SDA Dropouts

[JoeMo]

16 hours ago, Mario-One said:

JoeMo, you are one of a rare few to even think about getting disfellowshipped unfairly.

I really don't think about getting disfellowshipped unfairly.  I don't think about getting disfellowshipped at all.  Being on the church books is immaterial to me.  When I have "taken a vacation" from the church it has been because of me throwing a temper tantrum (my bad) or because of what I consider to be extreme imbalance in that specific congregation.  If I were formally disfellowshipped I would still worship at an SDA church (or a messianic Jewish congregation); just not at the one that disfellowhipped me.

I think church discipline is appropriate in certain instances; but for the most part, the "moral" reasons for disfellowshipping people are merely manifestations of self-righteousness.  The church is supposed to be a safe haven for sinners to seek help - even if they backslide sometimes.  When we turn it into a protective fortress for the "saints", we become Pharisees.  Jesus came to save the lost; but sometimes it feels like the church is simply there to save the "already saved".

But I agree with Wanderer.  Most people leave the church because most of us aren't who SDA's say they are (no different than other denominations); so they leave out of disgust, disappointment, or discouragement that they don't meet the moral standards of the "saints".

[Mario-One]

1 hour ago, JoeMo said:

I really don't think about getting disfellowshipped unfairly.  I don't think about getting disfellowshipped at all.  Being on the church books is immaterial to me.  When I have "taken a vacation" from the church it has been because of me throwing a temper tantrum (my bad) or because of what I consider to be extreme imbalance in that specific congregation.  If I were formally disfellowshipped I would still worship at an SDA church (or a messianic Jewish congregation); just not at the one that disfellowhipped me.

I think church discipline is appropriate in certain instances; but for the most part, the "moral" reasons for disfellowshipping people are merely manifestations of self-righteousness.  The church is supposed to be a safe haven for sinners to seek help - even if they backslide sometimes.  When we turn it into a protective fortress for the "saints", we become Pharisees.  Jesus came to save the lost; but sometimes it feels like the church is simply there to save the "already saved".

But I agree with Wanderer.  Most people leave the church because most of us aren't who SDA's say they are (no different than other denominations); so they leave out of disgust, disappointment, or discouragement that they don't meet the moral standards of the "saints".

JoeMo, that was a surprise to me that you say, "I really don't think about getting disfellowshipped unfairly, I don't think about getting disfellowshipped at all" which was your reply to my statement "You are one of the rare few to even thing about getting disfellowshipped unfairly." I based my statement on what you said on Jan. 16th  "If I were to be disfellowshipped, it wouldn't concern me - I would still identify with SDA's; and I wouldn't be the least bit concerned over my standing in the Kingdom." Which shows that you thought about it enough to write how you would react if it happened to you.  I'm just quoting your own words and assuming that you think before you write anything.

You also said the "Being on the church books is immaterial to me."  I can show you several Scriptures that say God brings people into the church. One short one is Acts 2: 47 "And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved." There are others. Scripture also says that Satan brings people into the church also, you will find that in the Parable of the Sower, Matthew 13. My point is that you did not join the church on your own, something brought you to the church and helped you to decide to join it and take vows to separate from the world. Therefore, if God brought you in and Satan influenced the congregation to kick you out, this should not be immaterial, you should reflect on the fact that God brought you into the church.

Another comment, you say "Most people leave the church because most of us aren't who SDA's say they are (no different than other denominations); so they leave out of disgust . . ."  If I read you correctly, you are saying that they join because Adventists claim to be God's remnant church and when they get to know the members, they realize that they have joined a club full of phony hypocrites, and leave.  I hope I paraphrased you correctly. However, the "no different from other denominations" is just not accurate. The SDA church is different from every other denomination in its doctrines, especially the Sabbath, the second coming, the Sanctuary, the State of the Dead, SoP and the 70 weeks prophecy of Daniel 9.

 

[JoeMo]

20 minutes ago, Mario-One said:

One short one is Acts 2: 47 "And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved."

True; but the "church" is not composed solely of SDA's.  It is composed of all who believe on (trust in) the Lord jesus Christ.

20 minutes ago, Mario-One said:

The SDA church is different from every other denomination in its doctrines, especially the Sabbath, the second coming, the Sanctuary, the State of the Dead, SoP and the 70 weeks prophecy of Daniel 9.

