Are there any Protestants that abstain from pork?

[SDA2RC]

flameburns623:

One last thought:
I have a different take on ‘dissidents’ versus ‘cafeteria Christians’ of whatever ilk. Roman Catholics or SDA’s or Mormons who argue for changes on principle are NOT engaged in ‘cafeteria religion’. The ‘cafeteria Catholics’ ‘cafeteria Adventists’ or whatever are those who pick-and-choose based upon special pleading, with no overarching principle involved. An Adventist who eats pork because ‘my doctor says it’s okay, so Ellen White must’ve been mistaken’, for example. As opposed to someone who argues that EG White misunderstood the Scriptural texts involved and that the SDA Church should therefore set aside this aspect of Adventist teaching–even if the dissident thinker themselves does not actually choose to eat pork so long as it is an official policy of the SDA Church to abstain therefrom. Obviously, either Adventist might be subjected to SDA church discipline, but the one is simply making a lifestye choice out of convenience, the other is making a principled statement in favor of change. .

I understand what your saying…and seperate from all other considerations, I would say that your right, there is a difference between convenient dissent and legitimate dissent in motives but not in end result or its impact to most churches. Most conservative religions have a church authority structure which provides a method of “divine intervention” in the doctrine discernment process, hence giving it authority. Therefore by advocating change whether based on a sound principle or based on cultural expediency, the person is in effect arguing against God.

Generally this authority principle is the basis for the foundation and doctrinal integrity of the church, therefore when a dissident questions one particular doctrine that uniquely identifies the denomination, they are automatically questioning much of the doctrine and authority of the Church by domino effect. When they try to choose one or two doctrines they disagree with, and yet claim they are not questioning the entire legitimacy of the church, in my opinion they are either not realizing the implication of their positions or they are being what I, probably inappropirately, call a “Cafeteria x”.

Example:
SDA Church teaches that the Holy Spirit works through the GC when in session to reveal the will of God.

Dissident questions pork:
Either the holy spirit was not working through the GC in session when it approved this article of faith (number 22 I think) OR the GC in session ignored the Holy Spirits promptings thus allowing it to teach an incorrect doctrine.

Either way, by questioning the Church on pork, one must be ready to also answer the issue of Church authority, and hence the very foundation of the church. No one doctrine or stand is an island unto its self.

Unfortunately, many Christians either don’t or won’t continue their position to its ultimate end, and therefore claim they are only trying to improve one particular thing.

Not sure if I made my point clear… but…for what its worth. BTW… i am enjoying the dialogue, thanks for taking time to discuss Adventism and now this.

Brandon

 

[flameburns623]

SDA2RC:

Here I have to ask: haven’t the SDA Articles of Faith been revised a few times over the years? Isn’t there at least some room within the SDA’s understanding of itself for ‘new light’ and a ‘fresh understanding’ which could lead to marked changes?

I think that even ‘Infallible’ concilliar or Papal statements can be revised or at least hedged under very specific conditions. One can argue that altough it has been taught for over a century, (and continues to be taught currently) that a Pope ‘infallibly’ defined the Assumption of Mary–that the Pope concerned and subsequent Magisterial teachers were simply mistaken. I.e., that the Papal definition in some wise failed to rise to the level of an ‘infallible’ decree. (I’m suggesting this as a theoretical possibility, NOT as something likely to occur any time soon).

Hans Kung has argued that the idea of Papal infallibility itself may in some wise be a faulty understanding. Currently, Kung is himself shut out from being considered a ‘Catholic theologian’, but it is theoreticaly conceivable–though practically it is very unlikely–that Kung’s ideas might be expropriated in the future to give the RCC a chance to ‘wiggle out’ of a position which proves to be a barrier to ecumenism or for whatever other reason.

This apart from the fact that I think few denominations have quite so high a view as you suggest of their denominational distinctives. Generally, while they can be quite stubborn in adhering to those distinctives, most churches concede that if the weight of Scripture and the evidence ever came down against their views, they would abandon those distinctive doctrines or practices for more Scripturally-aligned views. I had forgotten, or perhaps never realised that the SDA Church thinks of itself as peculiarly ‘inspired by the Holy Spirit’ in it’s decisions and Articles of Faith.

 

[SDA2RC]

flameburns623:

SDA2RC:

Here I have to ask: haven’t the SDA Articles of Faith been revised a few times over the years? Isn’t there at least some room within the SDA’s understanding of itself for ‘new light’ and a ‘fresh understanding’ which could lead to marked changes

ROTFL… absolutely, there is a lot of room for them to accept some “new light” in fact allegiance to the pope would be a nice step LOL Seriously though, absolutely, but I think that would be defined by them. For example I know there is a discussion on whether the temple in Heaven, which is key to their Investigative Judgement doctrine, is symbolic or literal. On whether the move from the Holy to the Most Holies was a physical move by Christ or merely a move or change in ministries. These are issues which have not been settled in their theology and so are open to discussion. However, there are a great many items that they would say have been defined by God and the Church in scripture and therefore are not open to debate. Those who do so, do so outside the pale of the church.

flameburns623:

Hans Kung has argued that the idea of Papal infallibility itself may in some wise be a faulty understanding. Currently, Kung is himself shut out from being considered a ‘Catholic theologian’, but it is theoreticaly conceivable–though practically it is very unlikely–that Kung’s ideas might be expropriated in the future to give the RCC a chance to ‘wiggle out’ of a position which proves to be a barrier to ecumenism or for whatever other reason.

Yes and no… Luther for example had some very valid criticism and dissent about some of the practices that were occuring in his day. However, his dissent led to schism and heresy. Had he continued his dissent within the framework of the church, I would argue that he would have had a similar effect without the division. I think that all churches have a forum for learning or better understanding, but it does not generally include an opportunity to attack those funadmental beliefs which define a community. In this the SDA and Catholic faiths are the same. There must be an ‘out of bounds’ where the dissenter ceases to be the faith he is dissenting from. I think that line is drawn by the community.

flameburns623:

This apart from the fact that I think few denominations have quite so high a view as you suggest of their denominational distinctives. Generally, while they can be quite stubborn in adhering to those distinctives, most churches concede that if the weight of Scripture and the evidence ever came down against their views, they would abandon those distinctive doctrines or practices for more Scripturally-aligned views…

I would argue that most denominations have already concluded on the basic issues where the weight of scripture supports them. The problem is that even on the most essential doctrines there is disagreement between them.

flameburns623:

I had forgotten, or perhaps never realised that the SDA Church thinks of itself as peculiarly ‘inspired by the Holy Spirit’ in it’s decisions and Articles of Faith.

very much so… in fact the SDA church believes that it’s very being and rising is decreed by God to call man out of Babylon.

Brandon

 

[bengal_fan]

i kind of feel like a TWA passenger in the 80’s the way this thread has been hijacked…lol. just kidding. talk amongst yourselves. i’m a little vaklempt.

 

[SDA2RC]

bengal_fan:

i kind of feel like a TWA passenger in the 80’s the way this thread has been hijacked…lol. just kidding. talk amongst yourselves. i’m a little vaklempt.

Your right… sorry

Brandon

 

[Micki]

Ryniev:

I tend to shy away from pork just because pigs disgust me! One of my best friends is Jewish (reformed) and she loves the stuff.

But I digress…

That’s my point exactly!! Pigs are so ugly they deserved to be eaten.

Micki