Associate SDA Membership

[Gregory Matthews]

Several years back, a SDA congregation was dealing with a number of people who regularly attended its services but were not ready to become SDA members.  The congregation wanted to both welcome them and to integrate them into the life and mission of the congregation.  As such they were considering how they might do this.  As they considered this, I wrote a proposal to establish a category of membership that was only with the local congregation and not with the SDA denomination.  My proposal was not accepted.  That was fine as my intention was to stimulate thought and discussion.

To stimulate discussion here, I will post my suggestion below, with identifying material removed:

 

Associate Membership Proposal:

 

R:         XXXXXX

Proposal:  The local congregation of the  Seventh-day Adventist denomination shall establish two (2) categories of membership, as is listed below:

 

1)      Membership in the Seventh-day Adventist denomination:

a)      Membership:  shall be both in the local Congregation and in the Seventh-day Adventist denomination.

'b)  Requirements for membership:  The requirements for membership will be the general requirements for membership of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, as outlined in either the standard Baptismal Statement of Belief or the Alternate Baptismal Statement of belief and as these statements may be amended by the appropriate denominational body from time to time.

c)      Teaching tool:  the so-called 28 Fundamental Beliefs and any following amended editions may be used as a tool to teach common areas of SDA belief and practice, but they will not be used as a standard for baptism.

d)      Record of membership:  Membership will be recorded in both congregational records and in the records of the local Conference.

e)      Ministry leadership:  The basic level of eligibility for leadership and other ministry positions will be considered to have been met by membership in the SDA Denomination.  However, some positions of leadership and positions that result in ordination and/or require ordination may have other requirements that must be met and/or are generally required by the SDA denomination.

 

 

2)      Associate Membership in the local SDA Congregation:

a)      Membership:  shall be an Associate Membership that is only in the local congregation and is NOT in either the local Conference or in the Seventh-day Adventist denomination.  Such membership shall not be eligible for transfer.

'b)  Requirements for membership:  The basic standard for Associate Membership in the local SDA congregation will be that the Associate Member will have a commitment to follow the leading of Christ as led by the Holy Spirit and in addition will understand the mission and values of the local congregation and will want to participate in that congregation in a manner that will live peaceably with its congregational members.   The Associate Member category will include people who:

1)      Are not in full accord with the general understanding of SDA doctrines.

2)      Are not fully compliant with the general understanding of SDA life style practices.

3)      Wish to associate with other Christians but who have reservations about formally joining a denomination.

4)      May have other reasons for joining as an Associate member without denominational membership.

 

c)      Teaching tool:  Associate members will be required to have a basic knowledge of the beliefs and life style practices of the SDA Denomination.  But, they will not be required to either believe them or to practice them.

d)      Record of membership:  The local Conference will not be given an itemized listing of these names as the Conference is not set up to in a manner that requires it to have a listing of people who may attend, but are not SDA members.

e)      Ministry leadership:  Associate Members may be restricted in the leadership positions that they can hold:

1)      Leadership that requires ordination will be restricted to denominational members and will not be available to Associate members.

2)      Associate members will not be ordained in leadership positions that allow for ordination but do not require it.

3)      Associate Members may hold leadership positons that would not generally be considered to be of spiritual leadership.  E.G. Fund raising for a building project.

4)      Associate Members may participate in programing and in other roles that may be considered to have some level of spiritual leadership as long as the above is not violated and the Associate Member is carefully considered and will not use such a positon to agitate against the common beliefs and practices of the SDA denomination.

5)      The local Congregation may place such additional restrictions on the use of Associate Members as it believes is needed.

 

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

NOTE:  I once was the pastor of a congregation that had several people who attended every week, but did not want to become members.  The congregation wanted to use them as much as possible in the life of the congregation.  One of those person was a Methodist who was also in church every Sunday.  At a time when the congregation purchased property on which to build a church, she was placed in charge of raising the funds needed to purchase the property.

 

 

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I think it's a great idea.

8 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Associate members will be required to have a basic knowledge of the beliefs and life style practices of the SDA Denomination.

How would you go about fulfilling the above requirement?  Passing a quiz with a certain score, sort of like a "new citizenship" test for immigrants?

[JoeMo]

I think it's a great idea, Gregory!  We have some people in our congregation who generally ascribe to most of the tenets of the SDA denomination, but balk at others; so in conscience they don't feel that they can become full-blown Members.  They are integral, productive, and valuable members of our group.  I may "steal" your idea and pass it on to my pastor!

