A little-known history about Belief 6
@BobRyan:
Hi Bob Ryan,
Again you are completely speculating (and not even a good speculation). Those quotes are about the leaders of this church. You prove my point even further by stating over and over that the 27 FB is always the book to ‘unify’ on. This is all that you say every time. What a shame. Don’t you want to unify on what the Bible says? Again the 27 FB is confusion. Our pioneers were right when they said people would look to books like these (creeds) for insight, etc… I’m sorry that you cannot see this.
God Bless,
David R.

A little-known history about Belief 6
@BobRyan:
Hi Bob Ryan,
Please re-read all the statement I gave where Ellen White said over a succession of years about the voice of the GC being the voice of God. She says in one of the statements “that is past”. She said what she did in the statement you are quoting at a time when the current GC was is harmony with God. But soon after things started to change.
You have NO basis other than human wisdom to uphold a man-made creed. You are putting ideas into her writings that are not there. How is unifying on the Fundamental Beliefs helping us when the book is so unclear on many points of our doctrines. Jesus said in John 17 that we can only unify on truth.
As for offshoots – I’m not sure exactly what you mean – but I am not or even part of an offshoot just because I don’t accept a man-made book. By your own definition who is really the offshoot? The one who is planted on the firm foundation or one who is steering off and upholding man-made books as equal as or better than the Bible or SOP? Who would be considered shooting-off – the one who stays with the Bible and SOP or the one who goes to Willow Creek to learn how to do church? Who is the off-shoot – the one who preaches the Three Angel’s Messages or the one who has forgotten about them and shuts their mouth when a major event happens confirming that Jesus is about ready to come.
Read in the Great Controversy about the Waldenses – they did not leave the church – it was Rome who left. The Waldenses stood right where they were. Martin Luther (and others like him) did not leave the church – Rome did. But yet most would say these people left the church.
Like the Reformers – I will stay put on a firm foundation. I’m not leaving historic Adventism.
God Bless,
David R.

A little-known history about Belief 6
Hello,
I noticed I made a mistake in my reply to Shane. In the 2nd sentence of my reply I said “And I believe that others like myself are misjudging.” I MEANT TO SAY “And I believe that others like myself are misjudgED.”
Thanks,
David

Defining Adventism: A poll

Connie: David R, thank you for your balanced contribution to this discussion.
Having survived the acid years of the 80’s at PUC when our church lost thousands of precious kids because of the un-Christlike spirit exhibited on all fronts (more so than over doctrine), I would plead with those involved in this debate to reflect the spirit of Jesus Christ.Yes, Christ said He brought a Sword that would cut through the nonsense, but His prayer for us is that we will be one as He and the Father are one. The true followers of God will be known by their love, not by their doctrines. Yes, I believe that the doctrines are an outgrowth of our love for God resulting from actually reading, knowing and believing the Word of God, but I also believe that a result of our surrender to God and His will, will result in a passionate love for each other and not an infusion of venom.
It is crucial that we stand for truth, but let us never forget that the Truth is a Person. Truth is not the 28 or the 3 or the whatever. Truth is a Person. I am not saying to cry “Peace, Peace” when there is no peace, but for the love of God and our children, stand up for truth with the spirit of Jesus Christ and not with the spirit of the devil. More harm is done by an unconverted Bible thumper than any other kind of individual. This battle must be fought on our knees with the focus first being on the surrender of our own attitudes, agendas, and caustic spirits or the victor will not be Truth even if truth is the outcome.The verse, “Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment.” (James 3:1) has always been a sobering verse to me. We are to be a highway of holiness that any person that ever has anything to do with us should be able to take straight to the heart of God. We need to fight our battles in God’s armor, not our own or we will surely defame the Name of God.  

