SDA unique doctrine

[BobRyan]

Quote:Bob said
You seem to have a huge struggle over the fact that SDAs do not try to enforce rigid compliance to some specific level EVEN THOUGH the SDA church turns out to have a much more uniform result on key doctrinal statements than your own group. Kinda like the puppy that insists that all animals should eat straw like the ox --- something fishy about the things you claim here.

Targus said -
Not so, as I said I don't believe that a Baptist pastor would baptize someone who denied the Trinity.

Sounds like a good policy.

I don't know of any SDA pastor that would baptize someone that did not beileve in the Trinity either.

So -- one example where "our policy preferences" happen to be the same.

But "enough about policy" -- (or you're not ready to take that step yet?)

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
Again - to answer your questions on "policy".

Statement of voted Doctrinal beliefs of SDAs

http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html

That list of published doctrinal statements is given to the baptismal candiidate as a matter of practice and policy.

Bible studies - in fact pre-baptismal bible studies are conducted with the candidate to make sure they understand the beliefs of the church before deciding to join. This covers all the doctrines in the published list -- as a matter of policy.

We do not send out "the Sabbath police" or anything like that to judge whether the candidate's acceptance of the 4th commandment is up to "some standard" --it left to individual conscience and choice as a matter of policy and practice.

Targus
But the candidate will be judged as to his position on tobacco and alcohol. Yes?

That's the policy -- that is the practice.

But the doctrine on Christian Living from which it is derived remains unchanged.

22. Christian Behavior:
We are called to be a godly people who think, feel, and act in harmony with the principles of heaven. For the Spirit to recreate in us the character of our Lord we involve ourselves only in those things which will produce Christlike purity, health, and joy in our lives. This means that our amusement and entertainment should meet the highest standards of Christian taste and beauty. While recognizing cultural differences, our dress is to be simple, modest, and neat, befitting those whose true beauty does not consist of outward adornment but in the imperishable ornament of a gentle and quiet spirit. It also means that because our bodies are the temples of the Holy Spirit, we are to care for them intelligently. Along with adequate exercise and rest, we are to adopt the most healthful diet possible and abstain from the unclean foods identified in the Scriptures.

Since alcoholic beverages, tobacco, and the irresponsible use of drugs and narcotics are harmful to our bodies, we are to abstain from them as well.

Instead, we are to engage in whatever brings our thoughts and bodies into the discipline of Christ, who desires our wholesomeness, joy, and goodness. (Rom. 12:1, 2; 1 John 2:6; Eph. 5:1-21; Phil. 4:8; 2 Cor. 10:5; 6:14-7:1; 1 Peter 3:1-4; 1 Cor. 6:19, 20; 10:31; Lev. 11:1-47; 3 John 2.)

so -- more policy questions??

Oh wait -- next your going to ask about finding rules and inventing policies for enforcing the regulation of mens shoes? Shirts? Sports coats? women's dresses? (after all there are a lot of things covered in statement 22 -- why not invent enforcement policies for every one -- eh?)

Sadly it appears that SDAs are not as strict in enforcement policies as you would prefer.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said Quote:
Kinda puzzling that you seek a "conformity" that does not exist even in the Baptist church.

Targus
Just curious as to the purpose of the list of beliefs which SDA's may or may not believe and then an additional list of conditions for baptism which may or may not line up with the published beliefs.

Just a little odd. Why not just have one list?

1. What's the "additional list of conditions" beyond the one given at the 28 FB link???

2. What's the confusion on your part in the SDA church behaving like the Baptist church in terms of NOT expelling people for not holding to every statement in the exact same way?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[targus]

Sounds like a good policy.

I don't know of any SDA pastor that would baptize someone that did not beileve in the Trinity either.

So -- one example where "our policy preferences" happen to be the same.

in Christ,

Bob

So then the SDA's that you know that do not believe in the Trinity did so at the time that they were baptized?

I know SDA's who have told me that not believing in the Trinity is common among SDA's.

