SDA unique doctrine

[BobRyan]

Bob Ryan,

Why does your denomination only put emphasis on tobacco and alcohol?

Could a butcher that sells pork be baptized as an SDA?

How about a casino employee?

A doctor that performs abortions?

no, yes, maybe - opinions vary.

When do we get to the part where you are interested in actual Bible doctrine?

 

[BobRyan]

Bob Ryan,

This is what I have concluded from this discussion so far.....

The SDA has a published list of beliefs -

To that point - 100% accurate!:thumbs:

Next - those beliefs are voted on and affirmed by representatives from the world wide denomination once every 5 years. As process that has seen the list go from 22 to 28 for example.

SDA "individuals" are free-will human beings that are not "expelled" when they happen to have "an opinion that varys" on a few of the doctrines.

There are in fact a small number of issues that are considered "tests of fellowship" --

But one thing that is well established is that the beliefs represent the majority view - rather than "every single individual down to the last soul" as you seem to try to get to.

The Baptismal statements closely reflect that published list but are not as detailed because they assume the person has already been through a series of Bible studies explaining the doctrines.

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

The list is bigger - I simply gave an example.

Can you blame a guy for being confused about your denominations beliefs?

Yes. The published statements are there for all "both SDA and nonSDA" to reference.

The fact that there is "no pope" nor " a lot of expelling of the saints based on varied opinions" is no different in the SDA church than in the Baptist church.

Do you find "Baptist's confusing" if they LIST their stated beliefs and then "every last soul in church does not happen to be in 100% agreement with every word"????

Seems like you are grasping at straws.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob
Quote:
In Matt 15 Christ was speaking about the Jewish myth that sin was getting on the wheat and that hands needed to be ceremonialy "baptized" or else sin sticking to the wheat would then infest the person.

Christ declared the Jewish myth (called "traditions of the elders" in Matt 15:2) to be invalid.

Quote:
Steaver -
Actually, it wasn't a Jewish myth but rather a Jewish tradition to follow the letter of the law which God commanded such washing. The Jews clearly understood it was the "food" and not "sin attached to the food" that was the focus of the defiled if not properly sanctified through their traditions.

Bob
It is always a pleasure to get into the details of a Bible text where Christ condemns the bogus myths and supertitions of the "traditions of the Elders" (as the text says) -- with some one who wants to try and pin that on God's WORD instead of where it belongs "the traditions of the elders".

MADE up from the get go!

1. there is NO COMMAND in God's word to "baptize hands" before eating wheat. Or to "Baptize hands before eating". By that we are not talking about real washing - but ceremonial "dipping" - baptizing. Is this the part where you decided to "make stuff up" in behalf of your argument? Why in the world would you claim that the Bible instructed them to dip hands in water before eating wheat?? (John Gill, Matthew Henry, Jamieson-Fausset-and-Brown all get this point easily that this is just made-up-tradition of the Jews... where were you mislead into thinkiing that the Bible was on the side of the Jews and Jesus was calling for violation of the Word of God??
Why in the world atribute to Jesus the errors of the Jews???)

2. IN THE TEXT Christ said that the WORD OF GOD is being NEGATEd/replaced/contradicted by the TRADITIONS OF MEN.

The myths and superstitions contained in the "traditions of the elders" were in direct contradiction to the Words of Scripture according to Christ.

Mark 7
6 And He said to them, ""Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: " THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.
7 " BUT [b]IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'
8 ""Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.''[/b]
9 He was also saying to them, ""You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.
10 ""For Moses said, " HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER'; and, " HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH';
11 but you say, "If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),'
12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother;
13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.''

.. I will stick with "Thus sayeth the Lord".

I was hoping you would finally get back to doing that - glad to see you are reforming.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

Bob
It is always a pleasure to get into the details of a Bible text where Christ condemns the bogus myths and supertitions of the "traditions of the Elders" (as the text says) -- with some one who wants to try and pin that on God's WORD instead of where it belongs "the traditions of the elders".

MADE up from the get go!

1. there is NO COMMAND in God's word to "baptize hands" before eating wheat. Or to "Baptize hands before eating". By that we are not talking about real washing - but ceremonial "dipping" - baptizing. Is this the part where you decided to "make stuff up" in behalf of your argument? Why in the world would you claim that the Bible instructed them to dip hands in water before eating wheat?? (John Gill, Matthew Henry, Jamieson-Fausset-and-Brown all get this point easily that this is just made-up-tradition of the Jews... where were you mislead into thinkiing that the Bible was on the side of the Jews and Jesus was calling for violation of the Word of God??
Why in the world atribute to Jesus the errors of the Jews???)

