Step to Apostasy

[Overaged]

Stan; while I agree with what you say about welcoming those with open arms who think differently than we do; I do not understand these "steps to apostasy." It denounces "creeds" and yet all churches have creeds, how will anyone know what we believe if we don't? I don't really agree that these are in fact "steps to apostasy;" but I am willing to listen to further explanations. Maybe my toothache is making me miss out on your intentions with this OP?

[fccool]

The reference to creed is the fact that there's a danger to canonize a statement and then defend it just for the sake of being right and "infallible".

I don't think it's a reference to lack of any defined beliefs that we share. On top of that, creeds should be self-evident. They should not be something you recite 20 times in the morning, and 10 times in the evening to "strengthen your faith".

[Overaged]

Well that makes sense.

[GreatLakesGramma]

Our Sunday School teacher in the Methodist Church introduced us to the Apostles' Creed, which was in the back of our hymnals. But it wasn't something we recited with any regularity. I think that one time was the only time I ever read it.

The Methodist Church is one that has pretty much adopted an "anything goes" stance these days. As a result, they are losing members, who are looking to other denominations to find what they have lost there.

[abelisle]

"Those who sincerely desire truth will not be reluctant to lay open their positions for investigation and criticism, and will not be annoyed if their opinions and ideas are crossed. This was the spirit cherished among us forty years ago. We would come together burdened in soul, praying that we might be one in faith and doctrine; for we knew that Christ is not divided."

The Review and Herald, July 26, 1892

[abelisle]

"We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and heaven alone are infallible. Those who think that they will never have to give up a cherished view, never have occasion to change an opinion, will be disappointed. As long as we hold to our own ideas and opinions with determined persistency, we cannot have the unity for which Christ prayed."

{RH, July 26, 1892 par. 7}

[fccool]

Abelisle,

The problem is, there are two different ways to read this statement:

1) People with a set creed perspective: "You don't want to give up your cherished opinion and view and join us in Unity of Christ."

2) People who dispute certain views: " You don't want to give up your cherished creed that you set before yourself as infallible".

Both people have sets of opinions and views that they are not willing to give up. The issue is, of course using the stick of the "membership requirements" as a way to demand conformity to the views that I find non-essential to once salvation.

[Gerr]

On the one hand the church can't be a garbage can open to everything dumped in it. On the other hand, it can't be like a bank vault where only the employees can get in.

[GreatLakesGramma]

On the one hand the church can't be a garbage can open to everything dumped in it.

And that is exactly what is happening in the Methodist Church. There is no right and wrong there anymore. Oh no, that's not quite correct. It's "wrong" to call God "Father," because that's discriminatory against women. It's also wrong to have hymns like Onward Christian Soldiers in the hymnal, because it's talking about war, or Faith of Our Fathers, because it discriminates against women too. And it's wrong to call homosexual acts sin, because, after all, since God made them with same gender attractions, then the rules that apply to heterosexuals can't possibly apply to them.

[fccool]

That's leadership problem, and not congregation problem. This is precisely what this topic is talking about. Church is not a democracy, it's an anarcho-tribal theocracy. When you let the leaders dictate the doctrine from the top down, you end up with situations where the church is at risk of going where the wind blows.

A collective of free-thinking individuals who are earnestly pursuing God's truth without pressure of conforming to a creed will eventually find truth. That's the message behind the origin of Adventism. The original SDA church was a departure from Catholic hierarchy towards congregational membership model. The leaders were not elected. These naturally rose up as lead by God. Everything was up for discussion... and these people never stopped at "we have the truth". They kept on going.

Now, knowing the history, why would we ever want to dismantle it for the sake of efficient fund distribution? That's beyond me.

My friend is JW is the similarities are astounding... just by means of the quarterly (i.e. our version of Watchtower) that streams the doctrine from top-down by means of asking the questions and then answering these There's nothing wrong with honest commentary, but is this the way God wants us to study His word... by means of the third-party interpretation?

[fccool]

Kind of reminds me of one more thing.

I have a Catholic friend, and we got to talk about the "sola scriptura" vs the interpretation through tradition.

He explained to me that it is dangerous for ordinary man like to to read and interpret Bible on my own. He said that it's far more reliable to trust the lineage of Catholic Church patriarch that is traced to apostles. Basically the reasoning is that a mere human being is unable to read God's word and understand it. There has to be a divine aid in form of Church tradition that supplements the Biblical narrative, and thus properly applies it and interprets is.

To a certain degree, we adopted the same kinds of interpretation standards in our short life as a church. It's not enough for a mere man to pick up the Bible, to read and understand it. He has to be guided by the Spirit of Prophecy to the proper understanding that we accept to be the paramount, escpecially on issues where Bible is silent.

[Gerr]

Who says one HAS to follow what the quarterly says? As I see it, the SS quarterly only provides the subject for study.

So, in over 100 yrs of its existence, has the SDA church discovered any truths that are non-negotiable?

[Stan]

FWIW

I do not thing Loughborough would have supported someone coming in and saying, all these things are wrong, we must change.

I viewed this as individuals figuring out these things.

Do other view that as well?

[John317]

We don't really have a creed per se.

It's necessary to have an accurate idea of what the church's beliefs are so that people are not be confused about it when they're deciding whether to join it.

There are many ways that people can vary in their views, though. But I do think we have to have some fundamentals that everyone is in basic agreement on. Otherwise our message to the world will seem like babble.

