WHEN do we DISFELLOWSHIP ?

[Umfundize]

Should we disfellowship those who no longer believe Mrs White is a Bible-level prophetess?

Should we disfellowship the Progressive Adventists who no longer believe in a Investigative Judgment or Heavenly Millennium?

And what do we do with the many who are not Trinitarians?

Could we tolerate those and still allow them to worship with us? Or must they abide by the "testing truths"?

I am not talking about those who live in open violation of God's Law.

And what do we do with those who no longer believe "the SDA church is the ONLY TRUE church of Revelation"? as you promised when baptized?

Could we TOLERATE? Or should we DISFELLOWSHIP?

[OzarkWoman]

Should we disfellowship those who no longer believe Mrs White is a Bible-level prophetess?

Should we disfellowship the Progressive Adventists who no longer believe in a Investigative Judgment or Heavenly Millennium?

And what do we do with the many who are not Trinitarians?

Could we tolerate those and still allow them to worship with us? Or must they abide by the "testing truths"?

I am not talking about those who live in open violation of God's Law.

And what do we do with those who no longer believe "the SDA church is the ONLY TRUE church of Revelation"? as you promised when baptized?

Could we TOLERATE? Or should we DISFELLOWSHIP?

By your standards that you have stated, I should not have been baptized. I never said or swore that the SDA church was the only true remnant church. I do believe in the remnant church, but I believe it will be peoples from all over and from all different faiths who truly believe and live the life, as best as they can, of Jesus. I also can't say that EGW is a prophet at all. I really don't know, but there is no way I had admit such before my baptize. You sound to me like you are a legalist.

[Umfundize]

Lady from Ozark:

I agree with you 100% and I am NOT a legalist. I am the one the questions are about! May I still fellowship with you?

[olger]

A fair question is "Why would one want to be part of a church that they don't agree with?"

Picking and choosing among the doctrines of the church is not a good way to build unity. Maybe if you starting reading EGW again - your doubts would melt away. Someone I'm pretty close to had that experience.

rejoice always,

g

[Woody]

Hey - why don't you list those who believe in Women's Equality. Man our focus should be to include not EXclude.

[Woody]

The test for the membership in this particular church is - do you believe in the 28 Fundamentals. To add more fluff than that - is really excessive.

[Gail]

The test for the membership in this particular church is - do you believe in the 28 Fundamentals. To add more fluff than that - is really excessive.

Yes, I'm detecting an agenda here, too

[Woody]

Yes Gail. The CHURCH decides what the CHURCH believes in. This is done in the General Conference in Session through the 28 Fundamentals. If an individual member wants to change the Beliefs of our church - he needs to work within the system not outside of it.

[Umfundize]

When you read Adventist Alternative, you will find out how the "system" reacted to an individual who tried to do just what you suggested! It did not work!

The question posed is this: if members no longer believe in some of the problem doctrines,used as TESTS for membership, MAY those members still be regarded AS MEMBERS, or should they be disfellowshipped?

If YOU do not believe the SDA church is THE ONLY TRUE CHURCH of Revelation, you have broken your Baptismal vows, right? The plea is to BE TOLERANT, because many still want to keep the SABBATH, etc. Should they find another Sabbatarian home?

[Woody]

I have a problem with the attitude in this thread - and thus am resistant to tell you what I REALLY feel.

[JoeMo]

I haven't responded yet on this thread because I, like Gail and Woody, detect a hidden agenda here (not there there isn't one on most threads). At the risk of alienating some folks, I confess that I do not blindly subscribe to all 28 fundementals of the denomination. I have seen posts on here by many upstanding church embers that question, for instance the unquestioned infallibility of 100% of every word EGW put to paper. I accept what agrees with scripture; and reject that which does not (in accordance with her writings).

I also disagree with disfellowshipping people who have ongoing issues with smoking, drugs, alcohol, or diet. Didn't jesus come to heal the sick? Isn't that supposed to be the church's mission? Then why do we exclude or expel people who need healing?

I've posted this before, but people get confused between unity and uniformity. The purpose of the church should not be to create "rubber stamp" replica's of people and congregations; it should be to lead people to an intimate relationship with Jesus Christ; and to introduce and encourage that relationship in others.

It should be OK for one church to have a different culture than another. If a church accepts a female pastor, that doen't make them "Babylon". If your congregation has a female pastor and you don't like it, find another congregation! Seventh-Day Advientism is not "the church" - it is a denomination. "The church is composed of those who love Christ, are saved by His grace, and who desire to bring others to that same place. I hesitate to tell you, but SDA's won't be the only people in the Kingdom!

OK; I'm sure that upset some people. bring it on ...

[Umfundize]

I fully understand: agenda, opinion, whatever! Why else would we dialogue?

The FACT is that there are more than 2 MILLION ex-adventists TODAY in the US and Canada. Many of those would still like to keep the Sabbath and fellowship with believers who will not use the PROBLEM-DOCTRINES, we are all aware of, AS TESTS FOR MEMBERSHIP.

Even the GC seems to have eased up on some of the controversial doctrines. Did you watch Frances and Friends, archive June 5,6 and 7 ?

Here is the idea: let's allow those who are Sabbath-keepers, believe in Commandment-keeping because they LOVE Jesus John 14:15, believe when you're dead, you're REALLY dead, etc. But they believe in the ASSUREANCE of SALVATION without the worry of "did my name come up", etc. Could we allow those brothers and sisters to continue corporate worship without having to recind their membership? If we could, that would shut up many of the CRITICS!

