What is "the Church"? What is "a church"?

Questions and conversation about religious beliefs, Scripture, the Spirit of Prophecy, and Creation 7th Day Adventism
User avatar
Pastor Chick
Posts: 80
Joined: May 28th, 2012, 3:03 pm
Location: Kisoro - Uganda
Contact:

Re: What is "the Church"? What is "a church"?

Postby Pastor Chick » August 18th, 2013, 2:44 pm

The evidences that God has given are no evidence to them, because they have blinded their own eyes by choosing darkness rather than light. Then they will originate something they call light, which the Lord calls sparks of their own kindling, by which they will direct their steps. The Lord declares, “Who is among you that feareth the Lord, that obeyeth the voice of his servant, that walketh in darkness, and hath no light? Let him trust in the name of the Lord, and stay upon his God. Behold, all ye that kindle a fire, that compass yourselves about with sparks: walk in the light of your fire, and in the sparks that ye have kindled. This shall ye have at mine hand; ye shall lie down in sorrow.” Jesus said, “For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.” “I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.” “He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.” (SDA Bible Commentary, Vol 4, p. 1147)

JamesPrest
Posts: 31
Joined: July 27th, 2013, 6:48 am

Re: What is "the Church"? What is "a church"?

Postby JamesPrest » November 17th, 2013, 5:21 am

Just curious, How do you respond to this statement:

“When any one arises, either among us or outside of us, who is burdened with a message which declares that the people of God are numbered with Babylon, and claims that the loud cry is a call to come out of her, you may know that he is not bearing the message of truth.” {Review and Herald, August 29, 1893 par. 5}

The context is that "us" refers to the Seventh-Day Adventists that were then. The terms "the people of God" also referred to Seventh-Day Adventists that were then. Seeing that Creation Seventh-Day Adventists are not the "us" to which she referred, how do you explain the above statement?

I've seen the explanation that you gave me before. You said that things have changed and that the statement no longer holds true because of that. But her statement doesn't allow for one to make it null and void. Let me give you an example.

Ellen White says that the Sunday law will be the final test. She gives no other options. We know that the Sunday law will be the final test, because we know that the Sunday law will be. How do we know? Because prophecy so declared. If the American government decided to not pass a Sunday law, in other words, circumstances changed (like you are saying that the SDA church changed) what would happen to the prophetic statement? Nothing, it would not lose its truth or forcefulness because it is the creative word of God. It is true, and will be true eternally. The only other alternative is that God is a liar and the human race is therefore doomed.

So how do you get around Ellen White's statement where she says that a cry, from either inside the church or out, to come out of the SDA church, is, and will be, and false message? You've agreed that the statement referred to the people back then to whom it referred. Her prophecy, in reference to them, carried forward into the future until the very end, so how can you say that it no longer holds? Yes, they may be virtually all tares, but one grain of wheat is enough to still refer to them. I could equaly argue that she was referring to that specific group of individuals and that as soon and they died the statement would be null and void, but that is not the scope of her statement, because she referred to them as a "people," not as a generation. The Israel of God are still a people, though many generations of her have come and gone.

I just want an explanation is all.

David Aguilar
Posts: 63
Joined: May 28th, 2012, 4:28 pm

Re: What is "the Church"? What is "a church"?

Postby David Aguilar » November 23rd, 2013, 12:41 pm

Hello James,

Let me, as Christ often did, answer your question with a question to demonstrate the flaw in your premise.

How do you justify not being a member of the Jewish religion?

Surely, it is written, "And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will not forsake my people Israel." (1Kings 6:14) Now, keep in mind that when this was written, there was NO concept of a "physical Israel" vs. a "spiritual Israel" that included the Gentiles or any modifications to the religion. That distinction alone, then, would not allow you to "get around" this divinely inspired, eternally true, statement.

It is also written, "But Zion said, 'Yahweh hath forsaken me, and my Lord hath forgotten me.' Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget thee." (Isa 49:14, 15) I see no alternative options here, no exceptions noted.