Every denomination has characteristics peculiar to that denomination or they wouldn't be a different denomination.  The only truly "exclusive item that you mention above is the SoP.  There are other denominations that believe in one or more of the doctrines that you have pointed out.  And BTW; not all SDA's are that enthralled with the SoP's inerrancy.  There are many places in the SoP that have no basis in a straightforward reading of scripture.  For myself, if I can't find a scriptural reference to back up the SoP, I will accept scripture and discount the SoP.

[Mario-One]

10 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

"And if any man thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know." (1 Cor 8:2, MKJV)

Wanderer, the above was your reply to something I posted yesterday, " You would need to restore your voice in the choice in order to bring about the reform that God has revealed to you." I apologize for not proofreading what I wrote. Choice was a typing error. I meant to say, "You would need to restore your voice in the CHURCH in order to bring the reform that God has revealed to you."  I don't know if this correction will change your comment.  

The reform I had in mind was flaws in the church manual and working policy, there are improvements that should be made. One flaw has existed in the church manual for 34 years and I guess no one has caught it or they are indifferent to it. I can show you something on page 60 of the Church Manual which church leaders don't want to talk to me about. The flaw can be seen clearly if the leaders would answer a simple question, which no one is willing to do. The question is: Can a non-member ( who is a Christian ) who is grieved by a member of SDA church, bring that grievance to the church in accordance with Matthew 18: 17 ?  This is worthy of a whole new discussion, but since it is related to dropped members, I will introduce it here. JoeMo should be interested in this because if he were dropped from membership it would be immaterial to him, he would still be a Christian, but according to the SDA church manual, he may have lost the right to practice Matthew 18 if he were offended by a former brother or sister. 

[Mario-One]

5 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

True; but the "church" is not composed solely of SDA's.  It is composed of all who believe on (trust in) the Lord jesus Christ.

Every denomination has characteristics peculiar to that denomination or they wouldn't be a different denomination.  The only truly "exclusive item that you mention above is the SoP.  There are other denominations that believe in one or more of the doctrines that you have pointed out.  And BTW; not all SDA's are that enthralled with the SoP's inerrancy.  There are many places in the SoP that have no basis in a straightforward reading of scripture.  For myself, if I can't find a scriptural reference to back up the SoP, I will accept scripture and discount the SoP.

Dear JoeMo, do you realize that you can be dropped from the SDA church based on what you have published publicly above (ie: no Scripture to support SoP and you don't accept SoP).  If they brought you to a hearing on this point and did it unfairly, Ellen White says heaven would not ratify their decision but you would still be guilty of the charge, which means you are not as right with God as you may think. This would be an example of what I posted previously, in talking about someone who is innocent of the charge for which they voted to remove him/her.

You say that the "Church" is composed of all who believe on (trust in) the Lord Jesus.  I quoted Acts 2: 47 in my reply to you about 2 hours ago. At the time this was written, there was only one church. Now there are hundreds of denominations which can be used to validate your definition of Church.  When Acts was written there was only one church, which made it easier to understand. However, even now God needs to have only one church which has members who believe Bible truth, which is why doctrines are important.

It is true that each denomination has characteristics peculiar to that denomination, I call them doctrines, that make them different enough to have members that believe as they do over some other denomination. You say that there are other denominations that believe in one or more of the doctrines I listed. (Sanctuary in heaven, Second Coming, Sabbath, State of the dead, SoP and 70 Weeks of Daniel 9), please give me name of another denomination that believes even two of these six in the same way as the SDA church?

[JoeMo]

5 minutes ago, Mario-One said:

please give me name of another denomination that believes even two of these six in the same way as the SDA church?

Jehovah's Witnesses believe in the 2nd coming and the state of the dead.

Messianic Jews believe in the Sabbath, and second coming.

Just about all conservative denominations have a "theory" on the 70 weeks of Daniel.  I don't buy the SDA stance that the 70th week concluded with the stoning of Stephen.  I believe the 70th week is yet future, beginning with the identification of the Beast/AntiChrist. Hint - It ain't the papacy or RCC.

9 minutes ago, Mario-One said:

Dear JoeMo, do you realize that you can be dropped from the SDA church based on what you have published publicly above (ie: no Scripture to support SoP and you don't accept SoP).

Your point being?  Like I said before; my status in the Kingdom is not contingent upon my membership in the SDA Church.  I can identify with Adventists, messianic Jews,  Catholics or any other denomination without being an official card carrying member.  I've been posting like this for years, and the church has never warned me about what I post; nor do I believe that they ever will.

