Comment on A little-known history about Belief 6 by George.
David,
I’m trying to just make suggestions. I’m not making any demands. I doubt I’ll convince anyone of anything. I just want to share my thoughts with the hope that it will help someone. I’m also hoping to learn from you.
Within all of Christendom, I think it is very reasonable to have a denomination that holds to the literal interpretation of Genesis. Perhaps that is the niche that the SDA denomination aspires to fill.
At the same time, there are sincere, intelligent believers who have grown up in the SDA community, who have ties to many people and institutions within this community, who conclude that there is reasonable evidence for a very old earth. I don’t think we need to cut them off of their community because of this. The SDA church is really special and I don’t think there’s another denomination out there quite like it.
I keep coming back to the same questions … What is most important? As we try to reach the world, how are we going to make room for 7 billion people? How does God make room for 7 billion people? Or, maybe those who require a 6-day creation don’t aspire to reach 7 billion people, but rather to fill a smaller niche within Christendom.
Table of Contents
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?â€
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.