[Jeannieb43]

There are several "attenders" at our local church who have never asked to become baptized or otherwise become full SDA members.   We seem to treat them all just like "family," regardless of their legal status.  I think that's the Christian way, actually.   Why make church membership so burdensome?   Having one's name on the books never guaranteed anybody's salvation.

[Gregory Matthews]

Pam:  By spending some time with the pastor in a study of SDA doctrine, policy and life.

We require such of members.  Why not of Associate Members, if we were to do such.

 

NOTE:  As I stated in the OP.  The document that I produced was intended to stimulate discussion.  It was not put into place.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Jeannieb43:

1)  There are people who do not wish to join  the SDA  denomination, or that the congregation does not believe are ready to be members of the SDA denomination.  Yet these may wish to have some sort of recognized relationship with a SDA congregation.

2)  This formalizes the establishment of a group of people that are associated with an individual congregation, even if not SDA members.  From an administrative standpoint, as a pastor, this is good.  It is good for the congregation.  It is good for the individuals.  It is simply good administratively.

3)  It does  require some sort of commitment on the part of the person.  That is a step that is good.

 

 

[Kevin H]

I have thought the same thing over several years. There is a need for this for many different reasons. While not at the forefront of reasons I've thought of this, when reading this post here I could not help thinking about what was happening in the Tel Aviv Church in the 1980s. They had a number of Jewish families who attended Sabbath after Sabbath for years, yet would not join the church as the wanted to stay Jewish and not become Christians.   

[Gregory Matthews]

Wanderer:

No one becomes a SDA member today without requesting to become one.

In the proposed category of Associate Member, no one would become such unless  they had requested to become such.

The reality today is that we may have people who attend our services who want to have some sort of a formal recognition, but do not want to become a full-fledged SDA member.  The Associate category is intended to meet that need.

 

[debbym]

i would just identify them as "Friends of the Adventist Church"

[Gregory Matthews]

O.K.  I do not debate the value (wisdom) of such.  But, sometimes both individuals and congregations want some sort of formal recognition of a relationship and the establishment of the norms and boundaries of that relationship.  The congregation that I mentioned in my OP was attempting to do that.  But, as  I said, they were unable to do that.

 

 

[phkrause]

There's a friend who has been going to our church for many years, just about every Sabbath, but does not want to become a member. I would imagine there are others!

[CoAspen]

An associate can mean someone who is learning, in training, etc. Sounds like an excellent idea...for everyone who is about to become or thinking of becomming a member. In this manner, more time is spent with that individual/s as they journey toward church membership. A longer process than we have now and more likely those person/s would stay in the church.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

49 minutes ago, CoAspen said:

A longer process than we have now and more likely those person/s would stay in the church.

maybe, maybe not.  

If the prospective member, who is given attention and "denominational wooing" during his/her path to membership, all of a sudden gets dropped out of the interest radar by the members after achieving the goal of membership, I think it's more than likely that member will leave.

[CoAspen]

Ah....but, if the process is abut growth, than a relationship is developed and they do not drop off the radar. That is the way is see it, a mutual benefit to both in the experience. Much like our own walk with Christ, a gradual learning obut Him while He learns about us and the bond is being built. Our current process seems more likely for persons to drop off the radar, I believe that has been documented.

[Myron]

Overall I consider this to be a very good document, but it seems to show some lack of understanding how things work biblically and thus in the Kingdom of Heaven.  Of course the root problem of all of this is the sin of denominationalism.  Denominations are a necessity because just the body cannot function if it is all hands or all feet or all eyes, the church cannot function without all of its parts, and all the parts God set up are necessary.  The problem comes when a denomination raises itself up in its own eyes and claims you cannot be Christian (or cannot be saved at the second coming) if you do not belong to that denomination.  I have watched this denomination struggle with this obvious sin all my life, and regardless of what official doctrine states,  

Then again, that official doctrine can be a little bit self contradictory too.  When I was in academy and college the official teaching was that while only those who are members of the SDA during the time of trouble would be saved,during the current time there are many true Christians throughout all of the "daughters of Babylon".  There was also an extremely strong anti-ecumenical movement in the denomination, and the official teaching was that we should have nothing to do with any of these other denominations and their false teachings.  This led to a significant number of SDAs that considered ONLY SDAs to be Christians and openly made this distinction in any discussion.  I have never quite figured out if this belief is held by a very, very large minority of SDAs or is the majority view.  It is not the official denominational stand, but that does not matter much if the vast majority of the laity and significant numbers of clergy believe it.  I am seeing hints of that in this thread as well, although no one has openly stated this so far. 

