Can the Remnant Church Fail?

[Nic Samojluk]

ClubV12 wrote:

“What doctrine of the Seventh-day Adventist church shows a lack of love toward the unborn Nic? What example of the Seventh-day Adventist church can you offer as a position of a lack of love for the unborn?”

The church did violate God’s doctrine which forbids murder and shedding the blood of innocent human beings; this is evident by the fact that the church did allow our own Adventist hospitals to offer elective abortions. This is documented in the pages of our own “Ministry” magazine.

It has also violated its own doctrine which condemns the practice of abortions on demand, but it allowed our own hospitals to violate said doctrine with impunity. This double standard reminds me of what Pilate did:

He declared that Jesus was innocent of any crime, yet it allowed his enemies to kill him. He deceived himself into believing that by washing his hands he would not be guilty of shedding the blood of an innocent man.

“What doctrine of the Church is a problem for you Nic?”

The “Guidelines on Abortion” which forbid elective abortions, but it allows even the mental health exemption as a justification for killing an innocent unborn baby.

A woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy says to her doctor: “I feel depressed and I cannot sleep nor study for my exams;” and bingo, another innocent baby is torn to pieces before birth.

[skyblue888]

Thats the prob when God is put aside and human methods and plans are adopted in the work of God. See T.M.360,361,362,363,366,481. On any moral issue the leaders speak for the rest of us. Its called 'representation' and that is papal. If you dont believe me, read the 1901 General Conference Bulletin. This was discussed at length at that Conference and it was agreed that the system of representation was papal. That is why the Lord called us away from the track of Rome, to an entire new organization.

"In matters of faith and conscience the soul must be left untrammeled. No one is to control another's mind, to judge for another, or to prescribe his duty. God gives to every soul freedom to think, and to follow his own conscience. 'Everyone of us shall give account of himself to God.' No one has a right to merge his own individuality in that of another. In all matters where principle is involved, 'let every one be fully persuaded in his own mind.'(Rom.14:12,5) In Christ's kingdom there is no lordly oppression, no compulsion of manner. The angels do not come to the earth to rule, and to exact homage, but as messengers of mercy, to co-operate with men in uplifting humanity." Desire of Ages,550,551.

The principle laid down in the above statement applies to the issue of abortion just as it applies to any issue which has to do with faith and conscience. This was the principle which we were invited to build upon in 1901 but it was repudiated in General Conference in 1903.

sky

[ClubV12]

I'm glad the "leaders" are not enforcing a total abortion ban on our hosptials. I am glad they do not allow for elective abortions. I am glad those guidlines are in perfect harmony with Ellen Whites counsel, in before and after 1901.

The G.C. is not papal, Sky. They do not speak for any individual member as to what his or her duties are. Gods laws have not been replaced by the devisings of men.

As the quote Sky posted notes: No one is to control another's mind, or dictate to them exactly what they should do in every detail. Is that what you would have the G.C. do, Nic, Sky? Take total control, no choice, disallow abortions across the board AND enforce it through the G.C.? THAT is "Papal"! AND fanatic! THAT would be the devisings of man, it's not biblical.

I will let the Doctors, counselors and the patient determine when and if an abortion is needful. I will not judge or second guess their counsel. I will not declare the church has fallen or will fall because we allow FREEDOM OF CHOICE.

"In matters of faith and conscience the soul must be left untrammeled. No one is to control another's mind...."

Good counsel, I'm glad the Church is following it. Are YOU?

[CoAspen]

Well said!!

[phkrause]

The church did violate God’s doctrine which forbids murder and shedding the blood of innocent human beings; this is evident by the fact that the church did allow our own Adventist hospitals to offer elective abortions. This is documented in the pages of our own “Ministry” magazine.

So answer me this than, Why has the Adventist Church allowed elective abortions? and Why has the US as a whole been allowing elective abortions or abortions period?

[ClubV12]

"Why has the Adventist Church allowed elective abortions?"

Point of clairification concerning the official position of the Adventist church:

The General Conference guidelines do not allow or encourage elective abortions EXCEPT in theraputic situations. Health of the mother and other factors are considered, counseling is offered. Abortion is NOT used as a "birth control" method. 80% of Adventist hospitals follow these guidelines. From the studies I've looked at, the other 200% don't even offer abortions or have had only one or two in decades! Some hospitals are simply not equiped to perform abortions at all. Thus they cannot technically be counted among those who offer theraputic abortions. One example of the kind of anomaly common to studies and polls, where the data can be misleading. Or easily manipulated by those with an agenda.

