As I mentioned earlier, I’m not trying to fight belief …

Comment on A little-known history about Belief 6 by George.

As I mentioned earlier, I’m not trying to fight belief in creation or support belief in evolution. I’m trying to advocate for the core of the Gospel and tolerance of other differences.

When there’s conflict, I see wisdom in asking what is really most important. It seems to me that the most important issue is that humanity is sinful and in need, and that God and has come to save us. This is the essence of the Gospel and we are called to share it with the world. Please correct me if I’m missing something. I’m going to write this post using this definition, and I’ll adjust later if I need to.

As SDAs, after about 150 years, we are about 15 million people trying to reach almost 7 BILLION people. We represent about 2 tenths of 1 percent of the world population, so we have a long way to go.

At different points in history, God has chosen to shake things up and radically change how people understand Him. I’m thinking of Abraham, Moses, Jesus (obviously), Paul, Luther and others in the reformation, and Ellen White and the pioneers. In those times, people had to let go of long held beliefs in order to accept God’s new light. Is it possible that this might be one of those times?

Genesis 1 is beautiful poetry. Perhaps it’s not intended to be a scientific document. Perhaps it’s intended to show that God is the source of life, He’s powerful, He’s orderly, He’s loving. I think the Gospel as I described it above is the same with or without a literal 6-day creation.

In Deuteronomy, the 4th commandment is explained as a commemoration of God bringing His people out of the slavery of Egypt. This is symbolic of how God brings each of us out of the slavery of sin. In a sense, the Sabbath has more value as a reminder of how God has saved us than it does as a reminder of God’s power at creation before humanity even existed. In a sense, we can be a better blessing by shifting our origin of the Sabbath from Exedous to Deuteronomy.

The Judaizers in Paul’s day were no doubt very pious, sincere believers. They believed that Jesus had come to save humanity from sin. They also believed that we must hold on to what God has revealed through prophets who had gone before. God’s people had held these beliefs and practices, as revealed through Moses, for 1500 years. How could they be abandoned now? These beliefs and practices were seen as essential in every way. Paul understood that the core of the Gospel is that humanity is sinful, and Jesus had come to save us. He saw that the Judaizers were adding unnecessary barriers to entry that was hindering the spread of the Gospel. His efforts prevailed, and that is what we believe today. By making belief in a 6-day creation a requirement, are we becoming the Judaizers of our day?

God revealed through Gallileo (and other scientists) that the earth is not the center of the universe. Gallileo, et al, were not prophets, but humanity did learn through them truths about God’s other revelation, nature. There was probably strong Biblical support for the belief that the earth was the center of the universe (I think I’ve heard Psalms was part of that). To believe what the scientists of their day were saying was considered heresy. In time, God’s people came to believe the heliocentric truth that God had shown them. And this even became a basis for further spiritual insight (eg, everything revolves around the Sun/Son).

God’s creation is full of diversity. Geology, climactic zones, plant life, animal life, atomic elements, sub-atomic particles, humanity, language, ideas, even religion. God not only tolerates such diversity, He created it, and I believe He embraces it.

Is it possible for us to promote what is essential, that humanity is sinful and God is here to save us, and embrace diversity in everything else, including origins?

George Also Commented

A little-known history about Belief 6
Sean Pitman said:

This is the current situation within the SDA Church. There are different factions where some believe that the Bible is clearly in support of a literal creation week while other factions do not believe this at all or do not believe that the Bible says anything definitive regarding emprical reality whatsoever – that the Bible is only useful when it comes to giving moral meaning to our lives, but says nothing about how to interpret physical reality or empirical truth.

This is why a clear statement of fundamental beliefs as to what the Scripture is likely trying to say is helpful, even necessary, to a viable Church organization as a basis of official or paid representation…

Well stated, Sean.

