Comment on Northern California Conference Votes to Act Independent of the General Conference by Sean Pitman.
I think you’re a bit confused on this statement. This statement correctly notes that the volume, the commentary book itself, on the church’s fundamental beliefs has most certainly not been officially endorsed by the church. However, the actual statement of “fundamental beliefs” has in fact been officially endorsed by the world church in session – and was reaffirmed in 2015 at the San Antonio session (with a few officially endorsed modifications).
It was back in 1946 that the General Conference session officially voted a Statement of Fundamental Beliefs (Link). Ever since, the fundamental “belief statements” have been officially voted expressions of Adventist doctrine. The expositions of these officially voted doctrinal positions, on the other hand, are not officially voted upon, but “can be used to amplify and deepen members’ understandings of those beliefs.” (Link)
Sean Pitman Also Commented
Northern California Conference Votes to Act Independent of the General Conference
LOL 😉
Northern California Conference Votes to Act Independent of the General Conference
Thanks…
Northern California Conference Votes to Act Independent of the General Conference
I still fail to see an explicit statement forbidding the ordination of women pastors here…
Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!
The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…
The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…
Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?
Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.
Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).
Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.