Adventist hospitals do not offer abortions for "free", except in rare cases. They don't do general surgery, office exams or cancer treatment for free either. Nor do our publishing houses print books for free, nor do our Pastors work for free. Therefore, you COULD say our Pastors are "in it for the money", and the same could be said of our publishing houses. It's all about the "money". You COULD say that, but you would sound like an idiot....

Being "pro-choice" does not mean the same thing as having theraputic guidelines allowing for abortion in some cases. Nor is it the same as being "pro-life". The church has taken a balanced position, which is to often pigeon holed into one extreme or the other. As has been the case with THIS thread.

MANY Adventists hospitals have their own guidelines which are MORE exclusive, tougher, than the General Conference guidelines!

[phkrause]

Thanks club, but I'm interested in Nic's answer to this. There has to have been a reason why Adventist Hospital, with the OK of the GC to allow elective abortions. Some where in there thinking they must've decided for this. And since Nic has told us time and time again that he has researched this, he must have an idea. At some time in the US abortion was illegal, and many young women who were going to get an abortion one way or another, started going to these so called butcher shops and getting there abortions. And many were dying from this. So from what I've always understood, the reason that abortions became legal was so that women would than be able to get an abortion at a clinic, hospital, etc., and not have to deal with the so called butcher shops!!!

[ClubV12]

I'd like to see Nic's response as well, but we have to be careful with the term "elective". That term as used by the G.C. is by no means "carte blanche" as a method of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy. Nor is that the case for Adventist hospitals.

[phkrause]

I understand that, but since Nic is using that term, I thought I keep it in there.

[Nic Samojluk]

skyblue888 wrote:

“"In matters of faith and conscience the soul must be left untrammeled. No one is to control another's mind, to judge for another, or to prescribe his duty. God gives to every soul freedom to think, and to follow his own conscience.”

The principle laid down in the above statement applies to the issue of abortion just as it applies to any issue which has to do with faith and conscience. This was the principle which we were invited to build upon in 1901 but it was repudiated in General Conference in 1903.”

*********

Since you believe that the above principle of freedom of conscience applies to abortion, I have a few questions for you:

If this principle applies to abortion—which implies the killing of innocent unborn babies—then shouldn’t it also apply to rape, burglary, theft, and the sexual abuse of children?

And remember that if somebody steals my car, it can be replaced, but the life stolen from the unborn can never be restored. When a woman is raped, she can with God’s help recover from the terrible ordeal, but the aborted baby has no such hope.

Suppose we apply such principle of human freedom across all human actions, then why do we need human government? Can society survive without the proper role of the government whose role is the protection of human lives and property?

If your daughter has been raped, don’t you call the police and demand that the culprit be punished? If a criminal is threatening to take the life of a child, isn’t your duty to reports this to the authorities? What happens to our freedom of conscience under those circumstances?

Should humans be totally free to rape, steal, and murder with impunity? Isn’t murder a more serious crime than rape and theft? Isn’t the mission of the church to preach against sin and invite sinners to repent and thus to secure God’s forgiveness?

[Nic Samojluk]

ClubV12 wrote:

“I'm glad the "leaders" are not enforcing a total abortion ban on our hosptials.”

Are you also glad that the church did allow the offering of abortions on demand in our Adventist hospitals starting in 1970—three years before abortion was legalized in the U.S. mainland?

“I am glad they do not allow for elective abortions.”

Do you realize that you are ignoring the facts of history? What good is it for the church to state in our abortions guidelines that the church does not condone elective abortions if our hospitals are granted the freedom to ignore said guidelines with impunity?

Isn’t this what Pilate did? He publicly declared that Jesus was innocent of any crime, but he gave the Jewish leaders the authority to execute him. Thousands of innocent human beings have been dismembered or poisoned in our Adventist hospitals, and this doesn’t bother you?

“I am glad those guidelines are in perfect harmony with Ellen Whites counsel, in before and after 1901.”

Perfect harmony with the teachings of Ellen White? Are you serious? She stated that even the neglect of the pregnant woman’s health is almost equivalent to murder of the unborn! Does it follow that the actual killing of the unborn would be acceptable to her? How can you harmonize these two contradictory statements?