[John317]

Yes, it is important for individudals to come in and find out some things. But it's also best for people to study the Bible and know and agree with the fundamentals of the church's teachings before they join it.

I think much of the problems is because too many peoole are coming into the church without having a good, solid understanding of the the beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists. Then once they step into the church, they find beliefs that they never knew existed and don't understand or agree with.

Wouldn't it be better and make more sense if they knew these basic teachings before they decided to join the church?

If someone studies the Bible with an SDA minister or layperson now, it's almost necessary to say about everything that they will no doubt hear many Adventists disagree with what the minister is teaching the student. It seems like there's no solid beliefs in the church any more. Perhaps the state of the dead, the second coming, and the Sabbath are the only firmly held beliefs, and even the Sabbath (or least its meaning) is now coming under fire from inside the church.

Everything that can be shaken will be shaken, and I think we're seeing an intensification of it.

[Gerr]

As I see it, most people equate a statement of a set of beliefs with a creed. I have come across too many SDAs objecting to having 28 fundamentals. If I'm not mistaken, historically the SDA Church has not treated a set of beliefs as etched in stone. There HAS been revision of church-held beliefs. I believe one of the abiding attitudes in the SDAC is the belief that truth is progressive. Now due to inertia, especially in the area of beliefs that are held to be true, the wheels of change do grind very slowly. That is even true in science.

[antcreations]

Wouldn't it be better and make more sense if they knew these basic teachings before they decided to join the church?

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age. Matthew 28:19-21

Someone approached a famous rabbi of antiquity and asked him to explain the whole meaning of the Torah while standing on one leg. “Do not do to another,” the rabbi said on one leg, “what seems to you to be hurtful; that is the whole Torah. All the rest is commentary.”

Whether or not one agrees with the rabbi’s statement, he does have a point. Some aspects of our faith are foundational and others mere “commentary.”

[fccool]

I tend to agree with what you've said in the above. Yet, there's more to Adventism than 28 fundamental beliefs. Even though I tend to have issues with the ideas of IJ, and SOP... I take some of that based on "it can be true, and I can how that can be true", and not as "it's absolutely not true".

The greater isssue that I see though is the "invisible creed" of tradition that we developed over past century. So, in essence it's a traditional creed that is not expounded on in 28 core beliefs.

Consider the statements in #12, and then compare them to our view of GC. Then take #21 and compare it to our views of tithe. Then consider #22 and then compare it to the idea of wearing an amber heart on a string to be evil, but to wear a $1500 watch, or $1000 purse is perfectly fine.

Likewise we tend to look down on smokers and unclean meats, without realization that these people when exercising and eating in moderation are better off than couch potato vegetarians.

If we evaluate these things against our beliefs in honest and unbiased manner, I think we would have better sense of unity and purpose than to merely compartmentalize our beliefs in a creed as an absolute template for Christian living (I say the last part carefully)

[antcreations]

Jesus' command to teach comes after baptism. I don't understand why people need to know the 28 in order to join the church.

They need to accept Jesus. Period.

Our Sabbath School Lesson Study this quarter (Romans) - will be an awesome discussion on that. Just check this week's study: Jew & Gentile.

[SivartM]

I think we ought to teach people our basic beliefs before they join the church, otherwise some of them will feel awkward if they happen to disagree with one of the beliefs of the church they just joined. People should know what an organization stands for before they join it. But baptism really ought to come first.

[antcreations]

The church has a process for people who wants to join the church.

Usually, testifying. Voting. Baptism.

1. Testify that he/she has studied with the pastor or some member. Usually, a reading of the "baptismal vow" which has more than 10 questions that is answerable by "Yes" or "No". And it is for the good of the "candidate" to say yes to all.

2. A member then makes a motion to accept this "candidate" to be a member of the church. A vote takes place - and if there is someone in the church that is not satisfied, he/she can oppose the vote.

3. Baptism. some don't go through baptism but by some other method.

But the he/she has to be voted in to be a member.

Imagine Paul doing that to the Gentiles in Romans.

Enjoyed your last two posts...there seems to be confusion between 'joining' and 'baptism' among the other posters here...maybe an explanation would help!!!

[olger]

People who try to live apart from accountability to a body of believers usually end up becoming both socially and spiritually eccentric.

blessings,

g

[antcreations]

PTL!

Hmmm,

Seems our church doesn't follow that pattern! We accept them after the baptism and no list of questions!

[Gerr]

Jesus' command to teach comes after baptism. I don't understand why people need to know the 28 in order to join the church.

They need to accept Jesus. Period.

Our Sabbath School Lesson Study this quarter (Romans) - will be an awesome discussion on that. Just check this week's study: Jew & Gentile.

Suppose we followed the order you suggest. A person accepts Jesus and we baptize them into the church. What if after baptism they do not agree with the Sabbath? And would rather believe the secret rapture rather in the visible, glorious return of Christ? And would also rather believe that lost sinners burn in hell forever and ever ad infinitum?

[antcreations]

Originally Posted By: antcreations

Jesus' command to teach comes after baptism. I don't understand why people need to know the 28 in order to join the church.

They need to accept Jesus. Period.

Our Sabbath School Lesson Study this quarter (Romans) - will be an awesome discussion on that. Just check this week's study: Jew & Gentile.

Suppose we followed the order you suggest. A person accepts Jesus and we baptize them into the church. What if after baptism they do not agree with the Sabbath? And would rather believe the secret rapture rather in the visible, glorious return of Christ? And would also rather believe that lost sinners burn in hell forever and ever ad infinitum?

what do you think?