Knowing Your Enemy: Satan's Attacks On SDAs

[Musicman1228]

>>IF the Holy Spirit will lead us into ALL truth, then what is it about the word ALL that most do not understand?<<

Most approach "truth" as a singularity; whereas, "truth" - though perhaps being a singlarity may be one having many aspects, as a cut and faceted jewel has many aspects - including those hidden within - else, we must arrive at the fact that throughout the Xtian history - the Holy Spirit was on an extended absence ... There are those who

say "in truth" - that the Holy Spirit is male because the NT utilizes the masculine determiner pronoun when referring to it. Let us not be so unequivocal. The term defining the Holy Spirit in the OT is feminine, and the term in the NT is nueter - governed by grammatical rules - rather than an inherency of itself.

Thank you, well said.

[wayfinder]

Originally Posted By: jasd

>>IF the Holy Spirit will lead us into ALL truth, then what is it about the word ALL that most do not understand?<<

Most approach "truth" as a singularity; whereas, "truth" - though perhaps being a singlarity may be one having many aspects, as a cut and faceted jewel has many aspects - including those hidden within - else, we must arrive at the fact that throughout the Xtian history - the Holy Spirit was on an extended absence ... There are those who

say "in truth" - that the Holy Spirit is male because the NT utilizes the masculine determiner pronoun when referring to it. Let us not be so unequivocal. The term defining the Holy Spirit in the OT is feminine, and the term in the NT is nueter - governed by grammatical rules - rather than an inherency of itself.

Thank you, well said.

jasd, This is what I have been saying all along. I really appreciate the fact that you are honest with yourself.

[John317]

... It may be of some help to you that we have had members of our class that were actually Greek but our reliance on them alone was not the case--as the making and writing of the book took longer than 3 years.

There's some significant differences between modern Greek and koine Greek of the New Testament.

Are you saying that the people who are fluent in Greek read the book and agreed with what it says on pages 122 and 123?

Originally Posted By: Dr. Rich

We have found that just as one would take a bus load of pastors and ask them a question about the bible-or greek, that you can get a bus load of answers.

That's total nonsense. Anyone who has even one year of NT Greek would tell you the same as I said in my post. You could also take what I wrote to any professor of NT Greek and they would tell you the same thing. All you have to do is study any text book on the Greek language and you would see the errors you made on the pages I pointed out.

If NT Greek were as uncertain as you indicate here, then the New Testament would be totally unreliable. But it isn't unrealiable at all because the Greek language is very consistent in the same way that Latin is.

Did you read and understand what I wrote:

Originally Posted By: John3:17

Your books contains a lot of errors, which anyone with even one year of Greek would be able to see. For instance, on page 122, you talk about the Greek NT and say that "the Greek language is anarthoris, which means that the language contains no articles such as 'them,' 'they,' and 'it.' All articles are supplied by the translators and must needs reflect their bias with respect to doctine or theology."

Did you write those sentences? If so, where did you get this information? Did you have anyone trained in Greek read your book before it was published? You've given false information there and it can be easily proved with any text book for teaching NT Greek. "They," "them" and "it" are definitely in the Greek language, and anarthoris has nothing to do with those pronouns. They are not articles. The word "they" in Greek is autoi (masc), autai (fem), and auta (neuter). "Them" is autous (masc), autas (fem), and auta (neuter).

"It" is auto.

(See pp. 42, 43 of the standard Greek textbook by Ray Summers, Essentials of New Testament Greek, which is used in many colleges and universities where Greek is taught.)

The way you use the word anarthoris is proof that you don't understand the meaning of the word. Has anyone in your group or on the radio program ever pointed this out to you?

This has great importance because in your book, page 123, you make the following statement: "Therefore, a more credible translation of this verse (Acts 2: 3) could be: 'And there appeared unto them a cloven tongue like as a fire, and it rested upon each of them in turn.'"

That's completely false. There is not a single reputable translation that reads this way, and for good reason: because any translation that did read that way would be a invalid and inaccurate translation. The word "tongue" is plural and so is the participle "cloven" or "separated." The verb is third singular and therefore can only be translated as "it came to rest."

In your book, page 123, you claim that this was a deception of Satan-- that the Holy Spirit that descended on the people on the day of Pentecost was really a false miracle of Satan. And you make this claim at least partially because of a gross misunderstanding of the Greek. Or at least you support it with a gross misunderstanding.