At what date did the SDA adopt a belief in the Trinity?

 

[BobRyan]

Long before I was born. Around 1890's the church (formed in the 1860's) began pushing the trinity doctrine.

I don't know of anyone who was baptized not believing in the trinity -- zero. But 14 million members are not all "reporting to me"

In the last 15-20 years I have met 3 or 4 (via internet) that did not hold to it (I am sure there are more some place in that less than 1 tenth of 1 percent)- but I don't doubt they could have come in that way. I simply assume they still have "free will".

I know of NO actual attending SDAs - zero, zilch, nada that would even remotely claim that "A lot of SDAs reject the Trinity" since no SDA pastor teaches such a thing. (Hint: Policy item number 1,447,743 one of the things the central SDA administrators can control is employment of pastors and a review of what they are teaching)

Prior to the last 15 or so years - I never even heard of such a thing. I do know that the published statement of 28 - endorses the Trinity (and has always done so as long as I have been alive) and that this is one of the doctrines that is at the 99%+ level in terms of "general agreement world wide". I know that "Questions on Doctrines" published in the 1950's endorsed the trinity - and I know that the push for that began as early as the 1890's. But to get even MORE finger-on-the-pulse history of exactly how many people endorsed it when - you will need a more detailed SDA historian than me.

Hint: Policy tip #1,346,264 In the SDA church there is no "central group" that has the power to "expell a church member. No not for failing to continue to believe in the Trinity" or any other thing. That action must be taken at the local church level.

So to summarize -- your interest is only in early SDA history and policy - and you really don't care about the SDA doctrines as published and believed by the Church? (thread title not withstanding)

in Christ,

Bob

 

[targus]

Bob Rayn,

I thought about this a bit over dinner. The difference in our thinking may be the result of the SEA emphasis on a works salvation. It seems as though the attitude is "don't worry too much about beliefs" instead make sure the "works" are in order - no meat - no tobacco - no alcohol.

 

[targus]

1. What's the "additional list of conditions" beyond the one given at the 28 FB link???

This one:

You previously said, "finally there is at least one condition for baptisim which all SDA's agree on - no selling of tabacco or alcohol."

And then expanded on that with, "The list is bigger - I simply gave an example."

 

[BobRyan]

This one:

You previously said, "finally there is at least one condition for baptisim which all SDA's agree on - no selling of tabacco or alcohol."

And then expanded on that with, "The list is bigger - I simply gave an example."

I see - so the policy on Alcohol and Tobacco mentioned there is "so very different" from the total abstenance from Alcohol and Tobacco you see IN this doctrinal statement given to you earlier that you prefer to call it "an addition"??

No wonder you are so fascinated with policy.

22. Christian Behavior:
We are called to be a godly people who think, feel, and act in harmony with the principles of heaven. For the Spirit to recreate in us the character of our Lord we involve ourselves only in those things which will produce Christlike purity, health, and joy in our lives. This means that our amusement and entertainment should meet the highest standards of Christian taste and beauty. While recognizing cultural differences, our dress is to be simple, modest, and neat, befitting those whose true beauty does not consist of outward adornment but in the imperishable ornament of a gentle and quiet spirit. It also means that because our bodies are the temples of the Holy Spirit, we are to care for them intelligently. Along with adequate exercise and rest, we are to adopt the most healthful diet possible and abstain from the unclean foods identified in the Scriptures.

Since alcoholic beverages, tobacco, and the irresponsible use of drugs and narcotics are harmful to our bodies, we are to abstain from them as well.

Instead, we are to engage in whatever brings our thoughts and bodies into the discipline of Christ, who desires our wholesomeness, joy, and goodness. (Rom. 12:1, 2; 1 John 2:6; Eph. 5:1-21; Phil. 4:8; 2 Cor. 10:5; 6:14-7:1; 1 Peter 3:1-4; 1 Cor. 6:19, 20; 10:31; Lev. 11:1-47; 3 John 2.)

