument. Christianity is founded on God's coming to a dying world, becoming a Human Being,living a perfect life, and offering to exchange that perfection for what every other human has become.The essence of Christianity is Christ not moral philosophy, and that message has been ordered by Him to be spread into ALL the world.Refusal to follow those instructions in the name of cultural morality is trying to impose our own limitations on God.

[Flyboy]

It is ridiculous to claim the church, any church, including the Catholic church, should not exercise it's power to disfellowship a member who is radically opposed to the fundamental positions of an organization, a group requiring membership standards. Even the President of the USA cannot escape THIS most basic of human concepts.

I'm not suggesting that the church, or any organization, should not exercise its power to take a member off the books. I'm suggesting that it should exercise that right very sparingly and it should be patient with its members. When someone is actively fighting against a church doctrine, or the church itself, of course the church should make efforts to bring that person back in. But in Dr. Rich's case, as radical as his views may be, I don't know that he is standing up in the middle of sermons to correct the preacher, handing out flyers at the door, or trying to convert people to his way of thinking during potluck. If he was, then I suspect the pastor may chat with him. Maybe he has sought an online forum where he feels he can express himself safely. But, maybe not. I don't know.

My feeling was that you are ready to kick the guy out of church straight away. Disfellowship is a serious thing. Someone can regain membership again, but would they want to.... would disfellowship leave such a mark on them that they leave Christianity completely? I would take such a decision very seriously if I were the pastor and would not bring his name up for disfellowship unless there were simply no other options, unless he were actually pulling people away from the church. And I don't think the church disfellowships much anymore. Probably all of us have people in our churches that have some very unique views on theology.

[Gail]

Quote:

I'm not suggesting that the church, or any organization, should not exercise its power to take a member off the books. I'm suggesting that it should exercise that right very sparingly and it should be patient with its members. When someone is actively fighting against a church doctrine, or the church itself, of course the church should make efforts to bring that person back in.

For the churches that I've seen do this, it is a painful process for everyone.

[Woody]

Yes Gail. It is an extremely painful process and experience. It divides the church. Far more are lost rather than saved. ANd it's the purpose of the church to save.

Best solution as you all have heard me say - is to just not have membership. You can have a statement of beliefs. And like now - some who attend will accept ALL of the beliefs. But most will not accept each and every belief. It's just that the power of the church to punish you if you don't live up to each belief ... will be the one that is banished.

[Gail]

Hmm... no membership at all- what a concept! I'm going to think about that :)

[Woody]

Hmm... no membership at all- what a concept! I'm going to think about that

Yeah. Kinda like the early church. They went about the highways and biways doing what Jesus called them to do -

BAPTIZING people. And not getting permission to add anyone to the church books. lol Why? Because there were no church books. That is a more recent human invention.

thinking

[Flyboy]

No membership? Interesting concept. I'm interested to hear other takes on this.

Is it the job of the church to punish or would lack of punishment be considered too 'softer-kinder'?

I can easily see how the idea of membership is appealing, it's human nature to start clubs and set standards for membership, my kids do it all the time.

[Woody]

No membership? Interesting concept. I'm interested to hear other takes on this.

Is it the job of the church to punish or would lack of punishment be considered too 'softer-kinder'?

I can easily see how the idea of membership is appealing, it's human nature to start clubs and set standards for membership, my kids do it all the time.

Well stated. I agree. And there are even in this day of judgment hungry people - large non-demoninational churches that don't have membership. The largest church in a community I used to live in seemed to do just fine without the judgment of membership. The church had 4,000 attendees and functioned quite well.

[Ron Amnsn]

Best solution as you all have heard me say - is to just not have membership.

Membership can be useful -- it lets you know who can vote on what color the new carpet will be.

But membership should expire for everyone each year. Those who are interested in retaining membership could give any offering or attend church services. If theological purity is important, members could be asked to agree to a basic Statement of Faith each year when their membership is renewed.

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Woody

Best solution as you all have heard me say - is to just not have membership.

Membership can be useful -- it lets you know who can vote on what color the new carpet will be.

But membership should expire for everyone each year. Those who are interested in retaining membership could give any offering or attend church services. If theological purity is important, members could be asked to agree to a basic Statement of Faith each year when their membership is renewed.

The issue of the color of the carpet is a simple one. Those in attendance on a certain Sabbath Service or business meeting... can vote. Yes, even if a visitor for some reason felt inclined to attend and do so. OR - you can always have a committee decide it.

[ClubV12]

Of course the early church had membership requirements! It was a serious issue among the believers as to what things (laws!) were required of them. One set of laws for the Jews and another for the Gentiles? Paul kept the laws that were applicable to both the Jews and the Gentiles so as not to cause trouble in either camp. And if you DIDN'T follow the minimum standards for "church membership" the results were not pretty. Some paid with their life. And what makes you think they DIDN'T have "books"? If you came into church with open sin are you suggesting they would do nothing? Not a chance, the evidence is clear issues of sin in the church were dealt with in a vigorous way.

Even the Israelites had to deal with a mixed multitude. They had special provisions that applied only to those "non-members". Individual Israelites were also dealt with according to their sin, punishment even unto death! There is no point in time, in history where you can escape the basic concept of membership AND the consequences, good or bad, or having it or not having it.

If you don't like what the official organized membership of a group is doing, leave. Go start your own group, members or not, what ever you want. Like the Branch Davidians, or the Baptists or any endless number of groups requiring minimum standards to "join".

