Is it possible to be part Adventist?

[LynnDel]

The Why I am a former SDA thread makes me wonder – is it possible to be "part SDA?"

Are you still an SDA if you disagree with a certain percentage of the 28? What percentage is the cut-off point? Do you just have to agree with the foundational truths – and what are those for us? Only the distinctives – the Sabbath, the state of the dead, baptism, the investigative judgement?

If you were to design a scale on which you could place yourself as an SDA, would it deal only with our distinctive beliefs, or would you also include our beliefs that are understood across the board with most Christians, such as God’s Word, His love, Jesus Christ, faith, salvation, the trinity, etc.? How would you rank them in order of importance?

Maybe I’m over-using my question mark key.

LD

[ClubV12]

Well of course it's possible to be partly Adventist, we have lots of forum members that might fit into that category.

If your a member of any organization, Adventist church, Elks Lodge, Golf course, your a member, period! You have certain rights and privilages non-members don't have. Like the right to vote, or hold office (which may be dependant on a vote of the members to allow you to hold a particular office). You can't be a half way "member" in most cases and in the case of the Adventist church. Your in, or your out. If your struggling with the guidelines and formal rules for retaining membership, in any group, you need to read the rule book. In this case the church manual to determine if your beliefs reach the level of qualifying for removal of membership. If you are removed, you could be a professing member, but will not enjoy the rights of membership (voting, holding office or whatever). You could attend certain meetings that are for "members only" for instance.

If you THINK you may qualify for removal of membership, because you no longer, or perhaps never, really accepted the minimum standards of membership you should consult the rule book, the church manual. Some things don't rise to the level of removal of membership but DO rise to the level of "censure" or "discipline" from the body of members. A "warning call". If you under censure or discipline you cannot transfer your membership to another group of like members until that issue is resolved with the group you are currently associated with.

Here is a link to a PDF file of the church manual. It covers reasons for censure, discipline and removal of membership.

http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/church-manual/index.html

I'm sure there are many different opinions on the question you asked and because of that the only way to know for sure is to research the question for yourself. From the church manual, straight from the horses mouth if you would. :)

[Dr. Shane]

I think two crucial beliefs that attract people to the Adventist church is the Sabbath and salvation by grace through faith in Christ. People that believe those two beliefs don't have a lot of churches to choose from. I think anyone after learning our beliefs wants to join our organization should be allowed to do so as long as they profess to give their life to Christ.

Now when we talk about leadership positions in the church, that is something that each local congregation has to decide how strictly those holding those positions need to embrace our fundamental beliefs. Personally, I don't have a problem letting someone that disagrees on some of the 28 beliefs holding office as long as he or she agrees not to teach contrary to those beliefs.

As far as regular membership goes, I do believe that anyone wanting to worship with us should be able to do so.

[ClubV12]

There are a dozen reasons for the ultimate discipline, removal of membership, which must be voted on by the church body.

Most are pretty straight forward and self explanatory, a few must be weighed carefully by the church board before any action is brought before the church body. #1 MAY fit your question, it is:

#1. Denial of faith in the fundamentals of the gospel and in the cardinal doctrines of the church or teaching doctrines contrary to the same.

Teaching doctrine contrary to accepted church doctrine is pretty clear. Teaching, preaching "false doctrine" by any member is a serious offense. Denial of faith in the fundamentals is more tricky, that would require a careful review by the board and the pertinent issues. So what happens if you DON'T agree with decision, which may include censure of discipline but stop short of removal of membership? See item #9.

#9. Persistent refusal to recognize properly constituted church authority or to submit to the order and discipline of the church.

If you continue on your path and ignore the church board findings you have failed to "submit". THAT is cause for removal of membership entirely. Again, this is a tricky one, a careful review by the board is required. An appeal to the Conference could be made. This could take considerable time. BUT, when the final outcome is decided, thats it, you must submit.

The MINIMUM standards of membership as it concerns certain privilages, like holding office, are determined by the membership of the church. If, for whatever reason, they don't think your qualified for an office, they don't have to vote you in.

#4 Concerns, among other things, an active homosexual lifestyle as a cause for removal of membership. It is not negotiable, there is no appeal procedure.

If you disagree with #4, see #9. If you persist in teaching your ideas on a gay lifestyle in spite of #9, see #1.

[LynnDel]

Many have removed themselves from membership because they see in themselves a lack of alignment with what they had originally believed, either in their own actions or in their own thoughts. Probably each person who has done this has evaluated their reasons on differing criteria. Many maintain their membership and continue to attend, even though they may differ in even important points of doctrine or practice; they call themselves SDA to those who ask. Others have made mistakes that are recognized by others, and either their names are removed, or they are are so remorseful that they request the removal themselves, feeling they are not a good example to their fellow church members or to the world. I believe this is what you are referring to, ClubV12, but I am not talking about these instances.

