Some cases demand discipline.

But you said before that Women's Ordination isn't Biblical. Therefore if it is entered in the FB, then you would be saying the FB includes unbiblical views.

You would disregard Women's Ordination if they included it?

Am I understanding you correctly that you see there could be a possibility of including a doctrine you believe is wrong or unbiblical of which you would disregard, but yet you would not conclude it is not the voice of God?! That is, you are saying the voice of God could include doctrines which you believe are wrong or unbiblical.

Really?

I don't remember saying I think WO is unbiblical. I do not believe the Bible prohibits it.


See my comment above.


Many decisions are voted on during a GC Session. Do they get every single vote right? I don't know. I have never bothered to check. As it relates to the FB I care very much. So far, all 28 FB are biblically sound. I very much doubt a GC Session will vote to include a false doctrine in the FB. But if they did - it would not lead me to conclude they are not voice of God when in GC Session. Just because they get one thing wrong doesn't mean everything else is wrong. A mute point, however, because so far they have gotten all 28 FB right.

Staying on topic. Some cases demand discipline.


Here's one of the passages:

Galatians
1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Galatians
5:12 I would they were even cut off [G609: amputate, mutilate the privy parts] which trouble you.

Does it make a difference if the member is obstinate or ha fallen and needs spirtual guidance? Can we alway be sure if we see the difference?

Excellent question. Yes, church discipline should be tailored to fit the circumstances. Which is why I posted the case-study above in such precise detail. I cannot imagine any church board deciding not to discipline the person described in the case-study I posted above. He was unapologetically aggressive in his campaign to proselytize church members. He was convinced beyond doubt that the church doctrines named above are grossly wrong and that it is his calling and mission in life to save SDA from deception and destruction. There was no question in my mind, or in the minds of anyone else, that the poor man needed to be disfellowshipped. It was a long, loving, laborious process that consumed many months and many tears.

So you're saying that if the FB included false doctrine, it would still not lead you to "conclude they are not voice of God when in GC Session". That is, the voice of God could include false doctrine.

Which boils down to what we've been asking you. Who gets to determine whether they are Biblical or non-Biblical, the truth or false. So far, all you've offered is that you get to decide.

What you're really saying here is that the church should discipline members for even that which isn't specified in the 29+/- FB.

So why have them if you are going to use what they don't say against members?

Kland, the 28FB are sound, biblical doctrines. Do you agree? If not, why not? The GC Session has never included false doctrines. I doubt they ever will.