Hi Connie, Thank you for your response. While I agree God’s people will be known for their love – but I think the problem lies in the fact that we may not understand the full meaning of certain words that are thrown around today: love, criticism, judgmental.
Before going any further: In Jesus’ prayer for unity in John chapter 17 please read vs. 17 – It says “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” Jesus is praying for unity of his follower based on “truth”. This is the only kind of real unity we can have. It is always quoted (or I should say misquoted) that Jesus wants us to be unified as a church therefore you people that are causing a hornets nest need to settle down and let’s just have love and peace so we can be unified all for the sake of Jesus’ prayer. It sounds great but the context of that statement is misused because Jesus prayed that we be unified on truth.
1 Corinthians 1:10 “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.” Notice the emphasis placed upon doctrine in these texts Mark 1:22, Mark 4:2, Romans 16:17, Ephesians 4:14, 1 Tim 1:10; 4:13, 16; 5:17; 6:1, 2 Tim 3:16; 4:2, 3, Titus 1:9; 2:1, 7, 10, 2 John 1:9, 10. There are more but that is sufficient.
Love – Almost everytime someone comes along and calls sin by it’s right name they are branded as not being kind or not showing love and even being judgmental. You seem to imply it about me (which to me is being judgmental). It is NOT judgmental to point out sin or apostasy. It is not unkind or unloving to do this either. It is actually the opposite. The greatest act of love is to warn someone of the dangers they are in or approaching. There is a sentiment throughout Adventism about NOT preaching the Third Angel’s Message. What kind of love is this – not to proclaim this message with power and conviction. Then when the end comes – millions are lost who might have accepted the message if they had heard it earlier. That’s loving people straight to hellfire. Now I agree we should use tact and discretion but I believe we have gone way beyond this. I have a 5 year old ministry that is primarily dedicated to “inreach”. I have several presentations on end time events. Every church – and every time – I go to I have people commenting that they have been in the church for 10, 20 and even 30 years and have never heard an end-time message. How sad. My aim is to fire-up the SDA people and hoping they will share our Three Angel’s Messages with others. But the greatest act of love we can show to people is too tell them the truth.
Did Jesus have a bad attitude, or was unkind when he rebuked the leaders of his day? Was he unloving when he called them vipers? Did he have a demon in him when he did these thing? The answer is no. To rebuke and reprove someone is an act of love. Do a study on that word reprove and rebuke – I don’t have it here in front of me but one of the definitions (in the Greek) is “to add value to” – and this should be the motive of the one giving it. Rev 3:19 “As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.”
Love is the greatest thing available to us. Jesus is the ultimate example of love but as a people we must be careful not to fall into the “love” gospel trap – the SOP tells us that is a form of spiritualism.
God Bless!

Defining Adventism: A poll

Rich Constantinescu: Bob Ryan: “I also agree that the only thing “voted” by the entire church is the language of the actual 28 Fundamental Beliefs. “The Book” the 27 Fundamental Beliefs has a lot of great information explaining our beliefs – but the language in that book was never “voted” by the denomination as perfect, flawless or even correct. It is a “best effort” by one or two primary authors – it is not the voted position of the entire denomination.”David R: “Hi Bob, I have to kindly disagree – the Fundamentals book is an OFFICIAL book by our denomination on our beliefs. To my knowledge there have only been two books officially put out by the Conference on doctrine.”I agree with Bob.
Other books published by departments of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventist include, How to Give Bible Readings (Home Missionary Department) and Pastoral Ministry (Ministerial Association Department).
God bless,Rich  

Hi, I was familiar with this – But I’ll tell you what – Start putting this book down or denying it in anyway and you will be a ‘heretic’ to the vast majority. I would be willing to bet (if I was a betting man) that if you openly deny this book in anyway you would be pulled from your positions in your church, etc… Thus proving the importance put upon this book.
Also if the book is not ‘official’ then why is it the ‘acid test’ for baptismal candidates? Read it for yourself in the Church Manual on pg. 33 “2. Do you accept the teachings of the Bible as expressed in the Statement of Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and do you pledge by God’s grace to live your life in harmony with these teachings?” The Church Manual IS an official book – voted on by the General Conference in Session.