If one faction wins out of the other in terms of revising or not revising FB6, what happens to the losing group? Should they be disfellowshipped? Should they be shamed into withdrawing? Or is it not really an issue of membership, but rather an issue of establishing church policy so that church employees (faculty) can be required to promote (teach) fundamental beliefs?


A little-known history about Belief 6
Kevin Paulson said:

No one, certainly not Ellen White, has stated that if the General Conference in global session votes for doctrinal error, that we are to accept this as infallible truth.

How might it come to pass that the GC would vote for doctrinal error? If it was voted for, how would anyone know it is doctrinal error? Would there be a majority that supports what was voted for? Since it went all the way to a vote, would they consider it a deeply held belief? Would there be a minority that considers it to be error? Since they are opposing something that was voted by the world body, would they consider their objection to it to be a deeply held belief? Both groups would probably have what they consider to be a solid Biblical case, combined with their experience. Would the two groups have a different interpretation of the Bible? Perhaps one group would take a more literal interpretation of the Bible, and the other group would take a less literal interpretation of the Bible. How would an SDA who is not well versed in the issue know which group is correct? How would one know which interpretation is correct? How would we know?

Fundamental Beliefs go through a process that ends with a majority vote at a GC session, right? What if it is mistaken?

What if a potential new member believes all the FBs before the vote of a new FB, but can’t accept the new one after the vote? Do we deny this person membership? It seems we must.

What if a potential new member believes 27 of the 28 FBs? Do we deny this person membership? It seems we must.

There’s plenty of other denominations they can go to, right?


A little-known history about Belief 6
Do you think that this article, which advocates for a revision to FB6 because it is missing 3 Adventist Historical Landmarks, is an appeal to “tradition” in the codifying of belief?


Recent Comments by George

GC Votes to Revise SDA Fundamental #6 on Creation
Kevin Paulson,

So, when you say that those you disagree with (Lawrence Geraty along with the entire Spectrum/Adventist Today crowd) need to go join the Episcopalians where they belong, you chose Episcopalians because they are the least Biblically based Christian group that comes to mind?


GC Votes to Revise SDA Fundamental #6 on Creation
Kevin,

Why do you refer to Episcopalians as a better place for these men? I understand why you’d say they don’t belong in the SDA church. But is there something about the Episcopalians in particular that makes a good fit? Why not the Presbyterians, Baptists, Lutherans, or Methodists? Or did you just choose another denomination?

I guess what I’m really asking is, would one of the other denominations make a good fit for former SDAs who don’t believe in a Biblical creation?


Report on LSU constituency meeting
John D. Sproed said: God wrote the ten commandments with his own finger.

When Got wrote them with His finger, did He write the version in Exodus 20, or in Deuteronomy 5? or the Catholic Liturgy version, which Roman Catholics (half the world’s Christians) would say is God’s true intent?

And, does God expect us to keep the Sabbath rituals the way it is defined in the Bible?


Report on LSU constituency meeting
Ron Stone says: Progressives do not appeal to common sense. They appeal to “what does the modern world believe?”

It seems to me that progressives look at WHY people believe what they believe, and they see merit to other interpretations. I think they consider it quite rational. I think they think common sense is open minded and not limited to a single interpretation that does not include historical context and intent of the original author.


Dr. Geraty clarifies his “Challenge” to literal 6-day creationism
I met Dr. Geraty for the first time today. My initial impression is that he is closer theologically to Dr. Pitman than he is to many progressive Adventists. I would suggest caution in being critical of people like him. One might end up without any allies.

And, I’m reminded of something I posted here several weeks ago. We need to identify the core essentials and focus on those, and give people the freedom to choose what they want to believe on non-essentials. Historical Adventists are convinced a literal creation is essential. Progressive Adventists don’t think it is essential.

We also need to remember that the SDA church in north america is not thriving. We’re losing a lot of people every year. Educational institutions are on the edge of viability. What are we missing? What is God telling us that we’re not hearing? Maybe we need to be more open to the real world that people live in.