“Is that what you would have the G.C. do, Nic, Sky? Take total control, no choice, disallow abortions across the board AND enforce it through the G.C.? THAT is "Papal"! AND fanatic! THAT would be the devising of man, it's not biblical.”

Should the church also allow rape, theft, and the sexual abuse of children to take place in our church institutions? Would that represent the freedom you defend: Freedom to steal and harm other individual’s rights? Why are we so firm in less serious crime, but so lenient with the violation of the most precious assets humans have: the right to life?

“I will not declare the church has fallen or will fall because we allow FREEDOM OF CHOICE.”

Freedom of choice for murder, but not for burglary, rape, and the sexual abuse of children. Why such leniency with really serious moral crime?

"In matters of faith and conscience the soul must be left untrammeled. No one is to control another's mind...."

Would you preach such freedom of choice when someone steals your car, rapes your daughter, or sexually abuse your child or your wife?

“Good counsel, I'm glad the Church is following it.”

Our duty is to protect the innocent—not the criminal! Justifying murder can never be good counsel!

[Nic Samojluk]

pkrause wrote:

“Why has the Adventist Church allowed elective abortions? and Why has the US as a whole been allowing elective abortions or abortions period?”

Because the church has departed from a crystal clear “Thus said the Lord.” God’s Command is patently clear: “You shall not murder.” Even a child can understand this. For two thousand years the Christian world did accept and did honor the Hippocratic Oath which forbids abortion and ordered physicians to do “no harm.”

Then the sexual revolution of the sixties took place in the U.S. and all hell broke loose. Adventist started offering the so called “therapeutic” abortions resulting from rape, incest, and malformations.

Then when the State of Hawaii legalized abortions, our Adventist leaders did what Pilate did. They declared that the church does not condone abortions on demand, but it granted our hospitals the freedom to violate such guidelines with impunity.

When the non-Adventist physicians at our Castle Memorial Hospital demanded the right to offer elective abortions to their patients, the church caved in for fear of loosing needed revenue. The fear of God went out the window and the fear of men reigned supreme. This spread to other Adventist hospitals.

Since the beginning of the Adventist movement, we have claimed to be God’s “Remnant” church which keeps God’s Commandments. Can we continue to claim this with a straight face when we have allowed murder to take place in our own medical institutions?

We need to repent of this great sin against the Creator and ask for forgiveness! Unless we do this, our church will become as irrelevant as the rest of Christendom.

No wonder Ellen White did warn almost a century ago when adultery was being tolerated in our ranks that we were in danger of becoming “a sister to Babylon.” Imagine what she would say today if she learned that we have added murder to the sin of adultery!

[doug yowell]

"In matters of faith and conscience the soul must be left untrammeled. No one is to control another's mind, to judge for another, or to prescribe his duty. God gives to every soul freedom to think, and to follow his own conscience. 'Everyone of us shall give account of himself to God.' No one has a right to merge his own individuality in that of another. In all matters where principle is involved, 'let every one be fully persuaded in his own mind.'(Rom.14:12,5) In Christ's kingdom there is no lordly oppression, no compulsion of manner. The angels do not come to the earth to rule, and to exact homage, but as messengers of mercy, to co-operate with men in uplifting humanity." Desire of Ages,550,551.

The principle laid down in the above statement applies to the issue of abortion just as it applies to any issue which has to do with faith and conscience. This was the principle which we were invited to build upon in 1901 but it was repudiated in General Conference in 1903.

sky

You mean like drinking alcohol (the overwhelming majority of professing Christians have no twinge of conscience with a couple of Bud Lights),using tobacco products (ever stand outside a non-denom church after the service?),practicing a homosexual lifestyle(like the Metro churches), having more than one wife,owning slaves (ever read the "freedom of conscience" arguments that were used to defend slavery?),ect...?If your definition of freedom of conscience is true,then Ellen White should have applied it to the criminalization of abortion laws that were being passed in her day, but she didn't. She also should have publically rebuked all our SDA leaders for supporting the same definition that Nic has applied here, but she didn't. Why do you think that she overlooked that important distinction of application? And why cannot the church echo the same clear stand against abortion that our SDA founders did and publically forbid it in our institutions rather than issuing a nebuluous set of suggestions?

[Nic Samojluk]

ClubV12 wrote:

“The General Conference guidelines do not allow or encourage elective abortions EXCEPT in therapeutic situations.”