Sorry Bob, my error. Thank you for lovingly pointing it out for me. "Traditions of the elders" is beliefs that were held that was said to be handed down from Moses orally, never written.

With that said, my position on food and drink remains the same as supported by scripture.

God Bless! :thumbs:

 

[BobRyan]

Steaver -

I couldn't find anything from Jamieson, Fausset, Brown, Matthew Henry, John Gill etc that indicated that any of them thought that the source for the "traditions of the elders" was Moses.

Please let me know the source you are using to come up with that.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[targus]

There are in fact a small number of issues that are considered "tests of fellowship"

I'm guessing that these "tests of fellowship" different from the lists of beliefs.

Could you share them?

The list is bigger - I simply gave an example.

Could you share this list of conditions for SDA baptism?

Do you find "Baptist's confusing" if they LIST their stated beliefs and then "every last soul in church does not happen to be in 100% agreement with every word"????

It's isn't a matter of "every last soul in the church" being "in 100% agreement with every word".

You stated that people have been baptized into the SDA denominaton without believing in the Trinity (as an example).

What is the purpose of a published list of "beliefs" or doctrines if one may be baptized into the SDA denomination without believing them?

How many of the listed "beliefs" may one "not believe" and still be an SDA?

And how many unstated "beliefs" must a person "believe" in order to be an SDA?

It all appears to be so secretive and misleading.

 

[BobRyan]

#1. Your focus is on process and policy not scripture. I find that surprising if you actually had value for "sola scriptura" evidence.

#2. Your public profile lists you as "Baptist" which means you "supposedly" accept "the priesthood of believers" and would reject anything like an enforced statement of beliefs on all members "down to the last soul".

By comparison to Baptists the SDA organization is "much more structured" but not to the point of having a Catholic papacy - no pope - no dictatorship where administration says "you must all believe whatever we say".

So MORE structured than baptists but LESS than the dictatorship you seem to be looking for. Yet you claim this INCREASED level of structure leaves you confused -- you who supposedly prefer LESS structure as a Baptist!!

#3. Again you go for the "policy and practice" as to whether someone "was baptized not believing in the trinity". I don't know if that "process actually happened or not" I have never seen it done. But I HAVE met a very few SDA "individuals" that said that they currently reject the Trinity - much to my surprise.

As for "process" I seriously doubt that they were of that opinion when Baptized -- but I am not "all knowing" regarding "all baptisms on the planet".

#3. Your approach here is very curious given your claims to be baptist.

When I go to a Baptist church not ALL are Calvinist not ALL are Arminian. Not ALL accept perseverance not ALL demand OSAS not ALL hold to Sola-Scriptura, not all oppose the Ten Commandments, not all Accept them - some value ECF work kinda like a few here did before leaving the Baptist church.

But this is you being "confused" that all SDAs are not rigidly "certified" to comply with every detail of every point on all 28 doctrines???? The fact is that SDAs tend to have by far "more compliance" and "general agreement" than Baptists. 99.9% Arminian, 99.9% Trinitarian 99% in favor of Ten Commandments.

I find your line of logic - illusive. I find your focus on "policy" rather than doctrine and sola-scriptura -- puzzling.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[targus]

Doctrine is policy?

I am merely wondering why the PUBLISHED BELIEFS of the SDA are different from the ACTUAL BELIEFS of the SDA.

I am still curious as to what else must be accepted in order to be baptized into the SDA denomination that are not contained in the published beliefs.

 

[BobRyan]

I am still curious as to what else must be accepted in order to be baptized into the SDA denomination that are not contained in the published beliefs

So far we have yeet to identify even one doctrine in such a category.

1. What have we listed so far that "must be accepted" to be baptized that is "not in the doctrinal statement of beliefs"???

2. When do you get to an interest in something other than policy? (Policy as in "what do you do when someone is believing something just a bit off the published list, give more classes, baptize as along as they accept the basics of the Gospel, provide a papal statement?" ). Your interest in "policy as to what do you do if a person does this or that" far exceeds your interest in scripture so far.

HINT: The "list of doctrines" are already published -- too late to revise them.

I am merely wondering why the PUBLISHED BELIEFS of the SDA are different from the ACTUAL BELIEFS of the SDA.

