A Question for Tall73...

[woobadooba]

In a thread that you commented in you gave the impression that you oppose the idea of a church having a Creed.

For that matter, you gave the impression that that is one reason why you have decided to leave the SDA church. That is, you have been turned off so to speak, because our Church requires that a person should agree with its teachings before he/she can become a member of it.

http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=40848062&postcount=20

Perhaps I misunderstood you. Please share your thoughts with me on this.

 

[IntoTheCrimsonSky]

Not to go off topic here, but I have been so busy lately I havent been reading any of the threads here..so I'm curious about this one. I lost track of what was being said.

Subscribing to it.

 

[tall73]

In a thread that you commented in you gave the impression that you oppose the idea of a church having a Creed.

For that matter, you gave the impression that that is one reason why you have decided to leave the SDA church. That is, you have been turned off so to speak, because our Church requires that a person should agree with its teachings before he/she can become a member of it.

http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=40848062&postcount=20

Perhaps I misunderstood you. Please share your thoughts with me on this.

Actually most churches have some creed, but usually the basic Christian ones, which I have no big issue with.

The Adventist church though has a stand on a great number of issues in the 28 that are required for membership. We say they are not a creed but they do function as such.

Now as to my decision to leave it is simply because I cannot subscribe to the particular beliefs required of Adventists. Therefore it is better for me to go to a church that does not spell out everything you have to believe on a wide variety of topics but simply leave room for more than one opinion on some issues.

 

[BGMCFAR]

Tall 73 The one thing that most people forget that even the apostles didn't always agree Paul sometimes didn't agree with peter and so on , but they were all teaching the gospel. So I'm glad you leave room for discussion because some brother or sister may receive some lightor understanding and what a shame it would be if that person was not allowed to share it with others

 

[woobadooba]

Actually most churches have some creed, but usually the basic Christian ones, which I have no big issue with.

I would even go so far as to submit that all of them do.

You see, even if they were called 'the Denomination of Anything', as in anything goes, they would still be using a Creed of 'anything goes' to make the determination of what constitutes truth for them. Thus they would expect people who would want to become a part of their Church to agree with this philosophy, lest they be treated as people who oppose their faith which in itself would be self-contradictory because such a faith would just simply prove to be another mask for intolerance, while giving the false impression of being one that is accepting of all views.

But as for the idea of a Creed being more tolerable because it is 'basic', that doesn't make much sense to me as I see the basic teachings of Christ as being intertwined with beliefs that are more advanced. Thus they are all interconnected. Therefore, if one were to reject a teaching at any level that person is in essence rejecting some aspect of Christ's teaching. In such a case as this how could one still be identified as belonging to Christ when he does not agree with Christ (this is assuming that the truth has been presented to this person, but has been rejected by him)?

So it appears to me that a Creed should consist of more than the basics of our faith, as it is purposed to define what our faith stands for.

Do you agree with this?

The Adventist church though has a stand on a great number of issues in the 28 that are required for membership. We say they are not a creed but they do function as such.

Are we not required by God to accept what is written in the Bible as truth that applies to us to substantiate that we are really walking with God?

If this is the case, then why would it matter that there are many beliefs to accept as truth which define a faith that one wants to become a part of?

In other words, if there are 10 doctrines which define a faith movement, should the people of that movement only expect people to accept 5 in order to become a part of it?

Did the Apostles expect the people that they were witnessing to to receive their complete teachings in Jesus Christ in order to identify themselves as believers, or were they only expected to accept some of them?

And if they didn't expect them to receive all of them, then what sense was there in inculcating ideas that really weren't important enough to adopt into one's sphere of thought and belief?

Now as to my decision to leave it is simply because I cannot subscribe to the particular beliefs required of Adventists. Therefore it is better for me to go to a church that does not spell out everything you have to believe on a wide variety of topics but simply leave room for more than one opinion on some issues.

And how does that motif agree with what Paul describes here:

Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. (1Co 1:10 KJV)

Certainly it is God's objective for His people to be one both in spirit and in truth.