We should not confuse the so called “therapeutic” with “elective” abortions. Our church started offering therapeutic abortions in our hospitals many years before abortion was legalized. This led to the offering of abortions on demand in our hospital in Hawaii, and it spread to at least five Adventist hospitals according to our Adventist sources.

What good is it for the church to say that we do not condone elective abortions if our hospitals were allowed to offer them with impunity? And since when the dismemberment or the poisoning of innocent human beings merits to be describes as therapy?

Would the defenders of this kind of treatment volunteer for such therapy? Killing can never be therapy for the unborn baby! And it is neither therapy for the woman! She will be loaded with the feeling of guilt for the rest of her life, unless she repents of her sin and seeks forgiveness!

“Therefore, you COULD say our Pastors are "in it for the money", and the same could be said of our publishing houses. It's all about the "money". You COULD say that, but you would sound like an idiot.”

Does it follow that it is morally kosher to murder for money? Murder is defined as the killing of an innocent human being; I conclude that abortion is murder and the violation of God’s Law which was designed to protect human life.

For two millennia the Hippocratic Oath was held in high esteem which forbids abortion and orders physicians to do “no harm.” Then the sexual revolution took place and all hell broke loose!

“The church has taken a balanced position.”

The church did grant our medical institutions the right to violate its own policy against elective abortions. How can you label this as a “balanced position”?

“MANY Adventists hospitals have their own guidelines which are MORE exclusive, tougher, than the General Conference guidelines!”

True! And then you have institutions like the “Washington Adventist Hospital” which was described by a General Conference official as an “abortion mill.” The “Washington Post” once reported that this medical facility performed 1494 abortion in 8 years.

Is this what we want to be known for as a testimony to the world? Is our message favoring the permanence of God’s Commandments credible if we by teaching and example allow the violation of the Sixth Commandment with impunity in our own medical institutions? Can we sill claim to be God’s “Remnant” which keep God’s Commandments?

Who can believe this? I used to give Bible studies to Catholics. This I cannot do with a straight face anymore! Rome did water down God’s Ten Rules of human behavior, and we have done the same. If we allow so many exceptions for the Sixth Commandment, can we blame Rome for doing the same with the Fourth?

The violation of which Commandment has more serious consequences: worshipping the Lord on the wrong day of the week or killing innocent human beings? Can we use common sense when dealing with this issue for a change?

[Nic Samojluk]

pkrause wrote:

“Thanks club, but I'm interested in Nic's answer to this. There has to have been a reason why Adventist Hospital, with the OK of the GC to allow elective abortions. Some where in there thinking they must've decided for this. And since Nic has told us time and time again that he has researched this, he must have an idea.”

I am glad that you asked. I could provide a link to an article I recently wrote, which most people simply ignore. I will therefore post it here for you:

*********

The Day “Ministry” Magazine Went Silent on Abortion

Between 1971 and 1996 I counted 95 Readers’ comments and articles dealing with abortion in the pages of our “Ministry” magazine. The readers’ interest in this controversial issue was so great that on July 1988 David Newman wrote the following:

“Our articles on abortion have touched a sensitive nerve. We are receiving more email on this subject than on any other recently published article. The letters are running 10 to 1 in favor of the church adopting a stricter standard.” Then suddenly, a few years following the publication of our current Adventist “Guidelines on Abortion” a long silence ensued on the pages of this periodical.

What happened? Why the sudden silence? Did the interest in abortion diminish, or was this the result of an intentional desire by the pro-choice elite and the liberal leadership to silence the pro-life opposition whose opinions were running, according to Newman, “10 to 1" in favor of the church adopting a stricter standard? We cannot be 100 percent sure, but the timing of the comments on abortion blackout is rather suspicious!

I did perform an exhaustive investigation about this topic and discovered that two third of our Adventists who were active in expressing their opinions in our publications were on the pro-life side of the issue, while two third of the Adventist leaders and article writers were favoring a pro-choice agenda. The church granted the power to draft our guidelines on abortion to the latter group, and they prevailed in this moral controversy.

My guess is that the members of the Adventist intelligentsia must have realized that if the freedom of the press was allowed to continue, their favored pro-choice views on abortion might eventually be in danger of collapsing under the weight of those who were making their voice heard loud and clear through the pages of our Adventist periodicals.

