| Author |
Message |
Jerry
Registered user
Username: Jerry
Post Number: 469
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 10:31 pm: |     |
Here is a rhetorical question for your consideration:
For the Seventh-day Adventist Church, in particular the various congregations sanction by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists in Silver Springs, can they claim and accurately define a list of non-negotiable beliefs to which an individual must ascribe to claim valid membership as a Seventh-day Adventist?
WAIT, HOLD IT RIGHT THERE!
Before anyone blurts out the 28 (formerly 27) fundamental beliefs, I must point out that many, if not most, of them have been denied as requisite by various avowed SDA members. Several people here and I have reported this here and elsewhere on forums and in person.
One thing I admire about the RCC, is their forthright publishing of their beliefs, which they clearly define and explicitly require. One can be a Catholic, make a mistake, and the church might forgive them. However, one cannot declare oneís self a Catholic in good standing and claim that one of these requisite beliefs is ìnot actually required.î Not without an official in the hierarchy pointing to the RCCís documented beliefs and reprimanding the member once this statement rises to their attention.
The SDA church, on the other hand, states their beliefs with ìplausible deniabilityî a clear component.
For example: In the ìFundamentalsî it does not actually say, ìEllen G. White is a prophetî in exactly those words, but there can be no doubt that she is treated as one. That way, any SDA member can say, ìWe donít believe that EGW is a prophetî or ìThe SDA church does not teach that EGW is a prophetî and not be entirely outside the dogma. Same with IJ, 144,000, even the Sabbath, though that is usually denied as "salvific" with the implication that it also is required, as in: "You don't have to observe the Sabbath to be saved, but if you don't you are disobeying God."
Has anyone here witnessed a different side? Can anyone say that there is a consistent rigorous standard applied that is well documented, clearly defined, and beyond individual dispute?
. . . And that, my friends, is a truly rhetorical question . . . |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 2614
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 10:38 pm: | |
You've hit the nail on the head, so to speak, Jerry...
Colleen |
Susan_2
Registered user
Username: Susan_2
Post Number: 1942
Registered: 11-2002
| | Posted on Monday, September 26, 2005 - 11:25 pm: | |
Jerry, See above about dancing. Another non-deffinate doctrine is unclean meats or vegetarianism. Which is it? Several of the 28 fundamentals say EGW is the inspired one for these last days. She says one must be vegetarian. The 27 and the baptismial vows say one must abstain from the unclean meats. there is a lot of contradiction within the SDA beliefs. I am a member of the Evenganical Lutheran denomination. As such we pretty much accept the Ausburg Confession, which I have yet to read. However, in my new member class it was really quite cut and dry. Believe in Jesus 100%, learn the Apostile's creed, know the Our Father and try to live your life accordingly and the rest comes with living a prayful and in tuned with the Holy Spirit life. There is a lot in Adventism that one must be really raised in it to even be aware of it. It's a culture. When I took a sociology class at the university we were studying cultures within the main culture of American. The Mormons were considered a culture as well as a religion. I have thought for years if I did a thesis in socialogy I'd do a study of Adventism as a culture. Yeah, Jerry, there is a lot of trying to dance around the doctrines in Adventism when the SDA's are confronted on various topics. |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 982
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 27, 2005 - 2:01 pm: | |
Susan, the 28 Fundamentals and the Baptismal Vow actually say "unclean foods" not "unclean meats"--which again could refer to either the "unclean meats" or all foods deemed "unclean" by EGW (including all meats)!
Jeremy
(Message edited by Jeremy on September 27, 2005) |
|