Is your radio audiance aware of these kinds of errors in your book? I wonder if anyone has ever taken the time to talk to you about these things. They really should have told you about them before your book went to press.

These are the kinds of things I'm talking about when I ask you if you have had a panel of Bible scholars take part in a discussion about your beliefs and the book on the radio program. If those things are examples of the careless scholarship and reasoning that went into your book--- and I believe they are--- I think you can see why anyone who is knowledgeable in those areas are skeptical of what you've written.

I think you deserve to know these things. I would have hoped you would know them before you wrote your book and not put things in it that you were not sure of.

[John317]

John, my answer is that I have invited most everyone of the GC, and leaders of the Adventiste church to be on our show--and not ONE has agreed to do it. Like Davidsons, Goldstein, everyone at Andrews, Loma Linda church, our pastors, our Academy religion teachers, J Paulin, Ted Wilson, Doug B., those at 3abn, those at bible research and the list is a long one. Why? Could it be that they can't answer the question on 'scripture'? Could it be that they don't want to take the stand for their belief?

Do you have any idea why they wouldn't come on your program?

Probably because they don't consider it serious and they don't want to give it legitimacy or further standing by appearing on it.

Also, based on what you've said here-- particularly in response to the errors that I pointed out in your book on pages 122. 123-- I think it would be a waste of time to discuss those things on the program. You already have your mind made up and aren't open even to the facts of the Greek language. If that's the case-- and it seems clearly to be-- then what good would it do for anyone to come on your program and show you the truth, only to have you continue to deny something as plain and obvious as 1+1=2. That's how plain it is that pages 122, 123 of your book are in error.

Who was the Greek scholar that verified the truth of those pages? You must have had someone make sure of it before it went to press, I hope. I know you didn't do this, however, because it wouldn't read the way it does if you'd had a Greek scholar read it. This is almost overwhelming evidence that the scholarship of The Spirit of the Church is substandard. The real clue for me, also, is that when someone points out the errors, you ignore it and try to defend the errors by saying foolish things about the Greek language.

I would like to hear from Wayfinder about what is on those pages. Did he teach in his Sabbath School what is found on pages 122, 123 of The Spirit of the Church? If so, where did he get that info?

[John317]

... that the Holy Spirit is male because the NT utilizes the masculine determiner pronoun when referring to it. Let us not be so unequivocal. The term defining the Holy Spirit in the OT is feminine, and the term in the NT is nueter - governed by grammatical rules - rather than an inherency of itself.

I don't think anyone has said the Holy Spirit is male. God the Father is not "male" as humans are. All the Godhead have both masculine and feminine characteristics, but these characteristic don't have anything to do with gender or sex.

Jesus Christ, however, is definitely a male and has a glorified man's body today. This is the clear testimony of the Bible. He rose from the grave and ascended to heaven as a male and is coming back as "this same Jesus."

The bottom line is that the Bible never refers to the Holy Spirit as "she" but only as "it" or "He."

The fact that the word "Spirit" in Hebrew is feminite doesn't make the Holy Spirit feminine. As I've pointed out many times before, there are ltos of words in the Hebrew language that are in the feminine gender but which refer to masculine things. The same is true of the Greek language.

But when Christ chose a pronoun to refer to the Holy Spirit, He chose to use the pronouns "Him" and "He," not "her" or "she." And more importantly, his choice was actually contrary to Greek grammar. This shows that Christ didn't use the masculine pronoun for grammatical reasons but because Christ views the Holy Spirit as masculine just as He views the Father.

[John317]

jasd, This is what I have been saying all along. I really appreciate the fact that you are honest with yourself.

Wayfinder, please respond to my post #409908, which is the one above this.

Also, do you teach in your Sabbath School classes what is on pages 122, 123 of The Spirit of the Church? I'm particularly referring to what is said there about the Greek language and "the more credible translation" on page 123.

After reading what I posted about it, do you still stand by the information that is given on those pages?

[John317]

...If someone can't earn salvation by doing what Jesus said to do, then He lied. Since I know He did NOT lie, then I believe Him.

What did Jesus say that you interpret to that we are able to "earn salvation"?

You are right, of course, that Jesus didn't lie. He could have lied as a human being but He never did lie. He always told the truth.