Pretending that " a case where an SDA exists that did not hold rigidly to every detail of every statement published" is supposedly too "confusing for a Baptist who rejects the idea of creed and mandated beliefs entirely" -- is a self-conflicted argument on your part -- hard to take you seriously. Kinda like a puppy insisting that all animals eat straw like the ox. Something fishy there.

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 -- is "too much VARIATION for a Baptist that gets LOADS of variation on ALL those doctrinal issues in the Baptist church every day" is less than "genuine" from my POV.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The bottom line is that the SDA practice "appears to be NEAR UNIFORMITY" when compared to the more informatl and varried state of doctrines held from-member-to-member in the Baptist church based partly on the teaching of "priesthood of all believers".

Why in the world then should a Baptist be complaining that the SDA model is "not uniform ENOUGH"????

Frankly - You seem almost "dissappointed" that "nearly all SDAs accept spiritual gifts of 1Cor 12 but not all accept that Ellen White is an example of someone with the spiritual gift of prophecy". (Hint; SDA doctrines are defined and proven "sola scriptura" -- Ellen White is not a "doctrinal prophet" as compared to Bible writers whose teaching in scripture IS the basis for doctrine).

Makes no sense at all

in Christ,

Bob

 

[targus]

1. What have we listed so far that "must be accepted" to be baptized that is "not in the doctrinal statement of beliefs"???

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."

2. When do you get to an interest in something other than policy? (Policy as in "what do you do when someone is believing something just a bit off the published list, give more classes, baptize as along as they accept the basics of the Gospel, provide a papal statement?" ). Your interest in "policy as to what do you do if a person does this or that" far exceeds your interest in scripture so far.

I would suggest that not believing in the Trinity is more than "just a bit off the published list".

Pretending that " a case where an SDA exists that did not hold rigidly to every detail of every statement published" is supposedly too "confusing for a Baptist who rejects the idea of creed and mandated beliefs entirely" -- is a self-conflicted argument on your part -- hard to take you seriously. Kinda like a puppy insisting that all animals eat straw like the ox. Something fishy there.

Nope. Just pointing out that the SDA denomination doesn't live up to the man made system which Ellen White established. It has nothing to do with my beliefs.

Although I will admit that I have never heard of a Baptist church that would baptize some one who did not believe in the Trininty.

What makes a Baptist church a Baptist church is subscribing to Baptist distinctives.

But that is a different topic. Let's not hijack the thread.

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 -- is "too much VARIATION for a Baptist that gets LOADS of variation on ALL those doctrinal issues in the Baptist church every day" is less than "genuine" from my POV.

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.

And I'm still waiting for the "bigger list" of conditions for baptism into the SDA.

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobRyan
1. What have we listed so far that "must be accepted" to be baptized that is "not in the doctrinal statement of beliefs"???

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."

This is a policy question regarding the violation of one of the doctrinal statements. Policy statements are not part of the baptismal commitment. The doctrine on life style is already in the list of doctrines at the link that you supposedly read.

So "nothing new added there".

We still have yet to find a "new doctrine" to add --

Why are you so interested in coming up with one?

Or are you hoping that "policy" becomes a doctrine?

When the practice of the indiiviidual does not match to the statement on doctrines it is normally left to the individual to make individual decisions -- kinda like being a Baptist.

But on some things there are policy and practice limits for doctrines on the list.

This amounts to a subset of the existing doctrines having anthing like a policy or minimum practice statement.

So "for example" we urge people to accept all of the Ten Commandments - yes even the 4th commandment. But there is no "policy" to go along with that saying what they must or must not do on Sabbath.

It seems your interest is more in the policy and limits than on the actual doctrine itself.

Keep looking - if that is your area of interest.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said
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 --

is "too much VARIATION for a Baptist that gets LOADS of variation on ALL those doctrinal issues in the Baptist church every day" is less than "genuine" from my POV.

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???

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

In our never-ending quest to address your unending interest in policies within the Adventist churc....

Bob
Quote:
Pretending that " a case where an SDA exists that did not hold rigidly to every detail of every statement published" is supposedly too "confusing for a Baptist who rejects the idea of creed and mandated beliefs entirely" -- is a self-conflicted argument on your part -- hard to take you seriously. Kinda like a puppy insisting that all animals eat straw like the ox. Something fishy there.