Can we honestly say we are adhering to this standard if we are one only in some things that a true, while being divided on other matters which concern the truth as it is in Jesus Christ?

 

[tall73]

I would even go so far as to submit that all of them do.

You see, even if they were called 'the Denomination of Anything', as in anything goes, they would still be using a Creed of 'anything goes' to make the determination of what constitutes truth for them. Thus they would expect people who would want to become a part of their Church to agree with this philosophy, lest they be treated as those who oppose their faith, which in itself would be self-contradictory because it would just simply be another mask for intolerance, while giving the false impression of being accepting of all views.

Sounds fine to me. I think you are missing the point as to my personal reason for raising the creed issue. I don't agree with the Adventist version. It spells out more things than most and some of them I do not agree with. Unless it has changed you do not agree with one either.

But as for the idea of a Creed being more tolerable because it is 'basic', that doesn't make much sense to me as I see the basic teachings of Christ as being intertwined with beliefs that are more advanced. Thus they are all interconnected. Therefore, if one were to reject a teaching at any level that person is in essence rejecting some aspect of Christ's teaching. In such a case as this how could one still be identified as belonging to Christ when he does not agree with Christ (this is assuming that the truth has been presented to this person, but has been rejected by him)?

So it appears to me that a Creed should consist of more than the basics of our faith, as it is purposed to define what our faith stands for.

Do you agree with this?

No.

Are we not required by God to accept what is written in the Bible as truth that applies to us to substantiate that we are really walking with God?

If this is the case, they why would it matter that there are many beliefs to accept as truth which define a faith that one wants to become a part of?

I think there are many things that comprise the faith. But there are also somethings that are disputable matters.

Therefore to take a stand on all of the little details actually limits study of the Scriptures.

In other words, if there are 10 doctrines which define a faith movement, should the people of that movement only expect people to accept 5 in order to become a part of it?

Did the Apostles expect the people that they were witnessing to receive their complete teachings in Jesus Christ, or just some of them?

Sorry, not seeing your point. The apostles left us the Bible. They did not leave us a creed. Some things in the Bible are disputed. Therefore to take a stand on some of these issues is to make a ruling on a disputed matter which is not always helpful.

As to not agreeing with 5 of 10 I did not agree with more than one Adventist belief so I left.

And if they didn't expect them to receive all of them, then what sense was there in inculcating ideas that really weren't important enough to adopt into one's sphere of thought and belief?

Perhaps you think I have a problem with Adventists having a creed. I don't. They can have any creed they want (though they don't call it what it is in this case). But I don't agree with it so I have no reason to stay under it when there are churches I can agree with in what they require.

And how does that motif agree with what Paul describes here:

Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. (1Co 1:10 KJV)

Check Romans 14 for cases where some things were not clear, not were Christians to judge their brothers on these issues. Not everything is clear.

Certainly it is God's objective for His people to be one in both spirit and in truth.

Can we honestly say we are adhering to this standard if we are one only in some things that a true, while being divided on other matters which concern the truth as it is in Jesus Christ?

Apparently Paul could.

I don't know anyone yet who understands all truth save for God. So unity is not based on perfect agreement on all issues.

 

[annie1speed]

Can I post here? Not sure. So Erase me if I am out of order.

The only creed any church should have is the Bible. What I am talking about is a God-made creed, not a man-made creed.

 

[BGMCFAR]

I see the church hasn't changed much in 60 years Iwas born into the sda church and I see thatdoctrine still seems tobe what every one is cocerned about. Whe I've learned one thing its our personal relationship with Jesus that is the most impotant thing in this world and yet I can remember when a church was completely divided because of doctrine a church i grew up in legalism so overwhelmed the the church it almost died. I guess that is why I left the church some twenty years ago. Ilove the Lord and I'mn stilla chirstian and I still believe a lot of things I learned as a child and I went to advetist schools and graduated fro and adventist academy. When the adventist church realizes that teaching the gospel of Jesus is more important than doctrine the sooner you will have more people in your church. Know one noes whats in a mans heart except God .