[JoeMo]

Umfundize,

AMEN!! Your are so right on!!!

There are several "generic" adventist (lower case intentional) churches that I am aware of that do just that. The members maintain their membership with the conference church (whatever that is), but their churches have either voluntarily left or been kicked out of the denomination for violating one or more the the 28 fundamentals, or exhibiting other undesirable characteristics; like overt practice of certain spiritual gifts. However, they are legally prohibited from using the word "Adventist" in their church name or advertising.

[OzarkWoman]

I haven't responded yet on this thread because I, like Gail and Woody, detect a hidden agenda here (not there there isn't one on most threads). At the risk of alienating some folks, I confess that I do not blindly subscribe to all 28 fundementals of the denomination. I have seen posts on here by many upstanding church embers that question, for instance the unquestioned infallibility of 100% of every word EGW put to paper. I accept what agrees with scripture; and reject that which does not (in accordance with her writings).

I also disagree with disfellowshipping people who have ongoing issues with smoking, drugs, alcohol, or diet. Didn't jesus come to heal the sick? Isn't that supposed to be the church's mission? Then why do we exclude or expel people who need healing?

I've posted this before, but people get confused between unity and uniformity. The purpose of the church should not be to create "rubber stamp" replica's of people and congregations; it should be to lead people to an intimate relationship with Jesus Christ; and to introduce and encourage that relationship in others.

It should be OK for one church to have a different culture than another. If a church accepts a female pastor, that doen't make them "Babylon". If your congregation has a female pastor and you don't like it, find another congregation! Seventh-Day Advientism is not "the church" - it is a denomination. "The church is composed of those who love Christ, are saved by His grace, and who desire to bring others to that same place. I hesitate to tell you, but SDA's won't be the only people in the Kingdom!

OK; I'm sure that upset some people. bring it on ...

[Gerr]

Should we disfellowship those who no longer believe Mrs White is a Bible-level prophetess?

Should we disfellowship the Progressive Adventists who no longer believe in a Investigative Judgment or Heavenly Millennium?

And what do we do with the many who are not Trinitarians?

Could we tolerate those and still allow them to worship with us? Or must they abide by the "testing truths"?

I am not talking about those who live in open violation of God's Law.

And what do we do with those who no longer believe "the SDA church is the ONLY TRUE church of Revelation"? as you promised when baptized?

Could we TOLERATE? Or should we DISFELLOWSHIP?

ESV | ‎Mt 13:30 Let both (wheat & tares) grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.’ ”

However, if these Regressive Adventists promote schism, then I have a problem.

But it won't matter anyway because a time of shaking is coming, nay, it is here, when the Lord himself will purify the church and not man.

[Gerr]

A fair question is "Why would one want to be part of a church that they don't agree with?"

Picking and choosing among the doctrines of the church is not a good way to build unity. Maybe if you starting reading EGW again - your doubts would melt away. Someone I'm pretty close to had that experience.

rejoice always,

g

[Dr. Waite]

A fair question is "Why would one want to be part of a church that they don't agree with?"

Picking and choosing among the doctrines of the church is not a good way to build unity. Maybe if you starting reading EGW again - your doubts would melt away. Someone I'm pretty close to had that experience.

rejoice always,

g

The leaders of the church who wrote up the 28 fundamental beliefs and the delegates to the 1980 General Conference Session who voted to approve the 27 (now 28) fundamental beliefs are NOT your saviour. Being a member of the Seventh-day Adventist church will NOT save you. Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of the Living God, is ONLY one who can save you. If there is any doubt in your mind read the Bible.

[olger]

The leaders of the church who wrote up the 28 fundamental beliefs and the delegates to the 1980 General Conference Session who voted to approve the 27 (now 28) fundamental beliefs are NOT your saviour.

[Naomi]

olger

[JoeMo]

I said on another thread that I did not accept the 28 Fundamentals (I thought it was on this thread; but it wasn't). This spurred a private conversation with another C/A member. I praise God for this person - This person convinced me otherwise; and showed me the truth of what is written, not what others say. Thank God for His ministry through this person. With no judgement or condemnation, this person showed me God's love and His truth through encouragement and affirmation. I am a witness to what God's love love can do through the care of one believer. Thank you Jesus!

[Gail]

Well, isn't that cool!

[OzarkWoman]

[Umfundize]

It is certainly one thing to opine on a theological issue and another thing to attack people's characters when you're pushed into a corner!

Do you agree that the formal, Catholic version of the Trinity, was for the first time, officially accepted in 1980?

So, do we disfellowship those who are no longer Trinitarian, like they promised when they got baptized? Is this belief still a TEST for membership?

Are you aware that the words of Hymn #73, Holy, Holy, Holy was changed from a non-trinitarian position to a trinitarian position after 1980? How come?

[LynnDel]

I believe there are many in the church who may hold slightly different opinions than those stated in the hymnbook (some lines were included by mistake, it appears) or the 28, but who are happily accepted in membership by the church and hold leadership positions in the church because they do not agitate the issues. Once a person becomes an agitator, especially if they bring up the issue repeatedly, their presence becomes less welcome.

[Umfundize]

Do you think the person who wrote Adventist Alternative should be disfellowshipped because he brought some suggestions to the attention of the GC, which they ignored (or approved?)

Should this pastor still hold ministerial credentials?