And again, I would ask you, how do you justify not being a Roman Catholic?

Surely, Christ said of the group that would become the Roman Catholic Church through a direct line of authoritative descent, "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Mat 16:18)

Any Bible-based answer you can give to these questions will also answer your own question with regard to the depature that CSDAs have made from what was once Yahweh's Seventh-day Adventist Church.

JamesPrest
Posts: 31
Joined: July 27th, 2013, 6:48 am

Re: What is "the Church"? What is "a church"?

Postby JamesPrest » November 29th, 2013, 11:20 am

I would like to request your evidence or proof that there was “NO concept of a ‘physical Israel’ vs. a ‘spiritual Israel’” I mean, I understand that you believe that, but I only believe things if I am able to personally see that they are written. Can you show me why you believe thus? I tend to disagree with you, because Jesus taught that if children of Abraham, the Jew’s would have done the works of Abraham, and many other allusions to this as well as seen in the works of Paul and so forth. If Jesus and Paul rightly divided the word of truth, then how was it ever literal/physical Israel? I honestly don’t believe that there was ever any real reference to a literal/physical Israel. I believe that it was always spiritual Israel, because I believe that Jesus and Paul rightly divided the word of truth.

How do I justify not being a Roman Catholic. This question was asked in reference to the verse that you gave. And here is my response:

“Jesus continued: ‘I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ The word Peter signifies a stone,--a rolling stone. Peter was not the rock upon which the church was founded. The gates of hell did prevail against him when he denied his Lord with cursing and swearing. The church was built upon One against whom the gates of hell could not prevail.” {Desire of Ages, 412.4}

So I don’t believe that it was ever a literal/physical Israel, and your question premises on a false interpretation of Scripture. So how would you validate your claims? In fact, that verse actually verifies my point. It was never a literal Israel.

And this next quote from Desire of Ages evidences this point exceptionally well. My whole point lay in these below statements:

"The Pharisees had declared themselves the children of Abraham. Jesus told them that this claim could be established only by doing the works of Abraham. The true children of Abraham would live, as he did, a life of obedience to God. They would not try to kill One who was speaking the truth that was given Him from God. In plotting against Christ, the rabbis were not doing the works of Abraham. A mere lineal descent from Abraham was of no value. Without a spiritual connection with him, which would be manifested in possessing the same spirit, and doing the same works, they were not his children. {DA 466.6}

"This principle bears with equal weight upon a question that has long agitated the Christian world,--the question of apostolic succession. Descent from Abraham was proved, not by name and lineage, but by likeness of character. So the apostolic succession rests not upon the transmission of ecclesiastical authority, but upon spiritual relationship. A life actuated by the apostles' spirit, the belief and teaching of the truth they taught, this is the true evidence of apostolic succession. This is what constitutes men the successors of the first teachers of the gospel." {DA 467.1}

How readest thou?

My guess is that you will answer with something like, "This is exactly our point. We carry the same spirit that the SDA church used to have. But they have since accepted the spirit of the world. Thus why we are the true Israel of God and they are not."

If that is your response, I want to know how you answer this statement once again, because the spirit of the Israel of God, to me, would not make of none effect the testimony of the Spirit of God.

"When any one arises, either among us or outside of us, who is burdened with a message which declares that the people of God are numbered with Babylon, and claims that the loud cry is a call to come out of her, you may know that he is not bearing the message of truth. Receive him not, nor bid him Godspeed; for God has not spoken by him, neither has he given a message to him, but he has run before he was sent." Review and Herald, August 29, 1893.

David Aguilar
Posts: 63
Joined: May 28th, 2012, 4:28 pm

Re: What is "the Church"? What is "a church"?

Postby David Aguilar » November 29th, 2013, 2:57 pm

Hello James,

I have to admit, I am quite surprised by the first part of your response. You believe that a statement predicated on a "literal/physical" Israel is faulty? This is quite amazing to me, and I can only conclude that you are somehow not expressing your meaning properly.