[John317]

...Suffice it to say that you will never find the Father treating His wife, the Holy Spirit, the way that many Christian men treat theirs. This is just one more reason why I KNOW that the God of Heaven did not commission Paul as an apostle.

The Holy Spirit is not the Father's wife. The Bible nowhere speak of the Holy Spirit in that way.

To speak of the Holy Spirit as God's "wife" or as a "woman" is to refer to the Holy Spirit in way that is contrary to the language of Scripture.

[Dr. Rich]

It is clear to me that you, John, don't read what I write or you would be able to answer your question on what Jesus teaches. Rev. 22 is a good place to start.

And for your information, most of the NT was copied in Greek from Armeric. So don't go busting your mind attempting to find errors from the Greek. Try reading the dead sea scrolls and tell me what you find there--or don't you consider them "scripture"? Do you choose and pick what you call scripture? It sure appears that those who wrote the fundamental beliefs did.

Take #22--Here the Adventists are secretly agreeing that what Paul wrote in 1Tim. 3-5 must not be inspired 'scripture'. They also reject what Jesus said about what goes into the mouth does not defile one, but it is what comes out of the mouth is what defiles one. But then then turn right around and agree with Paul that the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit without even blinking and eye.

AND-as for the 'Woman' of Rev. 12-it could not be the church, Mary or Israel, for none of them have ever been in heaven. Therefore the word "Woman" must be a symbol for the Holy Spirit--just as clear as glass for those of us who have taken their rose colored glasses off.

[John317]

...By the way, is one of our foundamental beliefs to being a SDA that of we don't have a right to choose to interpert what the bible states? Didn't think so.

No one that I'm aware of wishes to deny you the right to choose to interpret what the Bible states.

But at the same time if we sincerely and honestely believe very many things contrary to the teachings of a church which we claim to believe in and belong to, then it becomes problematic whether we really believe and belong to that church.

It would be similar to my teaching against the Sabbath and the second coming but still claiming to be a member of the church. Where is the line to be drawn? Wouldn't it be the same if I was Catholic but taught against the Mass, the Priesthood and the Papacy? When is it the honest thing for a person to admit they are not SDA?

I'm sure you cause people to be confused if they're not familiar with SDA beliefs and they hear you talk about your beliefs while you identify yourself as SDA or say that the radio program is in any way related to the SDA church.

These are the questions that are being raised-- not whether you have a right to interpret or believe as you choose. But do you have the right to teach and say what you do and at the same time claim to be a member of the SDA church?

Would I have the same right if I were to teach that the only books of the NT that the church ought to accept are the books of Paul and that there is no Sabbath under the New Covenant?

[John317]

And for your information, most of the NT was copied in Greek from Armeric.

That isn't true, but even it were true, it is irrelevant to what is said on pages 122, 123 of The Spirit of the Truth.

The writer of that book is not talking about any other language besides Greek. So what he says about Greek is important because it demonstrates the writer's ignorance of the language he's discussing.

But now that you mention that the most of the NT was "copied in Greek from Armeric," what is your evidence of this?

Do you mean Aramaic?

Now it is true that perhaps Matthew was first written in Aramaic, but there's no evidence that the other books were first written in Aramaic. Also, if the books were first written in Aramaic, we would expect to find some early manuscripts of it or quotes from it in various writings from that early period. But we don't. The other Gospels give evidence of having been originally written in Greek, not in Aramaic. The Gospel of John gives clear evidence of having been written by a Palestinian Jew whose primary language was certainly not Greek. On the other hand, Luke and Acts and Hebrews were all written by someone who was a master of Koine Greek.

Originally Posted By: Dr. Rich

So don't go busting your mind attempting to find errors from the Greek.

I'm not busting my mind about anything. The errors are obvious to anyone but someone who doesn't have a notion of what they're talking about. What I'm telling you could be easily proved to you from Greek text books if you are open to evidence. Can you show evidence that what it says on pages 122, 123 of The Spirit of the Church is factual and true? Do your radio listeners know what inaccuracies are in that book? I suspect not. Yet the book claims to be telling them the truth. Is that an example of your truth? You aren't even apparently able to acknowledge error when it is put right in your face. That doesn't give me a lot of confidence in the quality of scholarship that went into it.

Let's suppose you knew German and I wrote a book in which I discussed German grammar. And since you read German, you could see that I didn't know German from English. And then let's say that you put the evidence before me, but I tell you that it either doesn't matter or that it's merely opinion as to what the German means. What would you say? That's the position I'm in-- knowing that you are feeding me and other people a line of pure poppycock, and wondering why I should spend time reading the book further when it was written by people who would do such a thing.