 

[woobadooba]

Sounds fine to me. I think you are missing the point as to my personal reason for raising the creed issue. I don't agree with the Adventist version. It spells out more things than most and some of them I do not agree with. Unless it has changed you do not agree with one either.

And you have an alternative view for everything that you disagree with about our church doctrines that can be clearly substantiated by the Holy Scriptures?

If not, how do you know for sure we are wrong?

Just because something does not appear to make sense that doesn't necessarily mean it is false?

Is it not safe to say that without an alternative view that can be clearly substantiated by the Holy Scriptures that you really can't be sure that your argument against what we believe is valid?

And even if you do have a valid argument, that certainly doesn't mean that our Church is out of connection with God so much as to warrant a departure from it. In fact, by leaving the SDA church you are in essence deeming it to be inferior to what you have accepted insofar as the truth is concerned. Therefore, for our sake you should be willing to allow us to examine the teachings of such a Church as you have done so with ours, so that we too can find out if what you have accepted as being something better than what we have is actually of God.

You see, you have made the statement that God has led you out of the SDA church. Thus you are implying that those of us who have chosen to remain in it are wrong for doing so. For, if it were God's will for us to be members of this Church, then why would He lead you out of it? Someone must be deceived here, and in order to find out who it is we need to take a look at both sides.

So because you have made such a statement I personally feel that you need to disclose what Church you have become a part of, so that we can take a closer look at its teachings and history, to see if God wills that we should become a part of it too.

Now I don't mean to suggest that you ought to tell us where this church is; rather, I would just like to know what it is called so that I can find it on the internet and take a look at what it stands for in comparison to what the SDA church stands for.

No.

For the sake of those who are lurking, this reply from Tall73 is in response to what I had said here:

'But as for the idea of a Creed being more tolerable because it is 'basic', that doesn't make much sense to me as I see the basic teachings of Christ as being intertwined with beliefs that are more advanced. Thus they are all interconnected. Therefore, if one were to reject a teaching at any level that person is in essence rejecting some aspect of Christ's teaching. In such a case as this how could one still be identified as belonging to Christ when he does not agree with Christ (this is assuming that the truth has been presented to this person, but has been rejected by him)?

So it appears to me that a Creed should consist of more than the basics of our faith, as it is purposed to define what our faith stands for.

Do you agree with this?'

Now my question for you Tall, is why do you not agree with this?

I think there are many things that comprise the faith. But there are also somethings that are disputable matters.

Therefore to take a stand on all of the little details actually limits study of the Scriptures.

And how do you determine what is a minute issue as compared to one that isn't?

And if all such matters are true then why should some be less important than others?

Sorry, not seeing your point. The apostles left us the Bible. They did not leave us a creed. Some things in the Bible are disputed. Therefore to take a stand on some of these issues is to make a ruling on a disputed matter which is not always helpful.

Let's clear something up here. A Creed is quite simply a belief system which defines a faith movement, or a set of beliefs or standards that identify who we are, what we are expected to believe, and how we are to act as a people belonging to God.

Does the Bible not fit such a description as a measure which makes such a determination?

If so, then how could you oppose having a Creed that contains many teachings as compared to one that only has a few basic teachings, or say the Apostles didn't leave us a Creed, especially when Paul made it very clear to Timothy that he should 'preach the word', and use Holy Scripture to rebuke, correct, and to give instruction to people in righteousness? 2Tim. 3:16-17; 4:2

Was Paul not inspired by God to speak thusly? He must have been, because Peter referred to his writings as Holy Scripture. 2Pt. 3:16

And since Paul made it very clear that a believer should receive instruction in righteousness from the Holy Scriptures to learn what it means to be perfect, or complete in Christ, it is quite evident that he meant to suggest that the whole of Christ's teachings ought to be accepted. This would then include both the basic and advanced teachings of the gospel, as all such teachings find their basis in Holy Scripture. Thus Holy Scripture defines what it means to be a true believer in Christ Jesus, and is therefore a Creed that is even more advanced in detail than that of the SDAs official beliefs.