A good example of the strong defense of the pro-life position on abortion can be seen in an article written by George Gainer, who described in minutest details the history of how our church moved from a pro-life position to a pro-choice/pro-abortion one. His article was published by Ministry on August 1991 with the following title “Abortion: history of Adventist guidelines.” Here is a short review of some of the salient points included in it.

Gainer’s article started with the following anecdote related by a non-Adventist pastor who chose our Washington Adventist Hospital for pre-natal care. His wife was pregnant, and this pastor wanted his wife to be cared for by an Adventist physician. The first question this doctor asked the couple was: “Do you want to keep this baby?”

The pastor and his wife could not believe their eyes. They got up and left the office with the following explanation: “We must be in the wrong place.” This is how this Christian couple discovered that this Adventist hospital was offering abortions on demand and not the so called “therapeutic” kind resulting from rape, incest or malformation.

Next, Gainer related the historical position of the Adventist pioneers regarding this issue which was labeled by the founders of the Adventist movement as plain murder and the direct and unmistakable violation of the biblical injunction against the killing of innocent human beings and the shedding of innocent blood. James and Ellen White, as well as Dr. John Harvey Kellogg, the founder of the Adventist medical work, demonstrated in their writings a high regard and respect for the value of human life from the moment of conception.

Then the author of this article proceeded to detail the events which led the Adventist Church to engage in the profitable business of abortion. It started in Hawaii following the legalization of abortion in said Sate in 1970. The Adventist Castle Memorial Hospital was staffed by Adventist and non-Adventist physicians. A man who had donated $25,000 for the construction of said medical institution came asking for an abortion for his pregnant daughter.

Then the non-Adventist physicians demanded the right to offer elective abortions to their patients and threatened to take their patients elsewhere in the event their petition was denied; the church leadership was made aware of this anomalous situation, and our Adventist leaders caved in for fear of loosing business to competing public medical institutions.

“On March 17, 1970, Neal C. Wilson, president of the North American Division, made a statement on abortion that was carried by the Religious News Service. He predicted that when the denomination met at Atlantic City in June it would steer a middle-of-the-road course.”

And he rationalized such a morally devious course of action with the following explanation: "Though we walk the fence, Adventists lean toward abortion rather than against it. Because we realize we are confronted by big problems of hunger and overpopulation, we do not oppose family planning and appropriate endeavors to control population."

Did Wilson have in mind the Adventist lay members whose views were described by David Newman as ten to one opposing abortion or the liberal leaders of our church and those connected with our medical work who had a conflict of interest regarding this issue? You decide! The math doesn’t seem to have been on his side, or perhaps he was blinded by financial considerations.

Think about this: This incredible declaration was made in the richest country of the world at a time when the Unites States of America was also the largest creditor on earth—not the largest debtor as today—and the largest producer of food and clothing. Of course, we need to also remember that this declaration was made at the time when the Atomic Clock was pointing to three minutes before midnight.

The fear of a nuclear war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union was matched by the fear of the uncontrolled demographic growth in the Communist country of China. The fear of God was set aside by the fear of a nuclear annihilation of the human race from planet earth.

Moral detours are usually taken at a time of great fear of an impending catastrophe. I am not attempting to justify the action of the Adventist leadership, but simply trying to understand the complexity of our moral failure.

These events gave rise to the need for the development of guidelines for the provision of abortions in Adventist medical institutions. A separate set of guidelines were drafted, one for the Adventist hospitals and the other for public consumption. The net result of all this led M. C. Midkiff to make the following declaration:

"I believe if you do a bit of research you will find that the majority of Adventist hospitals permit abortion on request."

An article authored by Gerald Winslow revealed that five of our hospitals did report as offering elective abortions to their patients, but according to George Gainer, “The American Hospital Association Guide to the Health Care Field,” 1986 lists 12 of the 56 Adventist hospitals in the United States as offering "abortion services," including "a program and facilities." The hospitals identified by said entity included the following Adventist medical institutions:

“Castle Medical Center, Hadley Memorial Hospital, Hanford Community Hospital, Loma Linda University Medical Center, Porter Memorial Hospital, Portland Adventist Medical Center, Shady Grove Adventist Hospital, Shawnee Mission Medical Center, Sierra Vista Hospital, Walla Walla General Hospital, Washington Adventist Hospital, and White Memorial Medical Center.”

