SDA unique doctrine

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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?

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.

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

 

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???

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

 

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

 

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"

 

Yes :thumbs:

 

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 --"

 

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

 

Bob,

You said...

But the SDA statement of beliefs says...

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

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

Mike

 

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

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.

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