There was indeed an individual named Israel (formerly Jacob) for whom a literal, physical nation of people was named. There is no question about this, unless you are meaning to say that some parts of the Old Testament are allegorical or mythology. The fact that this nation had a spiritual component to it has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that Yahweh chose a "people," not a spiritually united group, and placed His blessing upon them. Thus, I can't really respond to the first part of your post without somehow going along with the premise that no statements can be made based on the national identity of a line of descent. That would be an absurdity.

With regard to the second part, how do you justify not being a member of the Jewish faith community, or the Roman Catholic Church... you didn't answer my question at all. What you did was state that the Church was founded on Christ and not Peter, which utterly and entirely misses the point. Regardless of the foundation of the Church, Christ stated that the powers of Hell would not prevail against it.

Yet, the "powers of Hell" indeed prevailed against the organization that sprang forth from that Church. If you had known the answer to this in such a way that you could express it clearly and in line with the Scriptural pronouncements, you would have also answered your question to us. The CSDA Church follows the same principles as these, and your concluding statement by Mrs. White is in the same category as the quotes I provided to you the last time. We have not run "before" we were sent, as the quote references. That was done by those who might have taken up a similar, but faulty, message over a century ago. We have run AS we have been called, for the time has come upon you sooner than you have expected.

None of these "The Nation of Israel/The Apostolic Church/The SDA Church will never fall" statements contain either "conditions" or a set time frame, yet it is nevertheless the case that the Spirit of Yahweh calls, and His people know His voice. Even children can, and have, seen the parallels here, as do any who are listening to what the Spirit says to the Churches.

With regard to the answer you believe I would have given, it is clear you have not familiarized yourself with our materials. Perhaps that should not surprise me, since at one point you expressed a desire to be baptized and accepted into membership without expressing any interest at all in what we actually taught. This is obviously not in line with the Spirit of the Almighty, who demands both true unity and reasonable service from those who are His.

Accepting the "spirit of the World" is but a symptom of what causes a Church to fall. I suggest that, rather than asking questions that have already been answered (as you have done numerous times both here and on the Godhead thread) you educate yourself as to what we (and thus the Scriptures) say, and if you truly wish to learn, we can continue from there.

I do not mean to give you a dismissive answer here, James, but if you go back and read over this thread and that one, I would think that even you can see that you tend to ask the same question multiple times when you receive an answer that a) you do not appear to like, or b) you appear to forget after a few days and therefore must ask it again.

Other than that, we are hardly interested in debates back and forth. We are about our Father's work, proclaiming Victory over sin to the world, and we cannot come down to answer questions that might well have begun with "Has God surely said...?" Yes, Yahweh has surely said all that we proclaim Him to say, and we follow along after His instructions (your personal disagreement notwithstanding).

JamesPrest
Posts: 31
Joined: July 27th, 2013, 6:48 am

Re: What is "the Church"? What is "a church"?

Postby JamesPrest » November 29th, 2013, 5:18 pm

Sorry... its really not a matter of debate to me. I ask you because you can answer questions that may arise in my mind, whereas an article with preset points and so forth, cannot respond to me.

Jesus said, "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matthew 16:18.

So what would the gates of hell not prevail against? The subject of the sentence is "this rock", not the church. So the gates of hell would not prevail against the Rock, Christ Jesus. And they didn't of course. If we were to say that the gates of hell would not prevail against the church that Jesus founded, not only would such interpretation be grammatically incorrect, but we would indeed need to conclude that the Roman Church is God's church. Here is a clairification from Ellen White on the issue:

"Jesus continued: 'I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.' The word Peter signifies a stone,--a rolling stone. Peter was not the rock upon which the church was founded. The gates of hell did prevail against him when he denied his Lord with cursing and swearing. The church was built upon One against whom the gates of hell could not prevail. {Desire of Ages, 412.4}

So... this is what I meant when I was saying that your question was founded on a faulty premise. The gates of hell would not prevail against Jesus (not the church).

I do believe that there was a literal man named Israel and so on, but my point was that the promises made to Israel/Abraham, were not made to a physical/literal lineage, but to a spiritual lineage, those who do the works of Abraham.