I would expect you to at least say that the book had NOT been studied by anyone with a good knowledge of Koine Greek and that you realize it should have been and that you are sorry the book was published without that happening first. But to simply deny that those errors exist in the book is utter foolishness.

All you have to do to see if I am telling the truth is take the book to a professor of Koine Greek and ask him what he thinks of what's written on those two pages. I would think you'd want to do that, anyway, just for the sake of being sure this book contains the honest truth.

Originally Posted By: Dr. Rich

Try reading the dead sea scrolls and tell me what you find there--or don't you consider them "scripture"?

The Dead Sea Scrolls have nothing to do with what is on pages 122, 123 of The Spirit of the Church. The DSC are written in Hebrew, not Greek.

But yes, the books of the Bible that are among the Dead Sea Scrolls are certainly Scripture.

By the way, have you read the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible? Its' good to read and has some interesting things in it. Especially see Deut. 5 in the fourth commandment.

Originally Posted By: Dr. Rich

Do you choose and pick what you call scripture? It sure appears that those who wrote the fundamental beliefs did.

No, I don't pick and choose what I call Scripture. I accept all the books in Hebrew Scriptures and in the Christian Greek Scriptures.

Could you please explain your remark here?

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

re: assigning gender to something

I think the Bible uses a lot of words in terms that humans would be able to relate to. But it doesn't necessarily follow that something is truly male, female, or neuter, based only on an article.

Many languages use gender-specific linguistics. For example, in German:

knife - neuter ("das Messer")

fork - female ("die Gabel")

spoon - male ("der Löffel")

girl - neuter (das Maedchen"), but when one speaks about a specific girl, the term "she" ("sie") is used.

Interesting how Satan can throw curveballs to stir up controversy. Divide and conquer, so it is said.

[John317]

Good points, all.

[John317]

Did you have anyone who knows NT Greek verify the information on page 122, 123 of your book before it went to the publishers?

[John317]

...Take #22--Here the Adventists are secretly agreeing that what Paul wrote in 1Tim. 3-5 must not be inspired 'scripture'.

How do you figure? Please explain.

Seems to me that you can't resist the temptation to talk against your church.

Originally Posted By: Dr.Rich

They also reject what Jesus said about what goes into the mouth does not defile one, but it is what comes out of the mouth is what defiles one. But then then turn right around and agree with Paul that the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit without even blinking and eye.

I think you're confused about this, but I would like to hear more of what you have to say.

How do your fellow Seventh-day Adventists reject what Jesus said?

Don't you believe that our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit?

We are individually the temple of the Holy Spirit, and the church collectively is the Spirit's temple.

Originally Posted By: Dr. Rich

AND-as for the 'Woman' of Rev. 12-it could not be the church, Mary or Israel, for none of them have ever been in heaven. Therefore the word "Woman" must be a symbol for the Holy Spirit--just as clear as glass for those of us who have taken their rose colored glasses off.

WE've been through this many times and it seems like you keep repeating the same thing over and over again no matter what anyone else has shown you from Scripture.

A year from now, will you be still be repeating what is said on pages 122, 123 of The Spirit of the Church?

[John317]

Yes, we did check sources for the use of 'anarthoris' in the Greek language. That source is Robert Eisenman who is a professor of religion at Long Beach State University, and author of "James, the Brother of Jesus". There are other source listed in the back of our book.

Please quote what Robert Eisenman says about "anarthoris."

Are you sure you understand what he wrote?

If you can't find a quote from Eisenman, please explain in your own words what is meant by the word "anarthoris."

Your book mentions that the Greek language contains no articles such as "they," "them" and "it." (See pages 122, 123.)

But if you check any Greek text book, you will see words in Greek that mean "they," "them" and "it." I listed them on a previous post and gave the reference to a Greek text book used in many universities.

How do you explain this?

[Musicman1228]

John said, "But at the same time if we sincerely and honestely believe very many things contrary to the teachings of a church which we claim to believe in and belong to, then it becomes problematic whether we really believe and belong to that church."

Wait a minute, John; tell me if I am misunderstanding you, but did you say here that unless a person believes 'very many' of the beliefs of their church they should not be a member of that church? If that is the case then half of the Catholics should be excommunicated for using birth control, and a lot of Adventists would be kicked out for not believing in EGW.