So why then would you have a problem with a Creed that has many beliefs attached to it as opposed to one that only has a few?

The only thing I would suggest that one should have a problem with concerning a Creed is a false teaching that may be attached to it, but not the Creed itself merely because it is one which consists of many beliefs, as it is evident that it isn't wrong to have a Creed as such. To the contrary, the Bible supports the idea of having such a Creed as a Creed is purposed to define who we are insofar as what our relationship to God is. And the Bible contains many teachings that we are expected to adhere to as believers who identify ourselves with God.

Perhaps you think I have a problem with Adventists having a creed. I don't. They can have any creed they want (though they don't call it what it is in this case). But I don't agree with it so I have no reason to stay under it when there are churches I can agree with in what they require.

So it's more about how little your current church requires of its members to believe than how much truth our church has and expects its members to uphold that has caused you to leave us?

Again, I would like to know what your church believes. I would like to know every single teaching that is heralded as truth in it so that I can examine it and discover if God has really led you to it, or if you are just mistaken. For, certainly if God has led you out of this church and into the one that you belong to now then I am also in the wrong place, and in need of going to the church that you have become a member of as it must have more light, yes?

Check Romans 14 for cases where some things were not clear, not were Christians to judge their brothers on these issues. Not everything is clear.

Paul wasn't addressing the matter of what wasn't clearly spelled out in the gospel of Jesus Christ. He was addressing the issue of ascetics who wanted to give a little more to God than what was prescribed in the Holy Scriptures, and the fact that they were falsely accusing others of not walking with Christ because they didn't adhere to their manner of worshiping God.

After all, the truth must have been clear enough. Otherwise, how could Paul have given instruction on the matter, and how would the people that were spoken evil of know that it wasn't necessary to adhere to such ascetic practices, as it were? I would even go as far as to submit that the underlying point of his thought can be found in the OT. In any case, it is certainly clear now as we have Paul's words to give us guidance on the matter!

I don't know anyone yet who understands all truth save for God. So unity is not based on perfect agreement on all issues.

It is not a matter of understanding every little detail about God. It is a matter of being one in the truth as it is disclosed in the Holy Scriptures which are God breathed. 2Tim. 3:16

If what you have gone into has less truth than what we have come to know as a Church, or opposes critical teachings such as the correct view of hell, the state of the dead, the law of God, the Sabbath, etc..., then it doesn't make sense to say that God has led you out of the SDA church, but makes more sense to say that you merely have chosen to leave it, and are using God as an excuse to justify your departure from it when in fact He really hasn't led you in this way.

 

[tall73]

Let's clear something up here. A Creed is quite simply a belief system which defines a faith movement, or a set of beliefs or standards that identify who we are, what we are expected to believe, and how we are to act as a people belonging to God.

Does the Bible not fit such a description as a measure which makes such a determination?

If so, then how could you oppose having a Creed that contains many teachings as compared to one that only has a few basic teachings, or say the Apostles didn't leave us a Creed, especially when Paul made it very clear to Timothy that he should 'preach the word', and use Holy Scripture to rebuke, correct, and to give instruction to people in righteousness? 2Tim. 3:16-17; 4:2

The Bible is not a creed of systemized beliefs. It is a record of God's dealing with man that contains some systemized elements, but is not itself a cut and dry list of beliefs as a creed would be.

Now are the Scriptures the rule of faith and doctrine for the Christian? By all means. They are God inspired. They are for teaching and instruction. But it is not as simple as a list of beliefs. And there are areas of dispute.

But if your view is that the Bible is the true creed then why does Adventism have 28 points to agree to? Why not just take the Bible?

I want a church where I can study the Scriptures and follow my conscience. The Adventist church is not it.

Nor do I intend to posit one church--the one I am going to--as better than the Adventist church. There is more than one church that allows members to study the Scriptures and follow their conscience. The body of Christ is not limited to one place that I happen to go to.

If the Adventist church did not major in minors and insist that every member subscribe to the 28 then I would likely still be there. But since they do I am not.