 

[BobRyan]

Bob Rayn,

I thought about this a bit over dinner. The difference in our thinking may be the result of the SEA emphasis on a works salvation. It seems as though the attitude is "don't worry too much about beliefs" instead make sure the "works" are in order - no meat - no tobacco - no alcohol.

Is that the idea you apply to Baptist if they do not expell every member that does not confirm on issues of creation/evolution, arminian/Calvinist, OT + NT as valid scripture, literal millennium, pre-trib rapture vs mid-trib or post trib.

Do you really spin that as "Then Baptists just don't care about doctrine" because they fail to expell or refuse candidates in baptism?

Sounds a little bit fishy - there must be something else going on here.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[targus]

Is that the idea you apply to Baptist if they do not expell every member that does not confirm on issues of creation/evolution, arminian/Calvinist, OT + NT as valid scripture, literal millennium, pre-trib rapture vs mid-trib or post trib.

Do you really spin that as "Then Baptists just don't care about doctrine" because they fail to expell or refuse candidates in baptism?

Sounds a little bit fishy - there must be something else going on here.

in Christ,

Bob

Not at all. The difference is that I don't know of any Baptist pastor that would accept a person as a member if they did not hold to certain Christian beliefs such as the Trinity, the Scriptures, etc.

I get the impression that SDA's will baptize anyone to get them into the SDA church and then try to sort it out later.

BTW - would the SDA church deny membership to someone who doesn't "dress simple"? Wears jewelry or makeup? They are on the list.

 

[BobRyan]

Not at all. The difference is that I don't know of any Baptist pastor that would accept a person as a member if they did not hold to certain Christian beliefs such as the Trinity, the Scriptures, etc.

Do you know of an SDA pastor that would?

What about a Baptist pastor accepting someone who believed in evolutionism? Calvinism? who sliced up the Ten commandments? who rejected the majority of scripture as being authorotative for doctrine?

I get the impression that SDA's will baptize anyone to get them into the SDA church and then try to sort it out later.

What in the world makes you think that when SDAs are MORE structured and MORE guarded about the doctrines accepted than in your own church?

At some point you need actual facts for these wild ranging conclusions.

BTW - would the SDA church deny membership to someone who doesn't "dress simple"? Wears jewelry or makeup? They are on the list.

For rejecting Bible creationism, for rejecting the Bible position on Free will, for rejecting God's Ten Commandments yes, I know plenty of pastors that would choose not to baptize such a person --

For the various issues of dress - we have no policy to reject the person as long as they know the doctrine.

I am surprised that you are struggling so much in trying to understand the facts of the case. I do not argue that you should be SDA - just that you should be able to understand the facts.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
Bob said

Targue you are Pretending that the almost uniform position among SDAs on:

-the Ten Commandments,
-the ENTIRE 66 books of the Bible as authorotative,
-Creation not Evolutionism,
-Arminian not Calvinism,
-the continued validity of spiritual gifts in 1Cor 12 without deleting prophecy from the list,
-literal millennium,
-post-trib rapture --
-Trinity

is "too much VARIATION for a Baptist that gets LOADS of variation on ALL those doctrinal issues but the last one - in the Baptist church every day"

Your position is less than "genuine" from my POV.

Quote:
Targus said
Well that list is the offical line, but as you have admitted - one does not need to accept it to be baptized into the SDA denomination.

I see - so you see the list above and you see that there is a huge degree of uniformity and agrement among SDAs on those subjects -- but because there is still "SOME room for differences" among members you are "confused"??

I would argue that you must be "highly confused" then when you attend your Baptist church that has even LESS uniform agreement on those very same doctrines.

How do you manage to get through the day???

I get the impression that SDA's will baptize anyone to get them into the SDA church and then try to sort it out later.
.

The "spin and twist" that you have just executed in that conclusion's spin-around is amazing given the facts above. On doctrine after doctrine listed above we show MORE DIVERSITy in the Baptist fellowship than in the SDA - and yet you can spin a complaint of the form "not enough doctrinal uniformity" in the SDA church as compared to Baptist!!!