[Mario-One]

1 hour ago, JoeMo said:

Jehovah's Witnesses believe in the 2nd coming and the state of the dead.

Messianic Jews believe in the Sabbath, and second coming.

Just about all conservative denominations have a "theory" on the 70 weeks of Daniel.  I don't buy the SDA stance that the 70th week concluded with the stoning of Stephen.  I believe the 70th week is yet future, beginning with the identification of the Beast/AntiChrist. Hint - It ain't the papacy or RCC.

Your point being?  Like I said before; my status in the Kingdom is not contingent upon my membership in the SDA Church.  I can identify with Adventists, messianic Jews,  Catholics or any other denomination without being an official card carrying member.  I've been posting like this for years, and the church has never warned me about what I post; nor do I believe that they ever will.

JoeMo, There are many other denominations you can add to the list that believes Christ will return, including the RCC. It seems you missed my point, their belief needs to be based on Scripture as to how and when. A belief that is not in harmony with the Bible is not sound doctrine. It is true that there are many interpretations about the 70 weeks in Daniel 9, not only "conservative denominations" - If you don't buy the SDA understanding of this prophecy, why did you say "I do" when you joined the SDA church?  If you identify with other denominations, and have been posting what you believe for years, then I suggest you study about the wheat and the tares. You say your church has never warned you about what you post, but how many members of your congregation are on this forum and know who JoeMo is, that he is a member of their congregation?  You may mean to say that you post on other forums in addition to this one, I can tell you that if you posted the same comments on the forums that I moderate, you would get noticed. You "do not believe that they ever will," and therefore, you may be surprised to hear that Jesus is coming back for His people, but He is waiting for them to want to purify themselves. The early church was considered a pure church and their doctrines were sound, then false doctrines came in, and those that complained about the false doctrines that were coming into the church were persecuted. We are seeing that happening again, which means that there will be a purification of the church, EGW confirms this will happen. So if your church does say something about what you write publicly, maybe it is because the Lord is purifying His church.  He may decide to leave the 'fallen churches' alone and purify just His church, so that those that Believe sound doctrine can discern between right and wrong and come into the SDA church, this is the great commission of Matthew 28.

[Mario-One]

2 hours ago, The Wanderer said:

There are plenty of scriptures which would advise against church attendance, under certain circumstances:

"My son, fear Jehovah and the king; and do not fellowship with those who are given to change;" (Prov 24:21)

(Adam Clark Commentary, for Prov 24:21) Meddle not with them that are given to change - עם שונים אל תתערב im shonim al titharab: “And with the changelings mingle not thyself.” The innovators; those who are always for making experiments on modes of government, forms of religion, etc. The most dangerous spirit that can infect the human mind.

"Do not be tricked by false words: evil company does damage to good behaviour." (1 Cor 15:33, BBE)

1Co 5:9  In my letter I said to you that you were not to keep company with those who go after the desires of the flesh;
1Co 5:10  But I had not in mind the sinners who are outside the church, or those who have a desire for and take the property of others, or those who give worship to images; for it is not possible to keep away from such people without going out of the world completely:
1Co 5:11  But the sense of my letter was that if a brother had the name of being one who went after the desires of the flesh, or had the desire for other people's property, or was in the way of using violent language, or being the worse for drink, or took by force what was not his, you might not keep company with such a one, or take food with him. (BBE)

1Co 5:12  For it is no business of mine to be judging those who are outside; but it is yours to be judging those who are among you;
1Co 5:13  As for those who are outside, God is their judge. So put away the evil man from among you. (BBE)

Jesus does not intimate that anyone should seclude themselves from the world by going to the desert, or to the cloisters; but that they should continue in and among the world, that they may have the opportunity of recommending the salvation of God

Co 5:11  But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
1Co 5:12  For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
1Co 5:13  But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

 

Wanderer, I see that you are getting into what the Scriptures say about separating a member from fellowship. Ellen White was inspired to write a disclaimer for those that may go on a witch hunt and separate the wheat from the church. It is in RH, Jan. 3. 1893.