Now the humorous part is that there were a number of folks who said that if I did not agree with all our beliefs I should leave. Now that I have left they say "where could you go?"

The apparently want me to just pack it in and go to hell.

No thanks. Christ is doing fine outside of Adventism.

 

[freeindeed2]

The SDA church claims to have no creed in spite of the fact that they have a book defining virtually every aspect of human existance according to the committee who put it together based on the writings of EGW as she interpreted Scripture through her writings. Most Christians operate on principles from Scripture alone without it being defined by a church-claimed prophet who is an 'authoritative source for truth'.

 

[woobadooba]

The Bible is not a creed of systemized beliefs. It is a record of God's dealing with man that contains some systemized elements, but is not itself a cut and dry list of beliefs as a creed would be.

The idea that it is not systematic doesn't make it any less Creedal than a document which presents such teachings in a systematic format. It's the nature of a Creed that is important here, not the way it is packaged.

And the nature of a Creed is that which consists of a number of beliefs and moral standards by which we are to identify ourselves as a people that foster a belonging to God. In the case of a particular denomination, such a standard of faith would identify who truly fosters a belonging to that Church.

Of course, this shouldn't be an issue with you as I'm sure that the Church that you have become a member of expected you to adhere to certain teachings to show that you foster a belonging to it; and such teachings must have their basis in the Holy Scriptures which likewise contain beliefs and moral standards that we are expected to accept and live by to demonstrate that we have a belonging to God, right? So I really don't see that there is a difference here when looking at the matter from the perspective of the 'nature' of a Creed.

However, that doesn't seem to be the main issue with you, at least not as much as it is an issue with you that we supposedly have too many doctrines that we require a person to accept in order to become a member of the SDA church. Having said that, it is quite obvious to me that it's far more demanding that we accept the Holy Scriptures in their totality as being "God Breathed" than it is to merely accept 28 fundamental beliefs. Yet, we are expected to do just that if we desire to identify ourselves as a people that belong to God. For, what else does it mean to believe in God but to believe everything that He has disclosed about Himself via the Holy Scriptures?

Hence, the idea that we are somehow wrong for having too many Fundamental beliefs that we expect people who wish to identify themselves as belonging to our Church to adhere to is a moot point, because it is far less demanding to expect people to accept 28 Fundamental beliefs as being of God than it is to accept the prescribed teachings and moral standards of the Bible in their totality as being inspired by God.

After all, as you had implied, the Bible contains certain elements that are hard to fathom because they don't really make sense, and in some ways even defy reason. Yet, we must accept them as inspired by God lest we show ourselves to be people that really don't believe everything that God has disclosed about Himself through them.

Moreover, because you have an issue with one or more of the 28 fundamental beliefs of the SDA church, I really don't see that that warrants a departure from the SDA church as I'm sure there are things in the Bible that you most likely have an issue with too, but are expected to accept on faith as being true if you desire to be numbered as a true believer in Jesus Christ.

So in my opinion, the argument against a Creed on all counts doesn't really hold water for me.

But if your view is that the Bible is the true creed then why does Adventism have 28 points to agree to? Why not just take the Bible?

I think a better question to ask is whether those beliefs are true or not.

And if you consider any one of them not to be true do you have an alternative view that can be clearly substantiated by the Holy Scriptures, or do you reject such teachings simply because they do not make sense to you?

I want a church where I can study the Scriptures and follow my conscience. The Adventist church is not it.

Where is it written in any one of our beliefs that this kind of practice is discouraged?

Nor do I intend to posit one church--the one I am going to--as better than the Adventist church. There is more than one church that allows members to study the Scriptures and follow their conscience. The body of Christ is not limited to one place that I happen to go to.

But you said God led you out of the SDA Church. Thus you are implying that God doesn't want you to be a part of this Church, but some other Church.

So I am assuming that you believe that God has led you to the Church that you are currently a member of. Hence, the logical conclusion is that if He led you out of the SDA Church and into the one to which you currently belong, then that must mean what you have now is of God, and what you have left behind isn't. For, if what you left behind is of God, then why would He lead you out of it on the basis that it is in error?