You simply are not reading the posts.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I get the impression that SDA's will baptize anyone to get them into the SDA church and then try to sort it out later..

If this bit of propaganda is based on your now famous "pay no attention to what the SDA doctrines are -- because I found one one time that said they new another one one time who thought that ..."

Then have I got some "stories for you" that sound the same way but have denominational inserts like "Baptist" and "Methodist" and "Presbyterian" where you would like to (in true propaganda style) insert "SDA" for your own story telling.

But I do not use that method because I know that it is not honest - it does not honestly reflect what Baptist believe to say "Hey I found one one time that believed....".

It is not a method for adults.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[targus]

If this bit of propaganda is based on your now famous "pay no attention to what the SDA doctrines are ...

Well if anyone is not paying attention to SDA "doctrines" it would seem to be SDAs.

You direct me to the website with the beliefs listed out and then proceed to tell me that they are optional for SDAs because "opinons may differ".

And yes, my personal experience with SDAs is that they are a little dodgey when talking about their beliefs - especially Ellen White.

 

[BobRyan]

I have given you example after example of doctrines in which BOTH Baptist and SDAs take one side or the other (in the case of baptist they take BOTH SIDES) - and in the SDA case only ONE is allowed - only ONE.

-the Ten Commandments,
-the ENTIRE 66 books of the Bible as authorotative,
-Creation not Evolutionism,
-Arminian not Calvinism,
-the continued validity of spiritual gifts in 1Cor 12 without deleting prophecy from the list,
-literal millennium,
-post-trib rapture --

And yet you turn a blind eye to the fact that the SDA model is MORE STRUCTURED than even the Baptist model and claim SDAs are not holding up a standard on their doctrinal statements????

What kind of spin-doctoring is that?????

I am not talking about CHANGING Baptist doctrine - I am just saying - look at the facts and be honest!

And then in your last post you "complain" that SDAs are not INSISTING on strict acceptance of Ellen White???

I was right about your model to start with - post 18 - page TWO

"Bad news is bad news"
"Good news is bad news"
"NEWS is bad news"

 

[steaver]

The Jews of Christ's time "believed" that the "Traditions of the Elders" had the authority of Moses EVEN though Moses did not write them?

I guess they were as superstitious as Christ said they were.

Hmm - that means Christ was right about their rejecting scripture -- the OT scripture and replacing it with "traditions of men".

It means Matthew Henry and John Gill were right in finding that these guys in Mark 7 and Matt 15 were substituting their own idea of law (AS IF it was equal to scripture) and using it to negate/void/violate scripture (the OT). Christ in this story is UPHOLDING the unchanging unbroken Word of God -- the "traditions of the elders" is in the role of violating it - as Christ said.

in Christ,

Bob

Yes :thumbs:

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

BR:
"-the Ten Commandments,
-the ENTIRE 66 books of the Bible as authorotative,
-Creation not Evolutionism,
-Arminian not Calvinism,
-the continued validity of spiritual gifts in 1Cor 12 without deleting prophecy from the list,
-literal millennium,
-post-trib rapture --"

GE

This, and much more solely for lording over the People, defines, Seventh Day Adventism. Eg., the Ten Commandments, take the Fourth, and multiply with eight woes, to get the SDA-version: Law upon law upon the Law of God; here a little, there a little, until the camel's back is broken, and not before will they get rest for their souls.

I shall define Seventh Day Adventism for you: Eight woes of fear over fear. The antidote for certain death by this potion is the absolute tyranny of denominationalism, and the definition of denominationalism in their case: More and more of this: "-the Ten Commandments,
-the ENTIRE 66 books of the Bible as authorotative,
-Creation not Evolutionism,
-Arminian not Calvinism,
-the continued validity of spiritual gifts in 1Cor 12 without deleting prophecy from the list,
-literal millennium,
-post-trib rapture --"

 

[BobRyan]

BR:

I shall define Seventh Day Adventism for you: Eight woes of...