Such a claim, is hubris and blasphemy no matter what denomination makes it, and we are not the only one.  We are not the door to the kingdom; Jesus is.  We have some great truths that cannot be found in other denominations and that makes us attractive to many people who as a result wish to worship with us, but this hubris makes us unattractive enough that many of them will never be baptized into this fellowship even if they wish to be involved in it.  

This brings us to the matter of just what association means.  There is a mixing of types and metaphors going on in this discussion, at least in part because we do not have the familiarity we should have with biblical prophecy and its types and shadows.  Ellen White was told over and over again that we are to be studying the entire law given to Israel as a prophecy of the plan of salvation.  She never did so and neither has any other SDA that I am aware of.  Most make all kinds of excuses why we should never have anything to do with this law even though we do give some form of lip service to at least part of it being prophecy and we use it as nearly the sole justification for a few of our doctrines.  Even those portions are not studied in any kind of detail so that we really have no idea what any of those symbols mean or how salvation works.  

The basic outline is given in the feast days of Israel and in the growth cycle from birth to adulthood and adoption as fully mature sons of God.  There are other types and shadows that also apply to this discussion which will also have to be mentioned.  The eighth day after birth is the circumcision ceremony at which time the child is formally named.  This parallels Passover.  Both show in type justification by faith.  Although no Christian denomination I know of can show biblical cause for infant baptism this pattern is precisely that.  The problem is not that the Bible does not support the doctrine, it is that Christians have so little understanding the Bible and its types and shadows.  The Bible has three baptisms, two of which we are to practice now, but no one seems to have any understanding of any of this.  The New Testament calls this baptism the baptism of John which is a baptism of water for justification, repentance and forgiveness.

The next baptism, the baptism of the spirit and fire (in which we receive the earnest (down payment) of the Holy Spirit;) it also is shown in the Feast of Weeks (Pentecost) and the child going through the Bar Mitzvah ceremony.  Today we claim that in this ceremony the child was recognized as a man, but that was never true to those who followed the biblical pattern.  The proper terminology here is youth. At this point the young man was now to present himself before God in the temple three times a year with all the men of Israel, but this did not mean he was a man.  Instead, the youth now left his mother's covering and began to learn his father's business (see Luke 2:49).  He could marry, but if he did marry at this young age he and his wife would remain in his father's household. This was a time of learning and training in the business, and many here have given a nod to this idea because this is how the word associate is used in business today.  In the Bible it is children and bondservants; in today's business it is associates.  

The final step in the process, where a person really became a man occurred after the age of 20 for most occupations, and 30 for the priesthood, and then only if the father is satisfied that the youth has adequately learned the business and the father's heart and mind in all things.  The biblical patterns for this are the adoption ceremony, the Feast of Tabernacles (which closely parallels the consecration of the priests, another type for this) and the receiving of the fullness of the spirit.  This baptism is still future, as we only receive it at the time we receive the glorified body and full authority to rule with Christ (see Revelation 20:4).  Jesus adoption ceremony was his baptism, and was repeated on the mount of transfiguration.  I do not know why the repeat was necessary, but in the adoption ceremony the father publicly states that he and the son are one, then gives the son a signet and full authority to conduct any business he desires in the father's name.  It was only after this ceremony that Jesus was able to begin his ministry.  The parallel in today's business practices is that an associate passes from being simply an employee and is now a partner,  although many companies break this up by having junior partners that do not have full rights.  Regardless, a partner, even a junior partner, is a co-owner of a business, not an employee.  The way most of you are speaking of this associate member status it fits into this pattern, and I have no problem with that until we get to the definition Greg gives in 2), 'b)".  

Quote

Requirements for membership:  The basic standard for Associate Membership in the local SDA congregation will be that the Associate Member will have a commitment to follow the leading of Christ as led by the Holy Spirit and in addition will understand the mission and values of the local congregation and will want to participate in that congregation in a manner that will live peaceably with its congregational members.   The Associate Member category will include people who:

1)      Are not in full accord with the general understanding of SDA doctrines.

2)      Are not fully compliant with the general understanding of SDA life style practices.

3)      Wish to associate with other Christians but who have reservations about formally joining a denomination.