Therefore, I think it is only fair that you share what your Church believes in detail with us, so that we can examine its teachings to determine whether or not God has led you out of the the Church to which we belong, or if your departure from the SDA Church is just simply the result of a personal preference for something other than what we have to offer as a body of believers.

If the Adventist church did not major in minors and insist that every member subscribe to the 28 then I would likely still be there. But since they do I am not.

You were informed by our Church leaders that you could still pastor the church that you were overseeing even though you had issues with some of our beliefs. And it is also evident that the Progressives are still identified as SDAs even though they do not subscribe to all of our teachings. So this point is moot.

Our Church is far more open than you make it out to be.

Now the humorous part is that there were a number of folks who said that if I did not agree with all our beliefs I should leave. Now that I have left they say "where could you go?"

If what you have chosen opposes the truth in many ways, and does not have as much light as what you have left behind, then it was a bad choice on your part to leave it.

The apparently want me to just pack it in and go to hell.

I don't want you to go to hell.

No thanks. Christ is doing fine outside of Adventism.

I like to think that He is working within our Church too.

 

[honorthesabbath]

The SDA church claims to have no creed in spite of the fact that they have a book defining virtually every aspect of human existance according to the committee who put it together based on the writings of EGW as she interpreted Scripture through her writings.

Most Christians operate on principles from Scripture alone without it being defined by a church-claimed prophet who is an 'authoritative source for truth'.

Ah Free--this is because none of the other churches were given a prophet because they are not the remnant-DAH!

 

[freeindeed2]

Ah Free--this is because none of the other churches were given a prophet because they are not the remnant-DAH!
[/color]

LOL. Simply because they believe Jesus to be the FULL-revelation of the Father. You can have your prophet. I'll stick with Jesus Christ, the Savior and ULTIMATE revelation of the Father.

 

[honorthesabbath]

LOL. Simply because they believe Jesus to be the FULL-revelation of the Father. You can have your prophet. I'll stick with Jesus Christ, the Savior and ULTIMATE revelation of the Father.

Whatever.

 

[freeindeed2]

Whatever.

Whatever??? Whatever what? Is Jesus NOT the full revelation of the Father? Is he NOT the Savior? Do you have something else? Please share how you can say 'whatever' when Jesus is lifted up.

 

[woobadooba]

Whatever??? Whatever what? Is Jesus NOT the full revelation of the Father? Is he NOT the Savior? Do you have something else? Please share how you can say 'whatever' when Jesus is lifted up.

It's not that these things are not important to her. I think she just doesn't want to argue.

And I put this thread up to address Tall73's idea about a Creed. So I would appreciate it if you would let this thread serve its purpose and not take it off track.

 

[freeindeed2]

It's not that these things are not important to her. I think she just doesn't want to argue.

It wasn't an argument, although we're realizing that some have a hard time telling the difference between discussing and arguing.

And I put this thread up to address Tall73's idea about a Creed. So I would appreciate it if you would let this thread serve its purpose and not take it off track.

Jesus is perfectly within the scope of discussing creeds.

 

[tall73]

The idea that it is not systematic doesn't make it any less Creedal than a document which presents such teachings in a systematic format. It's the nature of a Creed that is important here, not the way it is packaged.

Here is the definition of a creed from Merriam-Webster's online dictionary:

1: a brief authoritative formula of religious belief
2: a set of fundamental beliefs

The Bible is

A. Not brief
B. Not just a list of fundamental beliefs.

It comprises a number of books in a number of genres, etc.

A creed is obviously a brief list of essential beliefs used for a purpose.

The 28 qualify, but the Bible does not.

And the nature of a Creed is that which consists of a number of beliefs and moral standards by which we are to identify ourselves as a people that foster a belonging to God. In the case of a particular denomination, such a standard of faith would identify who truly fosters a belonging to that Church.

Note the word CONSISTS of. It does not just include fundamentals but consists of a list of fundamentals. The Bible, while it obviously includes fundamentals, does not do so in creedal form.