Defining Adventism: A poll

BobRyan: @David R.:This has been suggested in the past – however we have a number of universities NOT selling Adventism out for evolutionism – and they are accredited.But in the sense that a sudden loss of biology staff in significant numbers could affect accreditation for biology (not because of creation vs evolution – but because of a lack of post-grad and PHD level faculty in the biology department) could be an issue. They might have to can their offerings in biology until they can find good replacements.in Christ,Bob  

Hi Bob, Accreditation does not cause one to teach error – it allows for it with no recourse because of legal issue that could arise if action was taken against the one in question. From my understanding we should allow ONLY SDAs to work in our institutions. I don’t know what the percentage is in our schools but the medical field is very low from what I have read.

Defining Adventism: A poll

BobRyan: @David R.:I agree with the complaint here. Historically Adventists were very opposed to anything close to a “creed” not because they felt their existing doctrines were in error – but rather, because they knew they had more to learn and did not want to be frozen in time.I also agree that the only thing “voted” by the entire church is the language of the acual 28 Fundamental Beliefs. “The Book” the 27 Fundamental Beliefs has a lot of great information explaining our beliefs – but the language in that book was never “voted” by the denomination as perfect, flawless or even correct. It is a “best effort” by one or two primary authors – it is not the voted position of the entire denomination.The “completed atonement at the cross” language would not be supported by the church in general – as it is more Calvinist than Adventist. The Adventist position is that the “Atoning Sacrifice” was completed at the cross. The payment for sin.In that model – the remaining aspects of the Lev 16 process of atonement on the “Day of Atonement” (that which pertains to the work of the High Priest’s work inside the sanctuary) is still continuing.Thus you make a good point about the language of the book being flawed in some areas.in Christ,Bob  

Hi Bob, I have to kindly disagree – the Fundamentals book is an OFFICIAL book by our denomination on our beliefs. To my knowledge there have only been two books officially put out by the Conference on doctrine. The first was “Seventh-day Adventist Answer Questions on Doctrine” (published in the 1950’s). Anyone knowing the history on this book should know where I’m going here. This book, while containing very scholarly work undermined our position on the (human) nature of Jesus, the Sanctuary, true righteousness by faith, as well as other issue and doctrines. I have an original copy of the book. Fastforward about 25 years and you have the second official book by the conference “Seventh-day Adventist’s Believe…” – this book is a ‘ghost’ of “Questions on Doctrine”. Very confusing, not very clear, etc… But this book is an OFFICIAL book by our denomination.
Another thing I think people should take note in this book is the references throughout the book – many of the references are from Sunday keepers. What do Sunday keepers know about our faith? I had this book for 15 years before I realized these things. Like many, I suppose, I just assumed everything in this book is what I was taught at the Revelation seminar I attended and then was baptized at. It goes to show we are all asleep at the wheel.

Defining Adventism: A poll

PATRICK:
David you plead eloquently for the Bible as our only guide, and caution rightly against making a written creed equal with or even superior to the Bible.Then you turn around and plead for adherance to a doctrine based on what the pioneers believed, and also appeal to the writings of EGW.Do you sense the dissonance in your position?Why not keep it nice and clean and simple: the Bible alone, Christ alone, by faith alone?  

Hi Patrick, The Bible is the only creed to define doctrine – if it’s not in the Bible it’s really useless – plain and simple. As for the Spirit of Prophecy – do you have any problems with the SOP? I’m just asking – I’m not picking an argument. The BIBLE says in Rev. 12:17 that the end time remnant will have the testimony of Jesus. Rev. 19:10 says that is the Spirit of Prophecy. I’m sure you know the verses. Ellen White manifested this gift. She doesn’t add anything that the Bible doesn’t already have. I can prove very clearly all the doctrines of (historic) Seventh-day Adventism from the Bible alone. God gave us this prophet because He loves us. Prophets set the record straight so the church won’t be tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine. The reason we are ‘exploring’ new views, methods, etc… is because we have made the SOP of none effect. In essence we say we believe it but don’t heed the counsel for what it is. So the SOP is Biblical – that is why I mention it.