The church (in what ever form) is supposed to teach the truth-and look at how many denominations there are (hundreds), each believing that THEY have the truth. Do they ALL have the truth? If church membership depended on believing all church doctrine as truth then NO ONE would qualify for membership in ANY church.

Didn't our SDA church founding fathers argue and wrangle over doctrine all the time? They did up until the time when EGW appeared as a church leader and then deciding doctrine was removed from the people and relegated to a 'thus says the Lord' from a woman who the church believed to be a prophet. (By the way; in OT times prophets did not define doctrine or theology.) And in Sardis (Rev.3) did not God say that we must get back to our first love? What is this 'first love' if it isn't the love of the words of Jesus Christ and finding HIS truth?

Rather than promoting decent from established church doctrine I look upon myself as the 'loyal opposition', where I try to get people to look at WHY they believe WHAT they believe, rather than swallowing church doctrine 'hook, line, and sinker' without careful thought and consideration. That is all I do. I tell them why I believe what I believe and let them make up their own minds.

[John317]

But at the same time if we sincerely and honestly believe very many things contrary to the teachings of a church which we claim to believe in and belong to, then it becomes problematic whether we really believe and belong to that church."

I'm saying that if a person sincerely and honestly believes a great deal that is contrary to the teachings of the church which he claims to believe in and belong to, then it is doubtful whether he really belongs to that church.

So, no, I am not saying that a person must believe in everything that a church teaches in order to be a member.

Originally Posted By: musicman

If that is the case then half of the Catholics should be excommunicated for using birth control, and a lot of Adventists would be kicked out for not believing in EGW.

[/quote']

You misundertood my statement. Again, I didn't say that SDAs must be beleive everything the church teaches in order to be a member. I said that if a person finds that there are many things that he doesn't agree with, then there comes a point where his identity as a member is doubtful.

[John317]

The Great Controversy 1888, Page 508

Among professed Christians, and even among ministers of the gospel, there is heard scarcely a reference to Satan, except perhaps an incidental mention in the pulpit. They overlook the evidences of his continual activity and success; they neglect the many warnings of his subtlety; they seem to ignore his very existence.

While men are ignorant of his devices, this vigilant foe is upon their track every moment. He is intruding his presence in every department of the household, in every street of our cities, in the churches, in the national councils, in the courts of justice, perplexing, deceiving, seducing, everywhere ruining the souls and bodies of men, women, and children, breaking up families, sowing hatred, emulation, strife, sedition, murder. And the Christian world seem to regard these things as though God had appointed them, and they must exist.

Satan is continually seeking to overcome the people of God by breaking down the barriers which separate them from the world. Ancient Israel were enticed into sin when they ventured into forbidden association with the heathen. In a similar manner are modern Israel led astray. “The god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.” [2 Corinthians 4:4.] All who are not decided followers of Christ are servants of Satan. In the unregenerate heart there is love of sin, and a disposition to cherish and excuse it. In the renewed heart there is hatred of sin, and determined resistance against it. When Christians choose the society of the ungodly and unbelieving, they expose themselves to temptation. Satan conceals himself from view, and stealthily draws his deceptive covering over their eyes. They cannot see that such company is calculated to do them harm; and while all the time assimilating to the world in character, words, and actions, they are becoming more and more blinded.

[John317]

The Great Controversy 1911, Page 559

They separate themselves from God and from the watchcare of His angels; as the evil one presents his deceptions, they are without defense and fall an easy prey. Those who thus place themselves in his power little realize where their course will end. Having achieved their overthrow, the tempter will employ them as his agents to lure others to ruin.Says the prophet Isaiah: “When they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” Isaiah 8:19, 20. If men had been willing to receive the truth so plainly stated in the Scriptures concerning the nature of man and the state of the dead, they would see in the claims and manifestations of spiritualism the working of Satan with power and signs and lying wonders. But rather than yield the liberty so agreeable to the carnal heart, and renounce the sins which they love, multitudes close their eyes to the light and walk straight on, regardless of warnings, while Satan weaves his snares about them, and they become his prey. “Because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved,” therefore “God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.” 2 Thessalonians 2:10, 11.