That is why denominations find it necessary to make succinct, authoritative lists in the first place.

Now, what is the creed of Adventists? Clearly the 28, not the Bible only.

Of course, this shouldn't be an issue with you as I'm sure that the Church that you have become a member of expected you to adhere to certain teachings to show that you foster a belonging to it; and such teachings must have their basis in the Holy Scriptures which likewise contain beliefs and moral standards that we are expected to accept and live by to demonstrate that we have a belonging to God, right? So I really don't see that there is a difference here when looking at the matter from the perspective of the 'nature' of a Creed.

I am attending a church. I am not a member of a church. They subscribe to the apostles creed in a generic sense, though I haven't seen them swear anyone in by it yet

However, that doesn't seem to be the main issue with you, at least not as much as it is an issue with you that we supposedly have too many doctrines that we require a person to accept in order to become a member of the SDA church. Having said that, it is quite obvious to me that it's far more demanding that we accept the Holy Scriptures in their totality as being "God Breathed" than it is to merely accept 28 fundamental beliefs. Yet, we are expected to do just that if we desire to identify ourselves as a people that belong to God. For, what else does it mean to believe in God but to believe everything that He has disclosed about Himself via the Holy Scriptures?

The problem comes in when the 28 you are required to believe do not fit what you are finding in the Scriptures.

Hence, the idea that we are somehow wrong for having too many Fundamental beliefs that we expect people who wish to identify themselves as belonging to our Church to adhere to is a moot point, because it is far less demanding to expect people to accept 28 Fundamental beliefs as being of God than it is to accept the prescribed teachings and moral standards of the Bible in their totality as being inspired by God.

I think I already mentioned the Adventist church can have as many beliefs as they want. I just think it is a mistake for the very reason that people should be able to follow their conscience without these 28 being spelled out in detail. The church does not have to agree with me.

In any case, since I could not agree I just moved on to a place where I can agree with what they require and that allows me to study things out.

Moreover, because you have an issue with one or more of the 28 fundamental beliefs of the SDA church, I really don't see that that warrants a departure from the SDA church as I'm sure there are things in the Bible that you most likely have an issue with too, but are expected to accept on faith as being true if you desire to be numbered as a true believer in Jesus Christ.

Huh?

I can accept what the Scriptures say because they are inspired. If they DISAGREE with the 28 then I have to toss out the 28 which ARE NOT INSPIRED. And yes I do think it is a big deal if I disagree with multiple beliefs of the church that they REQUIRE me to believe and will be talking about constantly. So if I find they disagree with the Scriptures why would I then just live with it if the Scriptures are the real authority?

I think a better question to ask is whether those beliefs are true or not.

And if you consider any one of them not to be true do you have an alternative view that can be clearly substantiated by the Holy Scriptures, or do you reject such teachings simply because they do not make sense to you?

A. If the Scriptures are in your view a big creed then why do we need another? They are not a creed of course, but your argument is that they are. If the Scriptures are EVERYTHING we must believe then why have 28?

B. You don't need an alternative to reject something that clearly is not in line with the Scriptures. Rejecting a false belief that you have held is the first step to finding a new alternative. In many cases I actually already have an alternative. You can read for instance in my IJ thread about what I feel fulfilled the type of the day of atonement presentation of blood.

I want a church where I can study the Scriptures and follow my conscience. The Adventist church is not it.

Where is it written in any one of our beliefs that this kind of practice is discouraged?

If I am required to accept only that which the denomination agrees with on 28 points then I obviously do not have liberty to study and come to my own conclusions on those 28 points, based on the Scripture evidence.

Therefore, again, I am leaving because my views are not in line with what is required of an Adventist.

If I cannot in good conscience agree with the church and what it requires, then why stay?

But you said God led you out of the SDA Church. Thus you are implying that God doesn't want you to be a part of this Church, but some other Church.

Again you have not pointed out where I said that, and I don't remember saying it. Now do I believe that the Scriptures indicate that the IJ, for instance, is un-biblical? Yes. So if the church will not permit me to believe otherwise on it then I must leave.