"There are many who are treated as tares and hopeless subjects, whom Christ is drawing to himself. Men judge from the outward appearance, and think they discern the true measurement of a man’s character; but they make many blunders in their judgments. They put a high estimate upon a man whose appearance is as an angel of light, when in thought and heart he is corrupt and unworthy. On another whose appearance is not so favorable, they pass criticism, make him an offender for a word, and would separate him from the church because of his supposed defective character, when it may be that He who reads the heart, sees true moral worth in the man. Human judgment does not decide any case; for the Lord’s thoughts are not our thoughts, neither are his ways our ways. He whom we would separate from the church as altogether unworthy, is the object of the Lord’s solicitude and love. All heaven is engaged in doing the appointed work of drawing souls to God, and the Lord has said concerning his word, “It shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.” Isaiah 55:11 { RH January 3, 1893, par. 4 }

[Gregory Matthews]

Mario said:

: Can a non-member ( who is a Christian ) who is grieved by a member of SDA church, bring that grievance to the church in accordance with Matthew 18: 17.

I am aware of circumstances where that has been done. 

But, keep in mind that the mission of the Church is NOT to play the role of a civil judge.  Government has been established for that role.

 

[Mario-One]

9 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

Mario, the "problem" is not the doctrines

I absolutely agree that the problem with the SDA church is not found in their doctrines.  Other denominations have changed their doctrines recently, especially regarding homosexuality, the UMC (Methodists) are on the verse of splitting over this. The SDA church has resisted changes to the doctrines established by their founders and early pioneers, except for the Trinity. Our pioneers believed in the Gdhead and not the Trinity, but that is a different discussion.  

[Mario-One]

3 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Mario said:

 

 

I am aware of circumstances where that has been done. 

But, keep in mind that the mission of the Church is NOT to play the role of a civil judge.  Government has been established for that role.

 

Gregory, I agree that we need to focus on the mission of the church, but do not agree that the mission is as you say. There are situations where civil authorities and courts should decide disputes, some are listed on page 60 of the Church Manual. But Sin is Sin and personal grievances like slander are better resolved in the church and not in a court. One can go to a divorce court when your spouse is unfaithful, but one needs to first bring the matter to the church if the spouse is a member of the church, if not, the injured party can actually be disciplined, see bottom of page 60 and top of page 61.

[Gregory Matthews]

Mario asked:

Quote

If you don't buy the SDA understanding of this prophecy, why did you say "I do" when you joined the SDA church?

There is much freedom that is given as to the range of belief that may exist within the SDA denomination.  The so-called 28 are NOT the standard that exists as to membership in the SDA denomination.  That standard is the so-called 13 that may be found in the Church Manual.  That statement does NOT contain a statement of the SDA understanding of prophecy.

The closest that it comes to a statement  on prophecy is in # 7, where a baptismal candidate is asked to believe in the 2nd Advent.  As long as one believes in  the 2nd Advent, they may very well have met the requirement.

 

 

[JoeMo]

17 minutes ago, Mario-One said:

If you don't buy the SDA understanding of this prophecy, why did you say "I do" when you joined the SDA church?  If you identify with other denominations, and have been posting what you believe for years,

I said "I do" over 40 years ago.  My theology has evolved sine then.  If you think I'm the only SDA to ever question doctrine that was set over 125 years ago, you need to get out more.  I hardly know any SDA's that buy historic Adventism hook, line, and sinker.  It may have been reasonable to conclude the papacy was the antichrist 100 years ago; not so much now.  Compare what John says about the antichrist in his epistles and tell me who fits John's patterns better - the RCC or radical Islam.  Compare EGW's claim that Christ entered the Most Holy Place in 1844 with the Book of Hebrews' claim that He entered upon His ascension into heaven.  I'm going with Hebrews.  Look at EGW's claim that "a day for a year" is a general rule for interpreting eschatology in Daniel and Revelation.  The day for year principle applies to the judgment in Numbers and in Ezekiel.  If it applied in all cases, where in revelation is the demarcation between "day fro year" and the thousand years reign after Christ's return?  To be consistent, the thousand years would have to mean 360,000 years.  Where does the Bible specifically mention the Holy Spirit as a distinct sentient member of a "Trinity"?  EGW herself was not a Trinitarian until later in life.  The White Estate has transformed her from a highly inspired writer into an infallible prophet (which she never claimed to be).  It's like she's the SDA version of the pope or the Virgin Mary.

I still consider myself an SDA because I am convicted of Sabbath holiness and the imminent return of Jesus.  I can pretty much guarantee that there will be more people in heaven than SDA's.  I also predict that when a Jew rules the world, many in His personal entourage will be Israelites - both spiritual and ethnic.

Are you the same Mario that runs an SDA group on LinkedIn?