And let us not forget that Adventist were in the forefront in the legalization of abortion, since our Castle Memorial Hospital in Hawaii started offering elective abortion services back in 1970—three years before the practice was legalized in the U.S. mainland. This is incredible. The Remnant Church of God with the last message to a perishing world engaged in the extermination of innocent unborn babies by the thousands for the sake of expediency and profit.

If our Adventist pioneers were to witness this terrible deviation from moral duty inside the medical institutions they worked so hard to establish, they would writhe in anguish and pain. As God’s people on earth, we need to repent of this terrible sin, publicly acknowledge our moral depravity and ask God to forgive us for veering off the right path and plead for a revival of the faith delivered to the saints.

The brief description of George Gainer’s report I have included here contains merely some of the salient events he talks about in carefully documented details. If this issue is on interest to you, I encourage you to read the original document published by the Ministry magazine. Here is the Internet link to it:

http://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/...#at_pco=cft-1.0

[skyblue888]

skyblue888 wrote:

“"In matters of faith and conscience the soul must be left untrammeled. No one is to control another's mind, to judge for another, or to prescribe his duty. God gives to every soul freedom to think, and to follow his own conscience.”

The principle laid down in the above statement applies to the issue of abortion just as it applies to any issue which has to do with faith and conscience. This was the principle which we were invited to build upon in 1901 but it was repudiated in General Conference in 1903.”

*********

Since you believe that the above principle of freedom of conscience applies to abortion, I have a few questions for you:

If this principle applies to abortion—which implies the killing of innocent unborn babies—then shouldn’t it also apply to rape, burglary, theft, and the sexual abuse of children?

And remember that if somebody steals my car, it can be replaced, but the life stolen from the unborn can never be restored. When a woman is raped, she can with God’s help recover from the terrible ordeal, but the aborted baby has no such hope.

Suppose we apply such principle of human freedom across all human actions, then why do we need human government? Can society survive without the proper role of the government whose role is the protection of human lives and property?

If your daughter has been raped, don’t you call the police and demand that the culprit be punished? If a criminal is threatening to take the life of a child, isn’t your duty to reports this to the authorities? What happens to our freedom of conscience under those circumstances?

Should humans be totally free to rape, steal, and murder with impunity? Isn’t murder a more serious crime than rape and theft? Isn’t the mission of the church to preach against sin and invite sinners to repent and thus to secure God’s forgiveness?

It is in the realm of the powers that be to punish incivility, not morality.

"Immorality is itself a violation of the law of God, and civil government has no right to punish any man for a violation of the law of God as such... Obedience to the moral law is morality; it pertains to the thoughts and intents of the heart, and therefore, in the very nature of the case, lies beyond the reach or control of the civil power. To hate is murder; to covet is idolatry; to think impurely of a woman is adultery; these are all equally immoral, and violations of the moral law but no civil government seeks to punish for them... But let us carry this further. Only let a man's hatred lead him, either by word or sign, to attempt an injury to his neighbor, and the State will punish him; only let his covetousness lead him to lay hands on what is not his own, in an attempt to steal, and the State will punish him; only let his impure thought lead him to attempt violence to any woman, and the State will punish him. Yet bear in mind that even then the State does not punish him for his immorality, but for his incivility. The immorality lies in the heart and can be measure by God only. The State punishes no man because he is immoral. If it did, it would have to punish as a murderer the man who hates another, and to punish as an idolater the man who covets, and to punish as an adulterer the man thinks impurely." A.T. Jones, The National Sunday Law,149,150.

"The Inquisition is the inevitable logic of any claim of any assembly of men to punish immorality; because to punish immorality, it is necessary in some way to get at the thoughts and intents of the heart. The papacy, asserting the right to compel men to be moral, and to punish them for immorality, had the cruel courage to carry the evil principle to its logical consequence. In carrying out the principle, it was found to be essential to get at the secrets of men's hearts; and it was found that the diligent application of torture would wring from men, in many cases, a full confession of the most secret counsels of their hearts. Hence the Inquisition was stablished as the means best adapted to secure the desired end. So long as men grant the proposition that it is within the province of civil government to enforce morality, it is to very little purpose that they condemn the Inquisition; for that tribunal is only the logical result of the proposition." Ibid,151.

You ask: "Isn’t the mission of the church to preach against sin and invite sinners to repent and thus to secure God’s forgiveness?"