Just when we thought the complaints here could not get any more irrational....:laugh:

Thanks GE - you are always there to set some perspective on how things could be going in these discussions.

I think I will go easier on Targus.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[D28guy]

Bob,

You said...

As already stated - Ellen White has never been a source for doctrine in the Adventist church"

But the SDA statement of beliefs says...

"This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. White . As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction."

...and the last part of that sounds very similar to this...

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in rightiousness..."

Are they a source of doctrine, or not? It cant be both.

Mike

 

[BobRyan]

Actually it is the "pefect" scenario for anyone wanting to evaluate Adventism from the outside looking in - because Adventism claims that all doctrines must stand "sola scriptura". (And there are numerous statements from key SDA founders as well as from Ellen White on the Sola Scriptura standard for judging/approving/rejecting all SDA doctrine)

This means -- if based on the Bible alone - the doctrine under review fails then Adventists are "obligated" by their own statements regarding scripture to agree that the doctrine has failed. Those who constantly resort to Ellen White when debating SDAs are showing how little they understand of the doctrinal "position" that SDAs have agreed to when it comes to being evaluated "sola scriptura".

But the case made from the Bible - must be as clear as you would expect when pursuading anyone else that holds to the same sola scriptura basis.

Fundamental belief - 1

1. Holy Scriptures:
The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God, given by divine inspiration through holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God's acts in history. (2 Peter 1:20, 21; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; Ps. 119:105; Prov. 30:5, 6; Isa. 8:20; John 17:17; 1 Thess. 2:13; Heb. 4:12.)

God's messages given to Ellen White are not considered by Adventists to "create/discover/reveal doctrine". When it comes to doctrine they will add insight as to details or clarity about some question - the same way any commentary is adding clarity on some point but commentaries can not create doctrine, they do not become "the source for doctrine". If I write a commentary saying there are four persons in the Godhead - "Mary, Jesus, the Father, the Holy Spirit" - that does not become a "source text" that PROVES this to be true. Rather it is "proven to be wrong" by observing that the "authorotative text on doctrine" (the Bible) does not support the comment. The Bible alone can be used as "source text to PROVE" a doctrinal point.

Ellen White affirms "Sola Scriptura" for all doctrine.

Had the Reformation, after attaining a degree of success, consented to temporize to secure favor with the world, it would have been untrue to God and to itself, and would thus have insured its own destruction. The experience of those noble reformers contains a lesson for all succeeding ages. Satan's manner of working against God and his Word has not changed; he is still as much opposed to the Scriptures being made the guide of life as in the sixteenth century. In our time there is a wide departure from their doctrines and precepts, and there is need of a return to the great Protestant principle,--the Bible, and the Bible only, as the rule of faith and duty.

The Great Controversy, Chapter 11


When God's Word is studied, comprehended, and obeyed, a bright light will be reflected to the world; new truths, received and acted upon, will bind us in strong bonds to Jesus. The Bible, and the Bible alone, is to be our creed, the sole bond of union; all who bow to this Holy Word will be in harmony. Our own views and ideas must not control our efforts. Man is fallible, but God's Word is infallible. Instead of wrangling with one another, let men exalt the Lord. Let us meet all opposition as did our Master, saying, "It is written." Let us lift up the banner on which is inscribed, The Bible our rule of faith and discipline.
-- The Review and Herald, Dec. 15, 1885. {1SM 416.2}

So even "IF" there should exist a new convert to Adventism that simply glossed over doctrine #1 paying little attention to it and supposing that Ellen White is to be read to establish doctrine (or reasons that would be impossible to explain given that all their baptismal studies would have established doctrine - sola-scriptura) -- should they actually READ Ellen White they would find the quotes above -- quickly correcting their error.

Having said that - I am not making claims about all 14 million SDAs as if all have perfect clarity on all subjects (A point that Targus seems to like to focus on)

in Christ,

Bob