I'm sorry that I sound debatative. I like neither controversy nor debate. But I love knowledge, and I have lots of questions.

Ellen White said that Seventh Day Adventists would be hated for not honoring Sunday. There is a difference between the Israel of God (children of Abraham) and Seventh Day Adventists. Are there not many Seventh Day Adventists whose father is the devil, for they do the works of the devil? Surely they are. But there are also many Seventh Day Adventists whose father is Abraham, for they do the works of Abraham. Abraham and Israel were individuals and promises were made to their spiritual seed. But when Ellen White predicted that Seventh Day Adventists would be hated for not honoring Sunday, there is a difference. The difference was to whom the promise/prediction was made to/concerning. She did not say that the Israel of God (children of Abraham) would be hated for not honoring Sunday, though they definitely will, but she said that Seventh Day Adventists would be hated for not honoring Sunday. She was referring to them as an organized body of believers, and to this organized body (not sheep of Abraham in different flocks) she gave the word saying that they would be the ones hated for not honoring Sunday.

Does it make sense what I'm saying? Again... I'm really not meaning to argue. Arguing is against the spirit of Christ and does nothing towards me learning anything. I want to learn. That's all.

Anyways... I look forward to your response if you are willing. Blessings!

David Aguilar
Posts: 63
Joined: May 28th, 2012, 4:28 pm

Re: What is "the Church"? What is "a church"?

Postby David Aguilar » November 29th, 2013, 7:23 pm

Hello James,

Thank you for the clarification.

While I agree that the Gates of Hell will not prevail against Christ, of course, I also believe that they have never prevailed against the Church as it is rightly understood. The verse applies equally to both, and the reason I believe this is simple - the Bride of Christ is a part of His Spirit, just as a human bride is a part of her husband's "flesh." This concept is supported by verses such as the parable of the vineyard, where the same yard is taken from unfaithful servants, and given to faithful ones who will bring forth its fruits in their due season. The yard is the same, and it is the "yard" that represents the Bride, (Isa 5:1-4) but the keepers may be changed due to a particular series of events. Now, according to Ellen White, an organization - a group of people - may "unchurch" themselves. This means that something that was once a "Church" may become "the bride of Christ no longer." At which point, the promises made to that Body are taken from that group, and given to those that continue to represent "the Church." I think you will agree with all this so far, as it is taken directly from inspired writings.

Now, the question is, at what point, or due to what factor, does an organization that was once "a Church" (to use EGW's wording) "unchurch" itself, so that it is "the Bride of Christ no longer?" Both the Bible (John 19) and the Spirit of Prophecy (The Great Controversy and other places) teach us that when a Church unites with state government, it is no longer a Church. Now, the phrase "no longer" means that it ONCE was but IS not. This happened to the Jewish Nation, and it happened again to the Roman Catholic Church, which is the reason why I used those two organizations in my initial answer to your question. Understanding how it happened with them answers how it has happened again with the SDA Church, if you can accept it.

There is no question that this same sequence of events HAS happened to them, even though all these various organizations (or, one might say, "incarnations" of the Church) had similar statements to the one you presented from Ellen White, that God's promises to them were eternal, and unchanging. But the principle laid out in Jeremiah tells us plainly that if an organization breaks faith with Yahweh, He WILL NOT HONOR the promises made to that people when they were faithful. (Jeremian 18:7-10) To disagree with this, or dispute it, is to run couner to the plain word of Scripture. The only question then is, can this also apply to the Seventh-day Adventist Church? Or was this organization somehow special such that, even though it committed the same crimes as those bodies that came before it, Yahweh will continue to honor this broken covenant? We have no evidence that the SDA Church is in any way unique in this regard - that it may ignore the oft-given warnings of its prophets with no expectation of consequences. In fact its own writings, via Ellen White, have plainly revealed that the SDA Church would be weighed in the balances of Heaven and, if it was not clear of some sins (that have only gotten worse since the writing of those words) she would be found "wanting," and that while Ellen White and others "had hoped" there would not be another calling out, in no place is it indicated that it is immune to that which caused the fall of any previous set of workers. But of course, these are all things we have shared with you before, with regard to how this arrangement between Yahweh and humanity works.