Our mission is to preach the Gospel.

"We have been at work on the law until we get as dry as the hills of Gilboa without dew or rain. Let the law take care of itself. Let us trust in the merits of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. May God help us that our eyes may be anointed with eyesalve that we may see." E.G. White, 1888 Materials, Vol.2, p.557.

As we approach God through the merits of Christ, He receives us and forgives us and clothes us with the robe of Christ's righteousness which accomplishes everything as it is made manifest in obedience to all the commandments of God.

sky

[skyblue888]

Of course if abortion is murder, the State has the right to punish the offender or offenders not on the ground of immorality but incivility.

[doug yowell]

"Why has the Adventist Church allowed elective abortions?"

Point of clairification concerning the official position of the Adventist church:

The General Conference guidelines do not allow or encourage elective abortions EXCEPT in theraputic situations. Health of the mother and other factors

MANY Adventists hospitals have their own guidelines which are MORE exclusive, tougher, than the General Conference guidelines!

If we're going to clarify let's at least be accurate in our assessments. Tom and I don't agree on much here but we both agree that the church has "no official position" on abortion!! That's actually (as I've already posted) what official church representatives have publically stated. Therefore, any attempt to clarify the church's official position is an exercise in unofficial subjective correction and does not accurately reflect the SDA's non-positional claim. Additionally, if Adventist hospitals can institute their own policies, whether stricter or more lenient,they would be in violation of any official church position.So your last claim contradicts your first claim.

[doug yowell]

Of course if abortion is murder, the State has the right to punish the offender or offenders not on the ground of immorality but incivility.

100% agreed!! And this is the basis for the criminalization of abortion during the 1800's. Smoking in public places is now considered incivility while killing one's unborn child is considered a positive social attribute? Anything wrong with that perception? However,the discussion here is on the relationship of abortion to the moral standards of God which is the direct responsibility of the church. "If salt has lost it's flavor..."

[ClubV12]

The church has issued guidelines on abortion. Many Adventist hospitals have even MORE STRINGENT requirements for elective abortions than the G.C. guidelines allow for.

The G.C. position IS balanced in that those guidelines allow for abortions in certain cases. It APPEARS that both Doug and Nic also allow for abortions in certain cases.

This issue is incorrectly pointed at the Church and it's guidelines. IF there is a problem, it should be addressed at a particular hospital. Castle Medical in Hawaii (Oahu) was mentioned specifically as allowing for elective abortions WITH counseling and under specific conditions.

Yet the accusation is that Castle Medical is committing murder. What proof do you have against THIS institution? You have NO CASE condeming the Church, period, it's guidelines stand, they are balanced as they allow for the SAME principles Nick and Doug support.

What proof do you have against Loma Linda Hospital? Or any other Adventist Hospital that they are an "abortion mill"?

Doug, Nick, do you or do you not, allow for abortion in the case of a mothers potential for dieing if it is not done? You both have certainly implied you would rather see the mother die before the fetus is aborted. "Mother murder" is also a violation of the 6th commandment.

Where DO you stand on this and HOW does that differ from where the Church stands on it?

[phkrause]

I've read this, but it still doesn't answer my full question! Maybe I need to ask it another way. Why has the church decided to go this route? Were there reasons in society that made them say we had better do this otherwise such in such will happen? And if you answer because of the money! I'll tell you my answer to that is, I don't buy it for one minute! Having said that, that doesn't mean that they are not making money from this practice. If you have an axe to grind with the Church, I'm not gonna judge you on that! That's not my place, that's God's realm, he knows what's in your heart. I'm just thinking that in society things were going on that maybe necessitated the church to go this direction. I have my feelings about abortion, and I'm not for it. But I would rather see a girl that's gonna have one anyway no matter what, go somewhere that she will get one that's performed cleanly than to visit a so called butcher shop to get one! How many women have died because of that practice along with there aborted babies????? I'll say it again and again and I don't care who believe's that or not, I am not for abortion, but if it means that women are going to do it anyway, than they need a place that they can have a clean abortion done, period. And than that will be between them and God as to how he judges not anyone of us!!!!!

[Nic Samojluk]

pkrause wrote:

“At some time in the US abortion was illegal, and many young women who were going to get an abortion one way or another, started going to these so called butcher shops and getting there abortions. And many were dying from this. So from what I've always understood, the reason that abortions became legal was so that women would than be able to get an abortion at a clinic, hospital, etc., and not have to deal with the so called butcher shops!!!”