 

[Mario-One]

4 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Mario asked:

 

 

There is much freedom that is given as to the range of belief that may exist within the SDA denomination.  The soo-called 28 are NOT the standard that exists as to membership in the SDA denomination.  That standard is the so-called 13 that may be found in the Church Manual.  That statement does NOT contain a statement of the SDA understanding of prophecy.

The closes that it comes to a statement  on prophecy is in # 7, where a baptismal candidate is asked to believe in the 2nd Advent.  As long as one believes isn't he 2nd Advent, they may very well have met the requirement.

 

 

Gregory, you may attend different churches than I do in New York. When there is a baptism or transfer on profession of faith, doctrinal questions are asked the candidate. For many years the questions were based on Appendix in Church Manual page 219 to 223 (in 17th edition).  There are 28 categories. It is true that this Appendix has been removed and the baptismal questions are harder to find, but they have not changed. Belief in SoP is still a test of fellowship. I have heard this at the last baptism I attended in December. 

[Mario-One]

12 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

I said "I do" over 40 years ago.  My theology has evolved sine then.  If you think I'm the only SDA to ever question doctrine that was set over 125 years ago, you need to get out more.  I hardly know any SDA's that buy historic Adventism hook, line, and sinker.  It may have been reasonable to conclude the papacy was the antichrist 100 years ago; not so much now.  Compare what John says about the antichrist in his epistles and tell me who fits John's patterns better - the RCC or radical Islam.  Compare EGW's claim that Christ entered the Most Holy Place in 1844 with the Book of Hebrews' claim that He entered upon His ascension into heaven.  I'm going with Hebrews.  Look at EGW's claim that "a day for a year" is a general rule for interpreting eschatology in Daniel and Revelation.  The day for year principle applies to the judgment in Numbers and in Ezekiel.  If it applied in all cases, where in revelation is the demarcation between "day fro year" and the thousand years reign after Christ's return?  To be consistent, the thousand years would have to mean 360,000 years.  Where does the Bible specifically mention the Holy Spirit as a distinct sentient member of a "Trinity"?  EGW herself was not a Trinitarian until later in life.  The White Estate has transformed her from a highly inspired writer into an infallible prophet (which she never claimed to be).  It's like she's the SDA version of the pope or the Virgin Mary.

I still consider myself an SDA because I am convicted of Sabbath holiness and the imminent return of Jesus.  I can pretty much guarantee that there will be more people in heaven than SDA's.  I also predict that when a Jew rules the world, many in His personal entourage will be Israelites - both spiritual and ethnic.

Are you the same Mario that runs an SDA group on LinkedIn?

 

I don't know where to start to comment on the errors in your statement, but since none of them are related to this discussion topic, I will refrain from commenting. I have a website and there is a Forum connected to my website, I am also a member of several LINKEDin groups for Adventists. So that we are on the same page, ask me which LINKEDin group you are referring to, and I will answer.

[Gregory Matthews]

Mario said:

Gregory, I agree that we need to focus on the mission of the church, but do not agree that the mission is as you say. There are situations where civil authorities and courts should decide disputes, some are listed on page 60 of the Church Manual. But Sin is Sin and personal grievances like slander are better resolved in the church and not in a court. One can go to a divorce court when your spouse is unfaithful, but one needs to first bring the matter to the church if the spouse is a member of the church, if not, the injured party can actually be disciplined, see bottom of page 60 and top of page 61.

1)  If you wish to cite the Church Manual, please cite it accurately by giving the edition number.  I am looking  at the revised 17th Edition.  On pages 60 & 61 it deal with the work of the Church Treasurer.  Those pages have nothing to do with what you state that they deal with.  We need to know what edition you were using.

In the Revised 17th Edition the subject that you cite is contained in pages  185 - 200, in a chapter titled Church Discipline.   I am at a total loss to know how you came up with pages 60 & 61.

On page 191 of the Church Manual, it says:

. . . the church. . . should constantly be on guard against turning from its gospel mission and taking up the duties of a civil magistrate.

Ellen White in commenting on this subject said:

Again and again Christ had been asked to decide legal and political questions.  but He refused to interfere in temporal matters.  He knew that in the political world there were iniquitious proceedings and great tyranny.  But His only exposure of these was the proclamation of Bible truth. . . .But, he refused to become entangled in personal disputes.  9T218

You may disagree as you chose.  But, you appear not to be in accord with the position of the SDA denomination.  As to your listing of slander and divorce, your position is NOT that of the denomination.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Mario said:

Quote

Gregory, you may attend different churches than I do in New York. When there is a baptism or transfer on profession of faith, doctrinal questions are asked the candidate. For many years the questions were based on Appendix in Church Manual page 219 to 223 (in 17th edition).  There are 28 categories. It is true that this Appendix has been removed and the baptismal questions are harder to find, but they have not changed. Belief in SoP is still a test of fellowship. I have heard this at the last baptism I attended in December. 

1)  What you see happen in an individual SDA congregation may not be related to the position of the denomination.  The so-called 28 that you  cite as  found in the Appendix are there because they are not to be used as a requirement for baptism.

2) The requirement for baptism is found on pages 32 - 35.  There are 13, not 28.

3)  Again on the Revised 17th Edition, page 196 & 197, congregations and their ministers are prohibited from establishing a test of fellowship that differs from what I have stated in this post.

4)  You tell us that a belief in the Spirit of Prophecy is a required belief.  That is correct, it is # 8  of the 13.  But, that is NOT a requirement to believe that Ellen G. White constitutes a fulfillment of that.   One can believe, and be a SDA, believe that there is a Biblical doctrine of the Gift of Prophecy and not believe that EGW Filled that role.  I do not know what you heard in December.

 

 

[JoeMo]

When I first joined CA several years ago, I was much more radical than I am now.  I was leaving the SDA church.  Problem was, I met so many good people here on CA that I decided to stay.  CA is pretty much my home church now.

When I joined, a dear brother (who was a retired pastor) who hung out here a lot challenged me to go through the 28 Fundies with him as they are stated on the SDA website.  I had to admit that I had no problem with the Fundies as stated; but I did (and still do) have problems with how they are applied in individual congregations.  One of the main things I like about CA is that we are free to discuss different opinions without getting "disfellowshipped" from CA, as long as we play well with the other children.  I find the moderators here fair and balanced; and I'm thankful that so many of us "Badventists" and non-SDA's are allowed to play.

[Mario-One]

1 hour ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Mario asked:

There is much freedom that is given as to the range of belief that may exist within the SDA denomination.  The soo-called 28 are NOT the standard that exists as to membership in the SDA denomination.  That standard is the so-called 13 that may be found in the Church Manual.  That statement does NOT contain a statement of the SDA understanding of prophecy.

The closest that it comes to a statement  on prophecy is in # 7, where a baptismal candidate is asked to believe in the 2nd Advent.  As long as one believes in  the 2nd Advent, they may very well have met the requirement.

 

 

Gregory, I could not find the 13 your refer to in the church manual, and so I can't comment on #7 of the 13. Can you give me a page # in the Church Manual (I assume you will use the current 18th edition).

[Gregory Matthews]

JoMo said:

I had to admit that I had no problem with the Fundies as stated; but I did (and still do) have problems with how they are applied in individual congregations.

That is the central problem.  I personally know some of the people who worked on the first 27.  It was never intended to be a test of fellowship.  Such was the 13.

With the passage of time the "2*" have been corrupted in their application to be come a creed.  That is what some would like to make it become. 

[Mario-One]

1 hour ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Mario said:

 

 

1)  If you wish to cite the Church Manual, please cite it accurately by giving the edition number.  I am looking  at the revised 17th Edition.  On pages 60 & 61 it deal with the work of the Church Treasurer.  Those pages have nothing to do with what you state that they deal with.  We need to know what edition you were using.

In the Revised 17th Edition the subject that you cite is contained in pages  185 - 200, in a chapter titled Church Discipline.   I am at a total loss to know how you came up with pages 60 & 61.

On page 191 of the Church Manual, it says:

 

 

Ellen White in commenting on this subject said:

 

 

You may disagree as you chose.  But, you appear not to be in accord with the position of the SDA denomination.  As to your listing of slander and divorce, your position is NOT that of the denomination.

 

The current edition which was approved in San Antonio is the 18th edition, all my Church Manual quotes (except one) are from the 18th edition and the pages referenced are found in the 18th edition. When getting into any discussion about church policy and procedures it is best to use the current edition. Because you could be citing a text that is obsolete. I quoted the 17th edition in one comment, it was the appendix section for Doctrinal questions, the part of the manual the referenced this appendix says these are the questions for study by baptismal candidates, I'll have to find the exact quote.  I am waiting for your reference to the 13 questions which you call the standard for membership.

If you do not have the 18th edition, you will not be able to find what it says on page 60, but it is Chapter 7 titled Discipline.

I am not proficient with this forum, some how the quotes on page 191 do not show, now does the EGW quote.

Of course I disagree, but I could be corrected, please quote the church position on slander and divorce, so I can see my error.

[Gregory Matthews]

Mario, pages 32 - 35, of the revised 17th edition,  contain the two (2) Baptismal Vows that are accepted as compliance with the requirement for baptism.

The original contains 13 statements of belief.  The Alternative Vow contains three (3) statements of belief.

It could correctly be stated that the Alternative Vow contains within those three (3) statements requirements for belief that are not contained in the original 13.  But, the denominational position is that either vow meets the requirement for belief to become a SDA member.

I personally always use the original 13.  But, if a baptismal candidate wanted to sue the Alternative Vow, I must allow that person to do so.  And the converse applies.  A pastor who uses the Alternative Vow must allow a candidate to use the original 13.

Look carefully at pages 34 & 35.  Following the baptism the candidate is supposed to be given a baptismal certificate and of commitment.  That certificate is worded after the original 13.  It is not worded in accord with the Alternative Vow.  That wording is in accord with what I have said.

 

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Mario, you have suggested that one should use the current edition of the Church  Manual.   The 18th Edition is the a 2010 edition the current edition is a 2016 edition.  In my citations below, I will use the 2016 edition.

The statements that I made as to baptism are found on pages 45 - 48 of the 2016 edition.  Those pages read exactly as I cited them from the revised 17th edition.

The statements that I made related to discipline are found in the section pages 56 - 69 of the 2016 edition.  Please note pages 60, and 61.  The comment that I made related to no additional tests of fellowship are found on page 64.

 

[Mario-One]

1 hour ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Mario said:

1)  What you see happen in an individual SDA congregation may not be related to the position of the denomination.  The so-called 28 that you  cite as  found in the Appendix are there because they are not to be used as a requirement for baptism.

2) The requirement for baptism is found on pages 32 - 35.  There are 13, not 28.

3)  Again on the Revised 17th Edition, page 196 & 197, congregations and their ministers are prohibited from establishing a test of fellowship that differs from what I have stated in this post.

4)  You tell us that a belief in the Spirit of Prophecy is a required belief.  That is correct, it is # 8  of the 13.  But, that is NOT a requirement to believe that Ellen G. White constitutes a fulfillment of that.   One can believe, and be a SDA, believe that there is a Biblical doctrine of the Gift of Prophecy and not believe that EGW Filled that role.  I do not know what you heard in December.

 

 

It says Mario said, but this is not what I posted, this comment is from Gregory

Church Manual, page 32 (17th edition so Gregory can verify it) says, "Prospective members of the SDA church, before baptism or acceptance on profession of faith, should be carefully instructed from the Scriptures in the fundamental beliefs of the church as presented in Chapter 3 (see page 9) of this Church Manual. In order to assist evangelists, pastors and others in giving such instruction and making it Scripture based and practical, a specially prepared summary appears as an index on pages 291-223 of this church manual and in the  Minister';s Handbook.

  Chapter 3 is the official description of the 28 fundamental beliefs, # 18 is Gift of Prophecy (you can read this on page 15 in 17th edition).

Gregory's #2 gives Baptismal Vows on page 32-33 and alternate Vows in 33-35, I do see 13 Vows and note that some have multiple questions; If you look at #11 is a vow that says, "Do you know and understand the fundamental Bible principles as taught by the SDA church? Do you purpose, by the grace of God to fulfill His will by ordering your life in harmony with these principles?

It seems that Gregory is arguing that the church teaches these doctrines but the new member is not required to follow them. This does not make sense to me. I think I could be made plainer, but that when you join the church the vows are made to show your public witness that you agree with these things and will follow them. It is made very clear when you look at reason #1 for discipline, it is crystal clear.  1. Denial of faith in the fundamentals of the gospel and in the fundamental beliefs of the church or teaching doctrines contrary to the same.

[Gregory Matthews]

Mario:

 

You are coming on target.

The denomination considers some teachings to be essential for initial membership.

It considers spiritual life to be a life of growth.

Therefore it dies NOT require that a person believe and understand every teaching of the denomination in order to be a member.

If it did so, probably few would be members and the denomination could not be an agent of spiritual growth.