Many attend who are not members, but their attendance is so regular that most think they are members. They may choose not to be baptized, or not to join, because they don't agree with points of doctrine or practice, and they can't honestly raise their hand and say, "Yes, I believe," to all the 28, though the SDA church aligns more with how they understand scripture than any other church they have discovered. However, they don't identify themselves as SDA, even though they may be just as much (or more) "SDA" as those in the first paragraph.

It all has to do with self-identification and what each person deems is important. Many who have difficulty living up to the standards desire their names to be kept on the books, because that is important to them. Many who have difficulty agreeing with doctrine, I mean here more of a mental assent than outward action and practice, no longer want to be identified with the church.

Maybe that is the main point: It's what the person sees himself as agreeing or not agreeing with the church - whether or not he is able to live up to it - that makes him choose to identify or not identify as an SDA.

A partial SDA might be the person who could say he is one of the following:

Non-EGW SDA

Feast-keeping SDA

Non-trinitarian SDA

Non-IJ SDA

Evolutionist SDA

Gay-rights advocate SDA

Women-ordination SDA

Go-to-heaven-when-I-die SDA

Adorned SDA

Occasional alcohol SDA

Occasionally faithful SDA

I suppose there are more, though I know there are plenty who would say that anyone who identifies themselves anywhere on this list couldn't possibly be an SDA. But I have met many such members, and they still say the SDA church beliefs are more scriptural than other churches whose doctrines they have studied.

LD

[olger]

It sure is possible. Many people have an Adventist head, but their heart is at war with the doctrines of the Advent Message.

To them I would say, take a look at God through the windows of Adventist doctrine. Each of them say something favorable about Him. Then pray as Jesus did "Not my will but Thine." for 30 days.

[Bravus]

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

[miz3]

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.

[ClubV12]

Some folks need time to consider the various doctrines and beliefs of the Adventist church. They may be confused over issues like creation, gay life style, Ellen White, etc. etc.

At some point you need to make a decision. It shouldn't take years and years, these things are not that complicated for those who take them seriously. I would recommend to people that they wait before joining the church until they have resolved the various issues.

Some of the issues are cut and dried and the church should not allow for baptism or membership until they are resolved.

If you are a member already and begin to question the Adventist beliefs you need to study the issues again and make a decision. If you are already a member and need to do this kind of study, it is a serious red warning flag, don't waste another minute. Make this your first work. If conclude you cannot be in harmony with the beliefs, you need to remove your membership.

This is keeping with the warnings to Laodecia, be hot or cold, get in or get out. The WORST thing you can do is hang around and ponder these doctrinal issues for years and years.

If you HAVE made a decision that is contrary to the doctrines of the church AND are actively teaching others that the church is in error, you need to remove your membership. If not, the church needs to remove your membership for you. Teaching and advocating doctrine opposed to the church beliefs is cut and dried.

For instance, belief in Ellen White or NOT is not a cause for denial of baptism or church membership. Actively teaching she is a false prophet, or as Ellen White says it, "fighting against the Testimonies" IS a cause for removal of membership.

[LynnDel]

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

[ClubV12]

I never said you had to agree to every point, BUT, if your teaching AGAINST a point, openly, you need to get out.

The doctrines won't change with new light, they will be enhanced and made more firm. They are in fact immovable anchors as they stand right now and will always stand.

[LynnDel]

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

LD

[ClubV12]

More concrete will layed down, today, 28, maybe tommorow 29. A rock and concrete is what the church is built on, the foundation is sure.

[M. T. Cross]

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

LD

Oh that is one of those signature worthy quotes Lynn! Absolutely!

[ClubV12]

For those who get blown about by every wind of doctrine an anchor is what they need. But not being sure if the anchor will hold, they are left beat upon the rocks of doubt.

[Tom Wetmore]

This seems as good a place as any to post this quote as seen on Facebook:

"While the Bible contains the core of Christian teaching, this does not mean that our understanding of the Bible is fixed. As God leads us to new discoveries through science, historical research and the use of reason, we find meaning in the Bible that past generations did not see. Future generations will surely do the same and move beyond where we are today. As revelation continues, the church's horizons are enlarged and our understanding of the God disclosed in scripture continues to grow."

[LynnDel]

Excellent, Tom.

LD

[CoAspen]

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

Growing in the truth.

I see the the two going hand in hand. Standing on the ROCK, which is Christ, will allow us to grow in truth and knowledge. Being 'stuck' hinders growth, wherever we may be stuck. The partnering with Christ helps to keep us on the right path not fearing the winds.