Those who oppose the teachings of spiritualism are assailing, not men alone, but Satan and his angels. They have entered upon a contest against principalities and powers and wicked spirits in high places. Satan will not yield one inch of ground except as he is driven back by the power of heavenly messengers. The people of God should be able to meet him, as did our Saviour, with the words: “It is written.” Satan can quote Scripture now as in the days of Christ, and he will pervert its teachings to sustain his delusions. Those who would stand in this time of peril must understand for themselves the testimony of the Scriptures.

[Musicman1228]

Originally Posted By: John3:17

But at the same time if we sincerely and honestly believe very many things contrary to the teachings of a church which we claim to believe in and belong to, then it becomes problematic whether we really believe and belong to that church."

I'm saying that if a person sincerely and honestly believes a great deal that is contrary to the teachings of the church which he claims to believe in and belong to, then it is doubtful whether he really belongs to that church.

So, no, I am not saying that a person must believe in everything that a church teaches in order to be a member.

Originally Posted By: musicman

If that is the case then half of the Catholics should be excommunicated for using birth control, and a lot of Adventists would be kicked out for not believing in EGW.

You misundertood my statement. Again, I didn't say that SDAs must be beleive everything the church teaches in order to be a member. I said that if a person finds that there are many things that he doesn't agree with, then there comes a point where his identity as a member is doubtful. [/quote']

Ok. So if what you say is true then who decides whether and when a person should give up their membership, and at what point?

[Dr. Rich]

Yes John, I did mean Aramaic. (I used my spelling) It is very clear to me (maybe not to you or others who studied Greek) that the words he or she or it may just be called 'he' in Greek, same with the word for person or humans as they would both be simply called 'man'. Therefore, John 14's 'he' for the Holy Spirit could actually be a 'she'.

As for picking and choosing what you want to believe is scripture like the GC has done for some of the fundamental beliefs, what I presented to you was some of the very last words from Jesus found in Revelation 22:11,12 and 16. As the last words of Jesus, I take them very seriously since they are the 'bottom line' of the whole issue on salvation. To me they say that everyone will be rewarded on what they do--or not. They also say that Jesus as God was before David and before mankind and was the one who made mankind. I see nothing about being saved by grace or righteousness my faith.

As for #22 of the SDA fundamental beliefs, what I wrote says it all. It is clear to me that those who belive this are the very same ones that pick and choose what they want from the words found in the bible. They pick some of Paul's writings but reject other words that Paul wrote. And please don't tell me "May it never be"!

I am not blind to what X-SDA's have said and written and can be found on the net--and they do have many good points. Even Rondo pointed out this same problem, that SDA's choose to believe one verse, but reject another verse. Wise people will be able to pick this up and become discouraged. People who are sleeping and refuse to be honest with themselves is just what Satan wants from most Adventists.

[Guest]

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

Yes, we did check sources for the use of 'anarthoris' in the Greek language. That source is Robert Eisenman who is a professor of religion at Long Beach State University, and author of "James, the Brother of Jesus". There are other source listed in the back of our book.

Please quote what Robert Eisenman says about "anarthoris."

Are you sure you understand what he wrote?

If you can't find a quote from Eisenman, please explain in your own words what is meant by the word "anarthoris."

Your book mentions that the Greek language contains no articles such as "they," "them" and "it." (See pages 122, 123.)

But if you check any Greek text book, you will see words in Greek that mean "they," "them" and "it." I listed them on a previous post and gave the reference to a Greek text book used in many universities.

How do you explain this?

[Guest]

Ok. So if what you say is true then who decides whether and when a person should give up their membership, and at what point?

Probably at the point where you throw out Paul, and Ellen White, and claim to know things that nobody else knows. Like exactly when Jesus is coming. Or that the Holy Spirit is God's wife, when there is nothing in the Bible to suggest that. Things like that would tend to show that you're not really SDA. Because no SDA in his right mind believes that nonsense.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

Ok. So if what you say is true then who decides whether and when a person should give up their membership, and at what point?

Probably at the point where you throw out Paul, and Ellen White, and claim to know things that nobody else knows. Like exactly when Jesus is coming. Or that the Holy Spirit is God's wife, when there is nothing in the Bible to suggest that. Things like that would tend to show that you're not one of us.

eww. I said those exact words once upon a time (in a different situation entirely) without thinking. In doing so, I lost the best friend I had at the time. And she died 2 months later. I would never ever say that to anyone again, under any circumstances..