4)      May have other reasons for joining as an Associate member without denominational membership.

The portion of the definition I highlight here brings in a number of other biblical types and shadows that this denomination does not teach well or at all (neither does any other denomination,) but which if properly understood means this document will never fly.  I will never be accepted by any level of leadership in any denomination.  

Why is this a problem?  The problem begins with the people's refusal to hear God's voice for themselves and accept the baptism of fire on that first day of Pentecost at Mt. Sinai by accompanying Moses up the mountain into the thick darkness where God was (Exodus 20:21).  Instead, they said to Moses, "You go into God's presence and risk getting killed, then if you survived, come down and tell us what God said."  Ever since that time they have been saying, "These are Moses words, not God's."  We see God's response to this request in Deuteronomy 18 where he says, 

Quote

14 The nations you will dispossess listen to those who practice sorcery or divination. But as for you, the Lord your God has not permitted you to do so. 15 The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him. 16 For this is what you asked of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly when you said, “Let us not hear the voice of the Lord our God nor see this great fire anymore, or we will die.”

17 The Lord said to me: “What they say is good. 18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites, and I will put my words in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him. 19 I myself will call to account anyone who does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name. 20 But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, is to be put to death.”

This defines what a prophet is as well as telling us why God gave us prophets.  Originally most prophets were a part of the priesthood, but from the beginning, starting with Aaron himself the corruption found in the priesthood created the need for a separate office of prophet, which began in the days of Samson.  Because the people refused to hear and obey the voice of God for themselves they were given prophets to hear God's voice and repeat those words to the people.  When the priests continued to refuse to hear God's voice themselves, and instead taught the people to sin God eventually removed the office of prophet from the priesthood, telling Eli, 

Quote

30 “Therefore the Lord, the God of Israel, declares: ‘I promised that members of your family would minister before me forever.’ But now the Lord declares: ‘Far be it from me! Those who honor me I will honor, but those who despise me will be disdained. 31 The time is coming when I will cut short your strength (KJV: arm) and the strength (KJV: arm) of your priestly house, so that no one in it will reach old age, 32 and you will see distress in my dwelling. Although good will be done to Israel, no one in your family line will ever reach old age. 33 Every one of you that I do not cut off from serving at my altar I will spare only to destroy your sight and sap your strength, and all your descendants will die in the prime of life.

Isaiah 29 defines prophets and seers as the nation's eyes and rulers (heads).  

Quote

10 The Lord has brought over you a deep sleep:
    He has sealed your eyes (the prophets);
    he has covered your heads (the seers).

These are the strength or arm of the priesthood.  When the office of the prophet was removed from the priesthood the priesthood was also split into other parts as well.  In two passages in Paul's writings we see the hierarchy of these parts.  Many have insisted to me that these statements are not a hierarchy, but since Paul lists them in an ordinal form (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc) there can be no doubt that they are a hierarchy, and study of other scriptures seems to support this as well, although none give a clear statement of intent such as Paul gives.  

Quote

28 And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues. 1 Corinthians 12

Quote

So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, Ephesians 4:11

Apostles are defined in Numbers 12:6-9 as being something greater than prophets, and in John 15:15 as friends of God, literally as his business partners, if you read the full definition Jesus gives in that verse.  None of us are there yet, we do not know God and his ways well enough yet.  So apostles were not a part of the priesthood, but the offices of prophet, evangelist, pastor and teacher are.  The prophet, the one who hears God's voice for himself, outranks the pastor and evangelist, the highest offices this denomination officially believes anyone can attain today.  

Yet that was not the intent of God nor the expectation of Moses from the beginning.  In Numbers 11 we read,

Quote

23 The Lord answered Moses, “Is the Lord’s arm too short? Now you will see whether or not what I say will come true for you.”

24 So Moses went out and told the people what the Lord had said. He brought together seventy of their elders and had them stand around the tent. 25 Then the Lord came down in the cloud and spoke with him, and he took some of the power of the Spirit that was on him and put it on the seventy elders. When the Spirit rested on them, they prophesied—but did not do so again.

26 However, two men, whose names were Eldad and Medad, had remained in the camp. They were listed among the elders, but did not go out to the tent. Yet the Spirit also rested on them, and they prophesied in the camp. 27 A young man ran and told Moses, “Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp.”