[ClubV12]

Tom, do you mean to imply that that old landmarks, the old foundation will be removed and replaced by some new understanding, some new landmark or theology?

I assure you, that won't happen. Will we have "new light"? Of course, which is MOSTLY a new understanding of "old light".

Consider Daniel 11 and 12 for instance. The pioneers did not agree on the details of the last few verses of Daniel 11, but they agreed on the majority of that chapter. Sister White had little to say on that chapter but she DID say it was "almost fulfilled" and that we should study it diligently to understand it. That applied in her time, to folks like Uriah Smith, Loughborough, her own husband and herself. But the time was not yet fulfilled for them to understand it. That is change today, NOW, right NOW, we have a better understanding of it than at any time in history. "New light"? Not realy, a new understanding of "old light"!

The foundation laid down by the pioneers, point by point, doctrine by doctrine are anchor points, locked in rock and concrete. If your not sure they are true, accurate and immovable today, you will not stand the test of time tommorow.

We need to KNOW, for SURE, what we believe, or get washed out to sea.

[ClubV12]

If you have questions regarding the 28, you really need to make that your first work resolving those issues. You WILL NOT be able to even SEE new light if you have already rejected that which has been revealed. Your setting yourself up for a grand delusion, and the very nature of "delusion" means you never saw it coming. You will fully and sincerely believe a "lie".

The Holy Spirit will NOT speak to you of new light if you have already left the path, thats a fact. Your prayers for new understanding will stop at the ceiling of your bedroom.

[Tom Wetmore]

Tom, do you mean to imply that that old landmarks, the old foundation will be removed and replaced by some new understanding, some new landmark or theology?

First of all notice the quotation marks. Those are not my words. And second, what makes you think it was even talking about landmarks or foundations. I suspect you are simply reading into the statement a knee-jerk reaction that it is attacking Adventism. It's not. It wasn't even about Adventism. Why would you automatically assume it was?

Originally Posted By: ClubV12

...I assure you, that won't happen. Will we have "new light"? Of course, which is MOSTLY a new understanding of "old light".

The foundation laid down by the pioneers, point by point, doctrine by doctrine are anchor points, locked in rock and concrete. If your not sure they are true, accurate and immovable today, you will not stand the test of time tommorow...

With the locked in rock and concrete mentality, how will you even know new light when it is presented to you? I think if you read EGW more carefully and thoroughly you will understand that she herself grew in her understanding and changed her views over the course of her lifetime and that she advocate a continuous and progressive revelation of light to the end of time. In fact she assures us that we will be learning new things throughout eternity.

I would suggest that if you take a totally unchangeable and unteachable view of truth today, it may be you that will not withstand the test of tomorrow. Consider the example of the Jews and their understanding of the Messiah. Their views were deemed landmarks and foundational truths of their faith. But when the Messiah came... You know what happened. They did not recognize him and rejected him as a false messiah.

[ClubV12]

Of course I assume what you posted relates exactly to Adventist thinking, regardless of who the author is, this thread is about Adventist theology, new light and the 28 in particular.

The concept almost everyone on this thread seems to have missed is that the 28 fundamental beliefs are LOCKED IN STONE. We move forward FROM them, not backing up and revising or tearing them down!

If you REJECT THEM it is foolish to think you will ever discover anything "new". It's really as simple as that.

"I would suggest that if you take a totally unchangeable and unteachable view of the 28 today".... you will enable yourself to move forward. As long as you continue to wonder, wander, debate and consider alternatives to the 28, you have no rock! You have no concrete, you will be swayed by every new wind of doctrine that comes along!

You cannot build a house when you are constantly shifting the foundation. At some point, you have to start putting up the framework of you beliefs. That won't happen until you've settled on the 28.

Tom, do you mean to imply that that old landmarks, the old foundation will be removed and replaced by some new understanding, some new landmark or theology?

[CoAspen]

So, you would reject a 29th, a 30th, etc, etc?

Those 28 are human interpretations. What about those who were around before the 28 or 27 or 24? Are you 'locking in' and then 'unlocking' and 're-locking'? I sense much fear in your journey up to this point. Fear that you will go 'wrong'. Your quick judgement of others does not speak well of your current progress or is progress a 'bad' word. Christ stands at the door and knocks...no mention of Him having a 'list' in hand. The Holy Spirit is available to all who are seeking for truth.

Quote:

......28 fundamental beliefs are LOCKED IN STONE.

Really? Are you sure of that? If so, then there is no room for growth. What is locked away is prison bound. Locked in Stone says you have it all.

[Stan]

they are actually doing away with the 28 concept... it is rare that you will see that referred to in anything coming out of the GC.

[LynnDel]

Interesting, Stan. What has been the discussion regarding the pros and cons of that document?

LD