I hope you will not take offense to this, but I perceive from the contact you have had with the CSDA Church so far, that you do not have a proper education with regard to what constitutes a "Covenant" in either the Old or New Testaments. These things may also be found in our writings, and it is my prayer that you will take us up on the offer we have extended to you more than once, to "come and see." But if you will not "come" you cannot "see," and that will be to your everlasting detriment.

I urge you to take this seriously, with no spirit of debate or argument. The truth lies in the words that Yahweh has given His people to explain situations like this, and we have - many times - for those who are truly willing to learn. Not to beat a dead horse further than is necessary, but if you will take the time to go over the writings of a Church you seem interested in studying (the reason they are written) you will find that this has all been covered before. I don't mind answering questions... I like doing that, but if the answers are readily apparent in things that our Father has already given us to write, we have to conclude that the questioners are not making the right use of blessings already given for their benefit.

Again, "Come and see." You cannot truly learn in the School of Christ by standing outside and looking in at the windows.

JamesPrest
Posts: 31
Joined: July 27th, 2013, 6:48 am

Re: What is "the Church"? What is "a church"?

Postby JamesPrest » November 30th, 2013, 7:06 am

David, here is my difficulty:

“Before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain ‘Thus saith the Lord’ in its support.” {The Great Controversy, 595.1}

There are many beliefs, promoted by many different people, that, as far as I can see, have no “plain ‘Thus said the Lord’” in their support. I hold to this principle quote above to its very core, as I believe that it is about the only safe way as to not be misled.

An example of what I mean:

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matthew 16:18.

The “plain ‘Thus said the Lord’” that I gather from this statement, is that the gates of hell would not prevail against Christ. While it may even be true that the gates of hell will not prevail against the church, I can see no plain “Thus saith the Lord” in its support. I may lean towards believing that, but I cannot accept it as true, nor teach it to others, until it is plainly stated in inspiration. It is a very plain matter to most of the Christian world that the gates of hell would not prevail against the church according to this verse. But it is only so because they have forgotten English 101. The subject of the sentence is “this rock,” and the action (or verb) part of the sentence is “will I build my church.” It’s very simple, but missed almost all of the time.

Many people also break down the “head coverings” chapter in Paul’s writings, concluding that women must always wear a covering on their head. But to me, a simple breakdown of the chapter is that the woman’s hair is given her for a covering (so they are talking about hair the whole time and not a separate thing to put on one’s head) and its only referring to those times when they are praying or prophesying. Yet somehow, it is plain to many Christians, that that chapter teaches that woman are to always wear a separate piece of clothing on their head, regardless of whether or not they are praying or prophesying.

It may be plain to you that Ellen White says that when a church unites with the state that it is no longer a church. But when I have looked at the statements provided to support this belief, I don't see anything resembling a "plain" statement on the matter. Instead, I see statements that may come close to saying it, but still come short of it.

To many, it may seem like I am being too much of a stickler, and just not accepting the light that God is pleased to give, and I understand where they are coming from. But I hold to the above statement from the Great Controversy, and to this one showing the example of Jesus:

“In every gentle and submissive way, Jesus tried to please those with whom He came in contact. Because He was so gentle and unobtrusive, the scribes and elders supposed that He would be easily influenced by their teaching. They urged Him to receive the maxims and traditions that had been handed down from the ancient rabbis, but He asked for their authority in Holy Writ. He would hear every word that proceeds from the mouth of God; but He could not obey the inventions of men. Jesus seemed to know the Scriptures from beginning to end, and He presented them in their true import. The rabbis were ashamed to be instructed by a child. They claimed that it was their office to explain the Scriptures, and that it was His place to accept their interpretation. They were indignant that He should stand in opposition to their word.” {Desire of Ages, 85.1}

While it’s possible that I might find a group of people that see eye to eye with me (or me with them) on every point of truth, I personally believe that that is rather unlikely. This is why I want to know if I can join the CSDA’s without being required to accept human interpretations of God’s word. True religion is not embodied in beliefs anyway. It is embodied in how we treat each other:

“Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.” James 1:27.