That is true. If a woman is going to have an abortion regardless of its legality, then having it done by a professional is safer for her. Of course, for the baby the end result is the same: death by dismemberment of by poison.

The problem is what happens when we open the Pandora box. Prior to 1973 there were no reliable statistics for the number of abortions. Planned Parenthood, which is the main provider of abortions and the one which keeps tabs for the number of abortions, reported slightly over 700,000 abortions for 1973. In less than a decade, this number doubled to 1,500,000 per year following the legalization of abortion.

Can you imagine what would happen if the government decided to legalize rape, burglary, and the sexual abuse of children? It would mushroom out of control. There was a time when adultery was illegal in the U.S. Then the sexual revolution took place, and this was followed by the legalization of the murder of the unborn. Legalizing crime is not the way to solve the problem.

But my main argument is that the Adventist Church should have nothing to do with killing innocent unborn children. The moment we justified this kind of crime, we lost our moral authority to preach to the world the validity and permanence of the Ten Commandments. We can no longer criticize Rome for altering the Decalogue, since we have done the same with the one of the Ten Rules for human behavior written by God himself.

[Nic Samojluk]

ClubV12 wrote:

“I'd like to see Nic's response as well, but we have to be careful with the term "elective". That term as used by the G.C. is by no means "carte blanche" as a method of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy. Nor is that the case for Adventist hospitals.”

Our church has a specific definition for elective abortion which differs from the accepted meaning assigned to the term by the majority of non-Adventists. In my investigation, I discovered two major definitions for said term:

A. Planned Parenthood usually defines the "elective" term as abortions which are non so called “therapeutic.” Of course, the therapeutic normally applies to pregnancies resulting from rape, incest and malformations.

B. There are some people who insist that all abortions are elective, because a decision is involved in the process to taking the life of the unborn.

What we have done was to generously expand the meaning of the “therapeutic” term to include even the mental exception. This means that if a girl is faced with an unwanted pregnancy and gets depressed, the abortion is morally justified.

If the unexpected pregnancy threatens to cut short the woman’s educational of professional goals, then there should be no moral guilt associated with taking the life of her unborn baby.

If we analyze our position, we would probably conclude that there is hardly any significant difference between the Adventist position on abortion and that of the pro-abortion crowd.

What is the point of being an Adventist if we agree with the rest of the world on a fundamental moral issue like murder?

[doug yowell]

It APPEARS that both Doug and Nic also allow for abortions in certain cases.

.

You have NO CASE condeming the Church, period, it's guidelines stand, they are balanced as they allow for the SAME principles Nick and Doug support.

Doug, Nick, do you or do you not, allow for abortion in the case of a mothers potential for dieing if it is not done? You both have certainly implied you would rather see the mother die before the fetus is aborted.

How do I reconcile these two contradictory statements? The answer to the question is found in the previous two statements.

[doug yowell]

Thanks club, but I'm interested in Nic's answer to this. There has to have been a reason why Adventist Hospital, with the OK of the GC to allow elective abortions. Some where in there thinking they must've decided for this. And since Nic has told us time and time again that he has researched this, he must have an idea.

I think you might be missing the gist of what Nic has been reporting. This might be partly due to (Nic and I would probably disagree on this) his seemingly using the record of church of 40 years ago as an accurate accounting of what it does today. A couple of historical facts that should be considered. None of our hospitals ever had the "OK" to perform elective abortions. They simply did them.Our hospitals have always operated outside of official church controls as they were originally supposed to be a suppliment to the preached Word. This fact was what lead to the 1970,1971 "Termination of Pregnancy Principles" an (obviously failed)attempt to somehow exercise some form of abortion control on these institutions.Using the same type of ambiguous language the 70,71 guidelines had the practual result of being interpreted in any way that the particular hospital so chose.Discovery of this in the 1980's eventually lead to the "Guidelines" of 1992. Since no set of guidelines has any official mandate to either forbid or encourage abortion policies,the present guidelines also have the practical effect of allowing our institutions to continue providing elective abortions, if they so choose, because they are not specifically forbidden to do them.The guidelines state that we don't 'condone' abortions of convenience but then again, neither do they condemn them. BIG difference.And who's in charge of checking anyway? Don't ask, don't tell.