28 Joshua son of Nun, who had been Moses’ aide since youth, spoke up and said, “Moses, my lord, stop them!”

29 But Moses replied, “Are you jealous for my sake? I wish that all the Lord’s people were prophets and that the Lord would put his Spirit on them!” 30 Then Moses and the elders of Israel returned to the camp.

Moses knew that if the people had gone into the fire on the mount with him, and heard God's voice for themselves, they would be prophets, just like him (well maybe more like his brother and sister, since he was more than a prophet (Numbers 12:6-9).  He knew this to be God's plan.  I believe he knew the New Covenant even though it was not stated to the people by a prophet until Jeremiah wrote it in chapter 31 of his book.  This states that everyone will be apostles before God is finished with his plan, 

Quote

33 “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel
    after that time,” declares the Lord.
“I will put my law in their minds
    and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
    and they will be my people.
34 No longer will they teach their neighbor,
    or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
    from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the Lord.
“For I will forgive their wickedness
    and will remember their sins no more.”

Greg has another thread or two dealing with problems of leadership in the denomination and I pointed out that the biblical type the leadership of all denominations follow is they type of King Saul.  Saul had a divine right to rule, and he took this to mean he had a divine right to do whatever he pleased.  His subjects were not allowed to have an opinion that differed from his, even when it became very obvious to even him that God refused to speak to him anymore due to his rebellion against God.  

In our denomination, even in the days when we were simply a movement and not a formal denomination, incorporated and fully recognized by the Babylonian system (having 501-3-C status showing we are submitted to Babylon, as opposed to showing that we are separate from her as most believe) God found it necessary to send a prophet at least in part due to the corruption of the "priesthood".  Yes, there was corruption in the Millerite movement concerning the way they interpreted scripture.  Miller could not have held the interpretation he placed on the 2300 evenings and mornings prophecy if he had not blindly insisted on holding to the mistranslation of Daniel 8:14 where this is called days (later in the chapter, in verse 23 that exact same Hebrew phrase is properly translated as evenings and mornings, referring to the daily burnt offerings, and not calendar days) and if he had followed his own rule 13 and looked at the fulfillment of this prophecy in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes when the altar of burnt offerings was removed from the temple for 1190 days, and the abomination that causes desolation, the idol of Zeus, was set up in its place for 1150 days (2300 evenings and mornings).  Rule 13 required that any new interpretation of prophecy fit the pattern set in any past fulfillment of the same prophecy.  Adventists get around this today by claiming that prophecies only ever have a single fulfillment, something that directly counters the teaching of Ellen White and William Miller.

So it became necessary to have an independent voice under God's direct covering to set things straight.  She did not know the biblical definition of the word prophet, something she demonstrated every time she claimed to be more than a prophet, but when defining what she meant showed herself have duties subordinate to a prophet. Any prophet would also have many if not all these lesser callings, and be expected to teach subordinates to do that job, and then delegate those tasks to the subordinate. However, from the beginning she interpreted her visions by the teachings of the Millerites rather than follow God's instructions and go to the Law of Moses and study it as a prophecy of the plan of Salvation.  She would have had a much different perspective on things had she obeyed this.  Instead she chose the blindness in part that God spoke of in Isaiah 29 (see above) and is the natural result of any idol of the heart (see Ezekiel 14:1-11).

A prophet is proven sent by God by the signs and wonders that accompany them, (Deuteronomy 13 and 18), but are only proven a prophet of God by full submission to God's word.  The word God gives to a prophet he sends is always his word, but the both the prophet and the hearer of that prophet's words will interpret the word of God through the filter of the idols of their hearts if they have refused to cast out those idols and be obedient to God (Ezekiel 14:1-11).  Properly a prophet should not even be in the interpretation business.  He or she should simply state the word exactly as God gave it and leave the interpretation to others -- primarily to the one God intended that counsel.  Only the apostles are competent to give a proper and complete interpretation, but the rest of us are to try to understand to the best of our ability, knowing that we will make mistakes and those errors must be corrected, not held to all the tighter, and more dogmatically when they are proven wrong.  

Ever since Eli lost his arm he has been trying to get it back.  Then when God placed the King over Israel with few exceptions those kings have made every effort to subordinate the priests as well as the prophets.  Any prophet who speaks God's word against the king or the priests risks his freedom and his life, while those who subordinate God's word to the interpretation preferred by the priests and king are treated rather well.  In section 2) 'b) of his proposal Gregory defines his associates as prophets (or at least prophets in training), whether he realized it or not, and no true prophet is going to be subordinating his gift to the priests, thus semi-baptism into their system will never happen.  Nor is it too likely that these people will be tolerated very long if they really are led by the spirit (unless it is that evil spirit from God, the denominational spirit that God sent on Saul after he rejected him for his disobedience.  