“In the story of the good Samaritan, Christ illustrates the nature of true religion. He shows that it consists not in systems, creeds, or rites, but in the performance of loving deeds, in bringing the greatest good to others, in genuine goodness.” {Desire of Ages, 497.1}

One last thing. Back in the 1840’s, God moved William Miller and others to spread a message all over the country, which message had a point of error in it. Ellen White says that God most purposefully, intentionally, and willfully hid the truth concerning the cleansing of the sanctuary, that His divine will might be carried out. So from this I learn that, even though God had His people to preach a message, it does not mean that that message is perfect and without a flaw. On that grounds, I will say that maybe God is truly leading you to preach certain things, but I cannot be expected to believe them to their perfection, as God may have hid a point of truth once again that His divine will might be carried out and/or etc.

So can I join the CSDA without first being required to agree to all the Fundamental Beliefs that she has? If it is not a creed, I should not, in order to join God’s church, be required to accept human interpretations of God’s word. I instead should be able to accept God’s word alone, uninterpreted by any human clergy. I agree with you on righteousness by faith, as that is my primary and only real concern.

May I join?

User avatar
Lucan
Posts: 104
Joined: May 28th, 2012, 12:51 pm
Contact:

Re: What is "the Church"? What is "a church"?

Postby Lucan » November 30th, 2013, 5:10 pm

Hello James,

I notice that you emphasize the word "plain" in the instruction to "demand a plain 'Thus saith the Lord.'" Personally, I've always found the word "demand" to be more emphatic; I think it has a lot of valuable meaning. To me, demanding something in a sanctified context means to diligently seek after it; that diligence coming from the belief that it is necessary and vital. When I demand a "thus saith the Lord," it is because I must have it; even - and perhaps especially - when it is supposed to be in support of a belief I do not agree with. If there is some more accurate way to understand an old "thus saith the Lord," or even some new "thus saith the Lord" I have missed beforehand, what can come of finding it but a blessing? I "demand" it of myself and of others, because I live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.

That brings me your current discussion. Someone who is so eager to learn as to demand a "thus saith the Lord" can surely be bothered to demand it from the very place they are already reading. Specifically, from two paragraphs after what you previously quoted in Desire of Ages:

“Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” 1 Corinthians 3:11. “Upon this rock,” said Jesus, “I will build My church.” In the presence of God, and all the heavenly intelligences, in the presence of the unseen army of hell, Christ founded His church upon the living Rock. That Rock is Himself,—His own body, for us broken and bruised. Against the church built upon this foundation, the gates of hell shall not prevail." [DA 413]

Or, for another example, the quote that you have asked about twice regarding calling the Adventist church Babylon. Had you demanded the answer from what we gave you last time you spoke with us, you would see that an extremely thorough explanation of that and many other related quotes regarding the "Loud Cry" tract were posted by Pastor Chick here, in this very thread.

Now, before you reiterate that you prefer people to articles as "the preset points" cannot answer your questions, let me remind you of the word "demand." To demand a thus saith the Lord does not mean demanding it in just the way, or just the manner that you find pleases you best. That meaning is not in the text; that is not part of the plain thus saith the Lord. If you truly want to learn as you claim, I suggest you take what is perhaps the most easy step imaginable and actually read the things specifically written to facilitate learning. If you cannot be bothered with this most menial of steps, I cannot believe that you truly are interested in learning, and certainly not that you are "demanding" what you will not pick up from the platter in front of you. Those who have the audacity to use the Word of God to justify spiritual laziness have no place in either the Church or the Kingdom of Heaven.

