Is it possible to be part Adventist?

[LynnDel]

Originally Posted By: Bravus

I sometimes find it useful to flip questions around: 'Is it possible to be fully Adventist?'

I think some think they are "fully SDA".

However, to be fully SDA is not the goal. Having such a goal will not get you to heaven or cause you to avoid Hell.

The Goal is to know God and Jesus Christ whom He sent (John 17:3). You cannot ever be whole as a human being without knowing God and knowing Jesus Christ the One who is the Way to God.

Thus, I find whether you are SDA or not to be irrelevant.

That is a good twist on the question, Bravus. I think there are many who consider themselves fully SDA, and if you got all the self-proclaimed "fully SDAs" in a room to discuss the merits of their membership, how many subgroups would be in the room, and how peaceful would it be? In a sense, such a discussion would be irrelevant, as miz3 says, but...

You are right, miz3 - knowing God and Jesus Christ is the whole point, not to be identified as a member of a denomination. We do have, however, groups of humans who join together for purposes of worship, "where two or three are gathered together" - and whenever you have human groups, you need a common basis of understanding, especially as it regards the purpose of the group (church). Therefore, it is not entirely irrelevant to determine whether one fits into the group they support with their presence and their offerings.

See, here I am, arguing against myself again.

[miz3]

The difficulty with that advice, C12, is that we believe the light will grow ever brighter and fuller until that Day, and as our beliefs changed and grew in the first years of the church's existence, our understandings should continue to grow. I believe that if EGW were still living, her beliefs in some areas would have grown and been restated. That's why she kept saying she was the lesser light that leads to the greater light, the Bible. We misuse her when we make her statements the final word on our understanding of scripture. The denomination moves slowly, or may even have decided to state, "This is what we believe, here we will stand, no matter what." For this reason, I would not want to advocate any who disagree on certain points to either come to agreement or get out.

LD

Excellent.

[miz3]

Standing on The Rock is good. Being stuck in concrete is bad.

LD

Yes, you are correct. The SDA Church at one time was almost totally Arian but has done a full one-eighty and is now trinitarian.

So the church has indeed changed in radical form throughout the years just as you stated in your previous post.

Good job.

[ClubV12]

Why would I reject the 29th? Or any other number for that matter, say "30". Why would I reject any one of the 28 we already have? Are one or more of them a problem?

Which is really the question I think LynnDel is asking.

As a whole they are not required for any particular thing. Some fear they may be construed as a "creed". I think this thread may be a good example of how they can be seen that way, as if there will never be anymore to follow, as if that is all Adventists will ever believe,. In that regard, they can be a stumbling block to some.

Will we have new understanding of any of the 28? Certainly!!! Virtually gaurenteed, which is WHY the pioneers said Adventists should NEVER have a creed. We are always open to new light, new understanding, more knowledge. Will any of the 28 be removed because the doctrine was found to be false? Nope, they are "fundamentally" locked in stone!

SOME of the 28 are referrenced in other documents as a REQUIREMENT of church membership. Like the Sabbath, reject that belief and you can't be a member.

There was a time when Adventist didn't keep the Sabbath! Which is WHY we don't have a "creed"!

[miz3]

That is a good twist on the question, Bravus. I think there are many who consider themselves fully SDA, and if you got all the self-proclaimed "fully SDAs" in a room to discuss the merits of their membership, how many subgroups would be in the room, and how peaceful would it be? In a sense, such a discussion would be irrelevant, as miz3 says, but...

You are right, miz3 - knowing God and Jesus Christ is the whole point, not to be identified as a member of a denomination. We do have, however, groups of humans who join together for purposes of worship, "where two or three are gathered together" - and whenever you have human groups, you need a common basis of understanding, especially as it regards the purpose of the group (church). Therefore, it is not entirely irrelevant to determine whether one fits into the group they support with their presence and their offerings.

See, here I am, arguing against myself again.

I was not advocating that people not gather together with common ground in Jesus Christ. I see that as healthy. However, if you do not know God and Jesus Christ then being identified with a group is of no value.

I am not disagreeing with you. Hopefully I am clarifying myself to agree with you.

[ClubV12]

I've heard it said, "If the pioneers were alive today they wouldn't qualify for membership."

I find that a ridiculous argument!!!! If the pioneers were alive today they would do the same thing they did in their time. Study the issues, hold fast that which is true and ADD several new items to their list of "11" until it grew to "28". The pioneers were all about moving forward and accepting new light. Before they accepted the Sabbath the "28" were "3". When they accepted the trinity, they added a new "fundamental belief". This is not a difficult concept to grasp. :)

[LynnDel]

While our church doesn't claim to have a creed, the 27 Fundamental Beliefs (1980), which then became 28, seems to have served as such, at times. According to the information here: http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/27/index.htm, this summary of beliefs is not an officially voted statement. The link also gives a very brief history of various statements of belief since 1872. Interesting.