When the church took on this leadership style it also took on another doctrine that is extremely blasphemous, and to some degree all denominations today still teach baptism in this way.  Maybe I can't fuss too much because it was already a problem in the first century among some subgroups of Christians, but at least Peter was able to recognize the proper way of doing things when God showed it to him.  

In Acts 10 the Holy Spirit came upon Cornelius and his entire household after Peter's teaching.  I have had many so-called Pentecostals tell me that this was the exception (the only one God ever gave) and not the rule.  They openly state their blasphemy and sorcery by claiming that God cannot send the Holy Spirit upon us if we are not baptized by one of their pastors in the approved of formula (then they get bogged down in arguments of the details because their different denominations (or congregations if they are a congregational system as many are) all have different and often very opposing ideas of what those details are.  Anytime we start trying to tell God what he can and cannot do so long as we cast the spell (prayer) properly, we are committing sorcery.  When it is telling him who he can bless with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit we are committing open blasphemy.  Every denomination does this to some extent, ours included, though we are less open about it.

Acts 10 shows the rule.  Just look at the biblical types.  The type for receiving the first outpouring of the Holy Spirit is the circumcision ceremony the 8th day after the child is born.  The child has no choice in this; the parents do it according to God's law or are disobedient, but either way the child does not get a say or even really have even an inkling of what is happening or why.  By this ceremony the child is brought under his father's covering and is saved by his father's (Jesus') righteousness.  The Passover ceremony shows a greater level of involvement for the sinner, but once again it is the father who places the blood on the doorposts (ears) and lentil (forehead) of his house and everyone inside comes under his covering without having to do anything more other than enter that house (church?) and stay there.  

There is a greater level of personal responsibility at the Pentecostal level.  Here is where the personal acceptance comes in and you start to obey God as you learn to hear his voice.  During this part of the process we learn obedience Just as Jesus did (Hebrews 5:8).  Yet this obedience comes only as God writes his law on our hearts and it becomes natural to us.  It is not something we can do by our own power or even through hearing God through an intermediary.  It only comes by hearing God's voice for ourselves.  

By biblical definition, when Jesus goes outside the borders of the nation to heal the unbeliever (type: deaf-mute [see Mark 7:31-37]) that person becomes a believer and the borders of the Kingdom of Heaven (type: israel-Judah) are stretched by just that much more.  However that believer is just an infant in type and it will be years before he has anything resembling understanding in these matters.  By biblical definition this person is also blind from birth (see John 9) and cannot see spiritual things.  Therefore instead of knowing God's law in its spiritual fullness he must play with the children's toys of types and shadows given by Moses (and even by God's voice directly) at the mountain (types are found in Romans 7:14 and 1 Corinthians 13:11, 12.  Let us correct definitions here, carnal means of the flesh, not sinful as I was taught by this denomination and its institutions; the true law is spiritual, but the form given by Moses is both spiritual in antitype and carnal in type, given to me in this manner because I am carnal and cannot see or understand spiritual things.)

When the time comes for us to move into youth and begin learning our father's business we are taken out of our mother's care and expected to begin hearing our father's voice directly instead of through her intercession.  The mother is a type for the church, or more accurately, if she is a Hagar type, which is what all are today (See Galatians 4), she is a denomination.  The Sarah type is only the body of overcomers, and they will not be unveiled until the second coming.  We are all in Hagar types or in the wilderness/field under Father's direct authority-covering.  When we are removed from our mother, the village (another type for denominations) the process of healing our sight begins when we hear Father's voice directly, but there are two distinct stages in this healing (See Mark 8:22-26, 1 Corinthians 13:11, 12).  The first step (the fulfillment of Pentecost in that individual) is described as seeing men looking like trees which references us to the law of fruit trees in Leviticus 19:23-26, or Paul describes it as looking through smoked glass.  We can see general outlines of spiritual things, but be cannot see any of them clearly.  Only upon the fulfillment of the feast of Tabernacles after the second coming when we receive the glorified body will we be able to see clearly.  During the time of seeing men like trees we will begin putting away the children's toys of types and shadows and begin learning to use the real spiritual tools at our disposal.