Regarding your request to join the Church, I might have a better view of it had our first exchange after three months of silence not been a repetition of the same questions you'd previously had answered. It appears to me that you have a curiosity regarding our beliefs, but no real interest - at least, not the kind of interest that causes action to be taken. It is almost as if you are not actually interested in unity of belief, but merely of organization. It is almost as if you would prefer to have uncommon ground, so that you could test whether we would take you in "without a creed." It is almost as if you saw Ellen White speak of the necessity of Church membership, were disallowed membership in the church that you believe is the true one, and so are instead looking for "another woman" to fill the void meanwhile.

Regarding your creed concerns, the requisite for membership is a converted spirit, a new heart, and a complete death to self. This manifests itself in a variety of ways, including complete victory over all known sin, a Christlike character, and the spirit of God being evident in the life and attitude. Since it is famously difficult to truly get to know someone over text, it is rather difficult to gauge their spirit or intent. For the questions you have repeatedly asked, it may be the case that you are attempting to argue or debate. It may be the case that you are not opposed to learning, but lack the clarity of mind or motivation to seek out or retain what is available. It may be that you have valid and sincere reasons for disagreeing, but we cannot clearly perceive them in your writing.

Some of these are compatible with the requisite for membership; some of them are fatal spiritual flaws, and are thus not compatible. If you are truly interested in being one with us - as there can be no church membership without unity - I suggest three things:

1) Get to know us, and allow us to get to know you. Skype is currently popular among our members for webcam and audio discussion, and I believe Pastor Chick is traveling to your area of the country soon.

2) Start reading the things that we tell you have answers to what you are asking.

3) No, seriously. Actually read things before you ask questions about them.
- Lucan Chartier

JamesPrest
Posts: 31
Joined: July 27th, 2013, 6:48 am

Re: What is "the Church"? What is "a church"?

Postby JamesPrest » November 30th, 2013, 5:26 pm

It is interesting to me that I read your quoted portion earlier today when I was compiling an article on Apostolic Succession. I inserted it there and gave it due justice. I think that said article would make your point well, and here is a link to it should you be interested:

http://answersforadventists.wordpress.c ... uccession/

I do not see a necessity in unity of belief, to answer your plainly. And no, I'm not all too interested in what the CSDA church believes, anymore than I am interested in what the Seventh Day Adventist church, or Seventh Day Adventist Reform Movement believes. My concern is what God says. I honestly don't care for my own opinions or interpretations of God's word either. I believe and agree with them yes, else I would find new ones, but human opinion and interpretations, whether mine or someone else's, do not mean very much to me. My interest in them is only so that I might better understand the word of God.

Would I be almost like there to be differences in my beliefs and yours just to test and see if you really have a creed? Yes and no. I want to KNOW that the CSDA church has no creed before I join it. In that sense, yes, I would almost be happy to see a difference in our beliefs. But no, I would not like to see a difference, in that it would only be wonderful if we all saw things the same way. I will say that I have not tried to make a difference between my views and yours, but only that I personally see some as yet.

So no, I'm not really interested in looking at the creed (or list of Fundamental Beliefs if you prefer) of yet another church. God's word is what I would rather occupy my time studying, as I have indicated elsewhere.

Now... I can understand that the church would not be willing to accept me before they can first test my spirit and my works. That makes sense and is Biblical. So... how for you to see my works and character? Hmmmmm... I remember a CSDA chat hour or something of the likes, and when looking for it today, I wasn't able to relocate it. I think that someone gave me a link to it, but don't know where I could find it. I would be happy if you would post a link to it here so that I can know of a place and means through which I can access it when that hour comes around again (I think it is Friday evening sometime if I remember correctly).

I again apologize that I sound of a debatative spirit. I don't think that debate is wrong of itself, but is only so when the spirit is wrong. Debate, as I see, is good and helpful in helping to find and capture the truth. This may be part of why I come across as debatative, because I see a clash of views and explanations necessary to help me understand where you are coming from and you understand where I am coming from.

Anyways... blessings to you, and I hope that some sort of conclusion can be come to concerning me joining the church.


Return to “Doctrine and Theology”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests