I should have said, when one is not "considered" an Adventist by others? That is, to be separated. At what point?

Excellent observations! Roman Catholicism by any other name (e.g. SDA) is just as distasteful. According to Wikipedia, "Pope John Paul II made many apologies. During his long reign as Pope, he apologized to Jews, Galileo, women, people convicted by the Inquisition, Muslims killed by the Crusaders and almost everyone who had allegedly suffered at the hands of the Catholic Church over the years."

Yes, but what good is an apology when one is dead already? And I wonder when the spirit of humility will overtake SDA like that? Then again, what good is an apology when one is dead already?

///

You really can't stop being a Adventist, much like once a general or leader of that type, you will always have that. Now if you switch sides, things change, can we say take the example of Benedict Arnold, we all know how he is seen in the history books....

So about leading others away from God's truth, what is "truth"? The 28+ fundamental list? Disagree with one of the list and they should be separated?

I think the part that I was most disappointed with, in hearing of the experience of this couple, is that the church was not truly interested in studying with them. I believe the church was in the wrong in this. Truth can bear investigation. If the church folk think they have the truth, and the couple have error, why should the church fear studying with them? Or, what if it turns out the other way around? Why should the church be afraid of learning something new? In any case, it should be investigated carefully.

Mrs. White has this to say on the matter.


Quite frankly, if I were in that same church, I would likely be disfellowshiped for the same reasons. Realizing this, and never once ever considering myself to be anything but a pure, dedicated, Adventist in good standing, gives me pause. What is happening to my church? Why are we becoming so dependent on the 28FB, against all reason and inspiration, in place of a "thus saith the Lord"?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

When someone with opposing views wants the CHURCH to study with them -- red flags go up!

What is often seen is, that the persons with the opposing views have carefully compiled their "ammunition" and what they want is to have the church as an audience to shoot down a belief and replace it with their understanding. The church members, of course, have not complied anything on the matter, they come with only their general knowledge on the subject. For a lot of people all it does is it raises doubts in their minds, and they leave the study confused,
Some think it's "religious freedom" to enter a community of believers and agitate doubts and confront what they believe -- but in reality it is robbing that community of believers of their religious freedom to worship together without harassment.

We've found, that often, when these opponents are offered PRIVATE Bible studies with a church leader, or given well studied out material to read upholding our view, they don't really want that.

It seems like, on the one hand we talk of "the church" as if it were a person with a collective mind when in reality it is a group of people at different levels of understanding worshipping together.
This couple, from their reports, were quite active promoting their anti-trinitarian findings with church members, thus, yes, the need was felt to make a distinction, to let the church members know (especially the new Adventists) that what was taught was NOT teaching Adventist doctrine.. Even in the pioneer days, they felt a need to define who the teachers/preachers of Adventism were, and who were not teaching the Adventist message.

While the World Wide Adventist Church is held together rather loosely. and yes, the 28 beliefs help hold it together -- we must also realize the structure of each local church.
There are Adventist churches in which major unique doctrines are challenged and nobody is disfellowshipped. Every wind of doctrine is blowing in some churches but no one takes a stand against it. The problem is -- the people may like it that way -- but is it really still and Adventist church?
Then there are other churches who take their beliefs seriously, For them having someone on a mission to belittle their beliefs and seek to change their doctrines, is a very disturbing thing -- it destroys the worship atmosphere of the church. and a separation is drawn.

I realize there is a sensitive line and God's guidance is needed --

The 28 FB have become a creed.

Today, when we teach what the pioneers taught, you get disfellowshipped.

Point after point of truth should be investigated, for there is no limitation to the truth of God, and in its study a most lively interest should be felt by both teachers and pupils, that they may know what God hath said. For years the voice of God has been saying to us, "Agitate, agitate, agitate." Study every point of truth, that you may know for yourselves what is truth in distinction from error. Let students search for themselves, that they may know the deep things of God. Let this work be done in the Spirit of Christ. Put no restriction upon the students. {SSW, April 1, 1892 par. 4}
 
In searching the Scriptures there is need of great humility of mind and contrition of heart, of seeking earnestly unto God. Those who come in a lowly spirit, seeking for truth, will be aided in their search by the angels of God. {SSW, April 1, 1892 par. 5}

Often, those that hold a certain point of view, such as the trinity, do not like to discuss the points because the Bible does not sustain their tradition, and and certain Bible verses destroy their arguments, causing a cognitive dissonance. And there are those that have been so indoctrinated in traditional beliefs, they cannot see the truth. And Ezekiel 34 comes to mind, that certainly could not happen in the SdA church now could it? Fortunately, God will shepherd the sheep, He will seek the lost.

You'll only have a "red flag" if you don't have a good answer, I suppose. Otherwise, truth will always prevail. Did you read the first sentence of the statement from Mrs. White that I had quoted? And have you read Miller's dream?

If you have the truth, there's no need to run away and hide, nor to turn a brother away and claim he is apostate--provided, of course, that he has a sincere desire to study and learn what is the truth--just as Mrs. White has said.