The Amelekites didn't call themselves "Jewish" for a reason! :)

[Dr. Rich]

Wow Flyboy, I think you made it clear that there is a real problem with the religion that Paul invented. Jesus never said that Christians would be saved, he said "whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My Brother and Sister and Mother." Paul's gospel is one about being a Christian, not about the Kingdom of Heaven.

The time of trouble is the time that the gospel about the kingdom of heaven will be preached around the world. Christians, just as Muslims, have been trying to force their will upon the rest of the world just like those who attempt to force their will upon others on this blog. It is one thing to explain your belief and why you belive the way you do, but it is another thing to make fun of others and call them names when they don't believe the way you do. I confess that I have been guilty of this same thing and I must apoligize to you if I have done this against you.

From what I have read in the words of Jesus, the only qualilfication for being in the Kingdom of Heaven is to obey God's commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus. (Rev. 12:17)

[ClubV12]

There is obviously a HUGE divide in the definition of what constitute;

"God's commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus." With so much "Babylon" (differing view points) on the definition who shall we know which one is right?

As for me, I have decided, after giving it careful consideration for many months. Others have reached an entirely different conclusion. Realizing that some may call it "ego", I must declare, I have no choice, it is imperative that I speak out: Those who have rejected Paul and/or Ellen White are under a "strong delusion" set upon them by the Lord. There is just no easy, gentle way to say it.

[Woody]

Quote:

Jesus never said that Christians would be saved

Romans 10:9: "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."

2 Timothy 1:9 "It is He who saved us and chose us for his holy work, not because we deserved it but because that was his plan long before the world began."

"The perishing sinner may say: 'I am a lost sinner; but Christ came to seek and to save that which was lost. He says, --- I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance ---. I am a sinner and he died upon calvary's cross to save me. I need not remain a moment longer unsaved. He died and rose again for my justification, and he will save me now. I accept the forgiveness he has promise' ". 1SM p 392

Joel 2:32 And everyone who calls on the name of the LORD will be saved; for on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be deliverance, as the LORD has said, among the survivors whom the LORD calls.

Acts 2:21 And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.'

"I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life." (1 John 5:13)

"All who have truly repented of sin, and by faith claimed the blood of Christ as their atoning sacrifice, have had pardon entered against their names in the books of Heaven" GC88 p. 483

[BobRyan]

Those who have rejected Paul and/or Ellen White are under a "strong delusion" set upon them by the Lord. There is just no easy, gentle way to say it.

[Woody]

Quote:

In our current church manual - what is the #1 reason for considering action for disfellowship or discipline?

Well Let me tell you what the second one is:

"violation of the Law of God"

Technically - ANYone of us could be disfellowshipped if there was a group of individuals who desired to do so. ANd they could rightly do so. For we all fall short of the Law.

If we followed the manual ... NONE would be members. For NONE would qualify.

[Dr. Rich]

Good try Woody, but every verse you gave and statment you wrote was from someone other than the words of Jesus Christ. Like I said before, Jesus NEVER said that all Christians will be saved. In fact, Jesus said that MOST of them will be on the wide road to destruction. How sad!

[Flyboy]

Those who have rejected Paul and/or Ellen White are under a "strong delusion" set upon them by the Lord. There is just no easy, gentle way to say it.

... and I have an equally strong compulsion to point out, repeatedly, that EGW is simply *not* Biblical. So while her writings may be a fundamental doctrine of the Adventist church, they are not a fundamental doctrine of the Bible, thus, nor of Heaven. There is but ONE fundamental doctrine of Heaven and that is Christ (Is is only through Him that anyone can get to Heaven. I think we agree on that point... what we don't agree on is how many paths there are to the cross).

SDA of many colors and cultures subscribe to EGW to different degrees. If EGW is meant to highlight the Bible rather than to stand beside it, then why do we get so upset if someone wants to use another source to highlight the Bible?

I'm not against EGW, at all, but I am against SDA holding her up so near to the Bible that she becomes a stumbling block to other Christians, including other SDA. I expect that if EGW were alive today she would not be handing out copies of her own book, rather she'd be pointing to Jesus and His Word.

As for the writings of Paul, I fully support the Bible, as a whole. I admit there are parts of the Bible that are puzzling to me, and in which I seek further understanding, but the general acceptance of Paul's writings is not one of them.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

God is not the God of confusion.

That's the reason it's difficult to take seriously some of these threads about EGW, her quotes, the IJ, church manual, painting SDA's members with a broad brush, etc. I think some here are intentionally misrepresenting the Adventist church, its members, the beliefs, and conducting tribunals authored by the devil himself.

IMHO

[Flyboy]

Wow Flyboy, I think you made it clear that there is a real problem with the religion that Paul invented. Jesus never said that Christians would be saved, he said "whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My Brother and Sister and Mother." Paul's gospel is one about being a Christian, not about the Kingdom of Heaven.

Based on my 'position' here on this thread, the argument is *not* that Paul was not in accord with Christ but that people other than Christians can get to Heaven.

Paul was preaching the word to an audience where that message was relevant, at a time that it was relevant. And to all people who believe in the Bible today it is also relevant. And as a Christian I think the message is relevant to all people from all times, whether they make a conscious acceptance of it or not. Weren't there, after all, a couple of OT geezers who went to Heaven yet knew nothing of Jesus? Was the 'Heaven without Jesus' option closed off at the cross? Did it simply change to a 'Heaven without knowing Jesus' option?

On another point, no one has yet answered the point someone made about Acts 16:6, that Asia was off limits for the word of God. Why is that? Is it possible because people there would not be receptive to Paul's message and so he was confined to places where the message of Christ would be received?