In both Mark 7 and Mark 8 Jesus cautioned discretion of some kind for the newly healed person and everyone else who knew of the healing.  This was an especially pointed command in Mark 8 where Jesus told him, do not return to the village.  The problems that believers and others who know the healed man will create for him are worse when he is among believers in the nation of Judah, than he will face in the world (Syria) and worst of all in the village (denomination).  In John 9 we see an example of the persecution these people will face at the hands of the church, most especially at the hands of a village (denomination) that is fully convinced it is the only legitimate city-state in the nation (everyone else is foreigners and non-citizens usurping a place in the nation.)  After the leaders of the church excommunicated this man for knowing the truth and refusing to renounce it to please them, Jesus sought him out.

Quote

35 Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him, he said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?”

36 “Who is he, sir?” the man asked. “Tell me so that I may believe in him.”

37 Jesus said, “You have now seen him; in fact, he is the one speaking with you.”

38 Then the man said, “Lord, I believe,” and he worshiped him.

39 Jesus said,[a] “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.”

40 Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, “What? Are we blind too?”

41 Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.

We have already examined the blindness of the church leadership, how this was prophesied long ago and mentioned that this seems to be a theme in some of Gregory's recent posts.  The blind, who are completely convinced of their ability to see, not only in part, but absolutely clearly, will do everything they can to reverse the healing of the newly sighted, who usually do not have the strength to protect their new abilities.  For those here who are speaking of "teaching" these associate members to be good Adventists and believe precisely as we do, you are not doing them any favors -- especially if they are as Gregory defined in 2) 'b), able to hear God's voice for themselves and are committed to being obedient to the Holy spirit -- and even if they are strong enough to withstand your efforts without reverting to denominational blindness they are still likely to get worn down by your efforts and in their weariness abandon you to that blindness just as God did with Saul when he refused to speak to him through dreams, prophets or the ephod.  Taking them out from God's direct covering and trying to in any way force them under the covering of the church (Saul), even if only partially, is probably a sin.

The leadership is likely to reject this because most of them are blind.  Don't deny this.  Most of our denominations leaders are fully stuck in one of two forms of blindness.  The first is unbelief as was the case in 1888 when the General Conference officially rejected the doctrine of justication by faith and thus rejected the blood of Jesus as their only covering for sin.  Even now with "official" acceptance of that doctrine most of our most "conservative" leadership still teaches some form of justification by works; indeed, the 28 Fundamental Beliefs (13 when I first learned of these being taught, then later expanded to 18 and finally the 28 -- how many more will we be adding?) are precisely that.  They are traditions of men we require others to believe to be accepted into our fellowship which are not necessary to be accepted into the fellowship of Jesus Christ who consistently taught against the traditions of men by which we make the law of God void.  In Matthew 23 Jesus worded it this way:

Quote

13 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. 

The second form of blindness is they have never grown up into a Pentecostal level of faith.  This denomination officially teaches that when Pentecost was lost to the Church in the first century God then removed the possibility of receiving Pentecost from us until the latter rain.  Pentecost was lost in the first century because, just as happened at Sinai, the people refused to hear his voice, not because the possibility of doing so was removed.  By teaching this false doctrine we assure that none of our people will be ready to fulfill the feast of Tabernacles at the second coming, and thus number ourselves among the foolish virgins.

Gregory stated that the associate membership is for those who hear and obey the Holy Spirit.  Because of Adventist fear of all things Pentecostal we don't know the Biblical definition of being Pentecostal and thus he probably is completely unaware that he called for us to try to bring Pentecostals into our midst in this way and to force our "older brothers" into submission to us and our blindness.  Are we sure we want to take on a responsibility for bringing them down to our level of faith and understanding and removing them from the honor of the direct covering of God to be placed in any way under the inadequate and imperfect covering of a denomination that is committing blasphemy by setting itself up as the door to the Kingdom of Heaven?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Myron, I'm sure there is much good in what you wrote.  But most folks won't read such a lengthy post — it's over 5400 words! 

Perhaps next time you could divvy up what you wish to write into much shorter posts..

[Gregory Matthews]

I am reminded of the person who became a member of Club Adventist.  That person grew tired of reading some of the epistles that    some wrote.  So, that person purchased a dictionary and in place of reading the posts in Club Adventist that person read the  dictionary through from cover to cover.  The justification for doing so was that every word posted in a CA post had now been read and it was no longer necessary to read any new posts.