Are you afraid that you don't know enough truth? Then you better study! Get on your knees! Seek the truth as for hidden treasure! Don't let anyone else deceive you because you are ignorant.

I am able to study with Mormons, Jehovah's witnesses, or anyone else, for that matter, without fear that they will at all weaken my grasp of the truth. Jesus ate with sinners, touched lepers, and was never hurt thereby. He lives as our example.


I'm sorry you view it that way. I was brought up to think for myself, have an open mind, yet compare everything to the Bible standard. I was taught not to trust what people would say, but to prove all things by God's Word for myself. If our Adventists are not able to withstand a person or two who raises questions, they will never stand in the trials yet to come. Only those who have fortified their minds with the truths of the Bible will be able to stand in the last great conflict.


Could it be that without witnesses they might have a legitimate fear of later being misrepresented and mistreated?


Suppose you learned a new truth that the rest of the church was largely ignorant of. Would you not wish to share it? Should you keep silent? Remember, for example, how the message of Sabbath-keeping came into our ranks. I can imagine some voices in the church expressing solidarity with your ideas here, saying that those pesky Sabbatarians should just keep their personal beliefs to themselves, lest the church become divided over them.


You need to read more of Ellen White.



As Mrs. White said in the quote I included above, if you think you won't need to change any of your ideas, and dare I add "doctrines" (Mrs. White didn't use that particular word in this context, but uses "ideas," "view," and "opinions"), you "will be disappointed."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Green --according to your thoughts above, are you suggesting this forum should allow all our doctrines to be maligned and all manner of "other ideas" to be presented at great length? If the principles you share really apply, may I ask why have you worried about "falsehoods" being posted here -- and even blocked threads based on that reason?

You know there is a point in which those with "different belief" don't really care that ANSWERS are given and that Adventist posters HAVE studied the issues often for several decades!!! Of course we do not have the answer THEY WANT, because they base everything on a totally different platform.
Every issue is built on more complex beliefs and go much deeper than the surface arguments.
You know those discussions go on and on and on and on and on -- nothing is ever resolved.

Is this how our churches should operate?


I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Instead of seeing the issue I was addressing it seems you saw it as me saying "I don't know why I believe what I believe" thing.
But that was NOT true.
Yes, we study with all sorts of people without fear, including JW's on the trinity issue. No, I do NOT fear them as to my own experience in finding truth. I love to study scripture and often spend as much time as possible doing so! That's not the issue I was addressing.

The issue is when someone takes objections to our doctrines and wants to study it (not with the pastor or people grounded in our doctrines) but WITH THE MEMBERS of the CHURCH. The issue is with people who arrange meetings with the "weaker" members of the church to "study" the controversial doctrine and influence them according to their view.. People who continually agitate their "different" belief within the THE CHURCH and among the members and bring confusion.


A good example was the influx of Shepherd Rod into our churches. They wanted to study WITH THE CHURCH - it was all about changing Adventist doctrine under a very humble and pious front, and LOTS of EGW quoting. It was a fine example of how people can compile EGW quotes to make her give an endtime scenario that was totally out of harmony with what she was actually writing.
A person could give them a 100 and more answers as to why we don't believe what they were teaching -- did it change what they were doing? No. They would target the "newer" members and invite them to have "bible studies" with them. It got to the place church leaders had to hide the membership list and yes, ask them to leave

So do you think it wrong for pastors and church leaders to think such things need to be dealt with?

Do you really believe "truth will always prevail" in a controversial argument?
Truth will prevail in God's full time, but many will find themselves outside that truth. Church leaders do have a responsibility to keep the influence of falsehoods at a low level, and present truth.


People are disfellowshipped on doctrinal issues -- not so much because they believe differently but as to how they push their ideas on the rest of the church and bring disunity and confusion on the members..

dedication - you afraid of studying the Bible with church members? Amazing! You sound like a conspiracy theorist.

You have never done that, right? Particularly with the issues in the Character of God issues which you so forcibly reject. What I've seen is when the "leaders" of a church cannot answer simple questions raised, they then attack the the one raising questions. They take the side of the pope, and declare what a person is to believe and teach. That is a sad situation.

Peter exhorts his brethren to "grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." [2 Peter 3:18.] Whenever the people of God are growing in grace, they will be constantly obtaining a clearer understanding of His word. They will discern new light and beauty in its sacred truths. This has been true in the history of the church in all ages, and thus it will continue to the end. But as real spiritual life declines, it has ever been the tendency to cease to advance in the knowledge of the truth. Men rest satisfied with the light already received from God's word, and discourage any further investigation of the Scriptures. They become conservative, and seek to avoid discussion. {GW 297.2}
 
The fact that there is no controversy or agitation among God's people, should not be regarded as conclusive evidence that they are holding fast to sound doctrine. There is reason to fear that they may not be clearly discriminating between truth and error. When no new questions are started by investigation of the Scriptures, when no difference of opinion arises which will set men to searching the Bible for themselves, to make sure that they have the truth, there will be many now, as in ancient times, who will hold to tradition, and worship they know not what. {GW 298.1}