So I am assuming that you believe that God has led you to the Church that you are currently a member of. Hence, the logical conclusion is that if He led you out of the SDA Church and into the one to which you currently belong, then that must mean what you have now is of God, and what you have left behind isn't.

Woob, I do not think that God led me to the new "one true church".

I think I am currently at a church because of my convictions from Scripture, that allows me to assent to their basic beliefs and to study the Scriptures for what they say on a number of peripheral issues.

God did not give a direct message to leave the Adventist church. Nor do I remember God indicating to me what church to go to. We actually visited several and settled on this one for now due to it not requiring anything we object to and it giving freedom to study.

I was convinced of what the Scriptures taught and chose a church that did not require me to believe something that I could not assent to and did not want to hear about all the time.

Since I do not think God's people are only in one "true " church I have no issue with leaving the Adventist church because they require something that I cannot assent to.

Therefore, I think it is only fair that you share what your Church believes in detail with us, so that we can examine its teachings to determine whether or not God has led you out of the the Church to which we belong, or if your departure from the SDA Church is just simply the result of a personal preference for something other than what we have to offer as a body of believers.

I think the Adventist church has more than one doctrine that is not supported by the Scriptures. I therefore left because they required me to believe them. I won't make a statement at all saying that God is not using the Adventist church because I think He uses every church, even with errors in them.

But I would not stay and assent to something that I was required to if I didn't believe it.

So all you need to assess your current position is to ask whether the church you are in requires you to believe what you think the Scriptures do not teach.

If so then you can make your own choice. And as I said, there is more than one option out there.

You were informed by our Church leaders that you could still pastor the church that you were overseeing even though you had issues with some of our beliefs. And it is also evident that the Progressives are still identified as SDAs even though they do not subscribe to all of our teachings. So this point is moot.

Huh? I was? My conference president told me no such thing. I had time to see if I could reconcile the issues. But at no time did he say I could just forget the investigative judgment, etc. and not worry about it.

Now one official, not the president, made one statement that hinted at the possibility. He never elaborated and I wasn't asking because that was not an option for me anyway. If the church requires this of its members, and if I am staying in the church, assenting to it then I am saying I agree with it by my membership.

And it all depends on what church the progressives are in as to whether they can remain. But I was not going to sit around and listen to doctrines that I am supposed to assent to , which I did not assent to, and never be able to say anything about it. Nor did I want to attend a church where I could never be really involved in ministry because I did not accept all their beliefs, and in most churches around the division this limits the ministries you can be a part of, the offices you can hold etc.

What is the point? Why stay when I could go to another church where that is not an issue?

If what you have chosen opposes the truth in many ways, and does not have as much light as what you have left behind, then it was a bad choice on your part to leave it.

And if they do not oppose the truth in many ways, and some of our "truth" is not truth, then what?

Look Woob, you yourself were saying I should resign from ministry to follow my convictions. You pressed me on an internet board to do this though I had already said I would study through the issues and do what was necessary in my own time. And that is exactly what I did.

Now you wonder why I followed my convictions all the way? What happened to your appeal to do what is right? Is it because you don't want to do the same, since you also disagree with one of our beliefs?

I don't want you to go to hell.

Some apparently don't want me in the church, and don't want me in another church. Where exactly does that leave me? If you are not one of them, then fine. But you WERE one of them lining up to tell me to leave the ministry. So why now are you suddenly talking about how I could have not only stayed in the church but in the ministry?

I like to think that He is working within our Church too.

Fine. I think He is too.

But if I am convinced that doctrines which I am required to believe to call myself a member are not true then I am not staying. There is no reason to stay when I can worship elsewhere and consent to what they require and can study for myself what the Scriptures say.

 

[JonMiller]

I am fine with you leaving (I don't view the SDA church as some special church the membership of having anything to do with salvation), but I really think that this forum as well as reality shows that you don't need to agree with the fdundamental beleifs to be an adventist. Maybe you do to be a pastor, I am not (and haven't been, obviously) one of those.

JM