Targus
Nope. Just pointing out that the SDA denomination doesn't live up to the man made system which Ellen White established.

I see. So then you have some kind of actual quote some statement from the Church - the 28 beliefs or from Ellen White saying that the "policy" that is in practice today allowing for personnal choice in terms of the degree to which one agrees to one or the other doctrines -- vs some supposed quote that you claim to have from Ellen White indicates that the church policy allows for too much individual choice? Too much individual freedom?

That is news to me that you had such a document or statement.

Please provide it.

I am always interest in areas where you musings cross the line into the area of facts. I have given you the facts that Adventists use - now please share yours with me.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[targus]

Bob Ryan,

It is difficult to follow all your double-speak.


You said "finally there is at least one CONDITION FOR BAPTISM 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."


NOW you say "This is a policy question regarding the violation of one of the doctrinal statements. Policy statements are NOT PART OF THE BAPTISMAL COMMITMENT."

So it's a CONDITION FOR BAPTISM that is NOT PART OF THE BAPTISMAL COMMITMENT?

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said -- Quote:
2. When do you get to an interest in something other than policy? (Policy as in "what do you do when someone is believing something just a bit off the published list, give more classes, baptize as along as they accept the basics of the Gospel, provide a papal statement?" ). Your interest in "policy as to what do you do if a person does this or that" far exceeds your interest in scripture so far.

Targus
I would suggest that not believing in the Trinity is more than "just a bit off the published list".

1. The 28 beliefs published shows that the doctrinal position of SDAs is that the Triune Godhead is the right view of God. Beyond question.

2. Your question is simply on "policy" as to what happens when a member of the church is found to reject that SDA teaching. You seem want to know why administrators or Church councils are not set up to expell them from membership. you know... questions of "policy".

I have no "policy document" to hand you on that point of church discipline -- you may need to continue to just "make stuff up" there as you go.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Bob Ryan,

It is difficult to follow all your double-speak.


You said "finally there is at least one CONDITION FOR BAPTISM 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."

NOW you say "This is a policy question regarding the violation of one of the doctrinal statements. Policy statements are NOT PART OF THE BAPTISMAL COMMITMENT."

So it's a CONDITION FOR BAPTISM that is NOT PART OF THE BAPTISMAL COMMITMENT?

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.

We do not argue that the acceptance of our spiritual gifts doctrine also mandates that the candidate agrees that Ellen White is an example of someone with the gift of prophecy -- It is our policy not to object if someone accepts spirtual gifts in 1Cor 12 but does not consider Ellen White to have had them.

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.

I could understand if this were coming from a member of the RCC insisting that SDAs adopt a rigid centralized enforcement of policy practice and doctrine from central command like the RCC had in the dark ages. But in theory you are a Baptist and are someone actually IN FAVOR of "Priesthood of all believers".

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

in Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

Steaver -

I couldn't find anything from Jamieson, Fausset, Brown, Matthew Henry, John Gill etc that indicated that any of them thought that the source for the "traditions of the elders" was Moses.

Please let me know the source you are using to come up with that.

in Christ,

Bob

I use "The King James Bible Commentary" which has many contributers.

Here is the quote from my comentary....

"The traditions of the elders. The Jews of our Lord's time believed that in addition to the written law of Moses, there was an oral law given to Moses on Sinai and passed down from him by word of mouth till it reached the Great Synagogue or Council of Elders which succeeded Ezra after the return from exile. This coucil lasted till 291 B.C. and seems to have been the source of the many accertions to the law of God which have been found in Judaism ancient and modern."

Edward E. Hindson, Th.D., D.Min., Vice President, There's Hope Ministries; Minister of Biblical Studies, Rehoboth Baptist Church. B.A., William Tyndale College; M.A., Trinity Evangelical School of Theology; D.Min., Westminister Theological Seminary; D.Litt., (Hon.) California Graduate School of Theology. Additional graduatestudy at Acadia University (Canada) and the University of South Africa.

God Bless! :jesus:

 

[BobRyan]

I use "The King James Bible Commentary" which has many contributers.

Here is the quote from my comentary....

"The traditions of the elders. The Jews of our Lord's time believed that in addition to the written law of Moses, there was an oral law given to Moses on Sinai and passed down from him by word of mouth till it

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

 

[targus]

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.

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

BTW still waiting for that list.

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.

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

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

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?

BTW - if you want to start another discussion on the Baptist Distinctives that would be great. But on this thread let's stick to the OP.