Comment on A little-known history about Belief 6 by BobRyan.
Then Ellen White gives us a list of wild crackpot errors that even in her day called for a UNIFIED statement on proven validated doctrine.
1. Bro. Arnold held that the 1000 years of Rev. xx were in the past;
and2. that the <b.144,000 were those raised at Christ’s resurrection.
3. And as we had the emblem of our dying Lord before us, and was about to commemorate his sufferings, Bro. A. arose and said he had no faith in what we were about to do; that the Sacrament was a continuation of the Passover, to be observed but once a year. {2SG 97.2}
These strange differences of opinion rolled a heavy weight upon me, especially as
4. Bro. A. spoke of the 1000 years being in the past. I knew that he was in error, and great grief pressed my spirits; for it seemed to me that God was dishonored.
Thank God we are not left in that “every wind of doctrine quagmireâ€
I fainted under the burden. Brethren Bates, Chamberlain, Gurney, Edson, and my husband, prayed for me. Some feared I was dying. But the Lord heard the prayers of his servants, and I revived. The light of Heaven rested upon me. I was soon lost to earthly things. My accompanying angel presented before me some of the errors of those present, and also the truth in contrast with their errors. That these discordant views, which they claimed to be according to the Bible, were only according to their opinion of the
99
Bible, and that their errors must be yielded, and they unite upon the third angel’s message. Our meeting ended victoriously. Truth gained the victory. {2SG 98.1}
From Volney we went to Port Gibson. The meeting there was held in Bro Edson’s barn. There were those present who loved the truth, and those who were listening to and cherishing error, and were opposed to the truth. But the Lord wrought for us in power before the close of that meeting. I was again shown in vision the importance of brethren in Western New York laying their differences aside, and uniting upon Bible truth…. {2SG 99.1}
Unity in a common faith – is critical to the success of the church. HENCE the “existence†of the 28 FB – voted statements by the denomination.
@David R.:
Brother Bob,
I appreciate your opinions but you are living proof to my whole case. You actually believe that if we didn’t have the 28 Fundamentals book we would be blown around by every wind of doctrine and fall apart.
I gave a case point in my post (as repeated above) showing exactly that. Showing a state of confusion where EVERYONE in the room had a different spin – and then showing a 28-FB style “conclusion” where everyone was united upon a common statement of faith.
That is pretty hard to miss in that illustration.
My argument is not that we do not study the Bible – my argument is that what Ellen White stated about the voted positions of the church when representatives of the world church meet and work through a given doctrine – is valid.
We see the same thing in Acts 15 in the early church.
Amazing!!! Well please look around – there IS so much doctrinal confusion (and more so than at any other time in the history of Seventh-day Adventism) within the church and we HAVE the Fundamentals book.
We also have a growing and successful denomination with a stable and well grounded set of Bible based Fundamental beliefs. The offshoot efforts to chip away or propose some new doctrine – does not change the voted set in the least.
Going to a condition of LESS order and continually undermining the progress already made – would have the dog chasing his tail endlessly.
You “claim†that the pioneers were only against certain creeds that didn’t allow advancement. I noticed that you did not (and I will say cannot) produce any inspired statements to back up your claim.
Indeed I did not – for the sake of brevity – but there are a list of statements showing that the concern was over the use of a creed to limmit doctrinal progress rather than letting our understanding of truth continue to grow.
But suffice it to say that in the context of the discussion on evolutionism it is “enough” just get the cards out on the Table enough to show that a direct assault on the very IDEA of a 28 FB document is “required” to sustain a realistic promotion of evolutionism inside the SDA church.
That fact, as you seem to be very willing to affirm – is instructive all by itself.
But a large problem with your argument is that the quotes you give to support NOT having a set of doctrines that define the Adventist Church (thus leaving us to every wind of doctrine) – is that your sources specifically speak to “a Church Manual” being opposed — one that deal with “defining every point in the church management and church ordinances” RATHER than a statement regarding ” a list of doctrines of the Seventh-Day Adventist church”.
The quotes you give repeatedly condemn the idea of “ONE Man” (a pope or a king etc) or even “A small group of men” — Administrators of the General Conference Assoc, ruling over the rest of the church.
Not once do your sources condemn the voted representatives of the world wide church – meeting to vote on and approve official Adventist doctrine.
And by contrast to that – I did offer a quote regarding that very point.
We are told that God wants us to take those voted statements as authorotative.
At times, when a small group of men entrusted with the general management of the work have, in the name of the General Conference, sought to carry out unwise
261
plans and to restrict God’s work, I have said that I could no longer regard the voice of the General Conference, represented by these few men, as the voice of God. But this is not saying that the decisions of a General Conference composed of an assembly of duly appointed, representative men from all parts of the field should not be respected. God has ordained that the representatives of His church from all parts of the earth, when assembled in a General Conference, shall have authority. {9T 260.2
in Christ,
Bob
Table of Contents
BobRyan Also Commented
A little-known history about Belief 6
I think it is interesting that it was the corrupt leadership of the Jews at the time of Christ – and to some extent the wide wild singing popular support for them at times – the determined the fate of the Jewish nation.
Those who hijack leadership roles in a given conference or union in areas of education, administration etc in the SDA church just so they can introduce error – can only survive and prosper in that role as long as there are enough people who will “do nothing” to stop it in their local conference.
That is why I am glad the Michigan conference leaders had the leadership initiative and vision to take a stand and let the chips fall where they may.
in Christ,
Bob
A little-known history about Belief 6
Ken: Might I humbly suggest that today of all days is not a day for internecine dispute but rather for peace and love.
Merry Christmas
indeed – today is the day that we celebrate the birth of the Messiah (the Christ). “God with Us”.
The incarnation of God Himself — who chose to step off of the throne of the universe and become an infant born to Mary – sent to save the world. A world that welcomed him by trying to kill all the baby boys two years old and under in the vicinity of his birth in an effort to kill him.
God – our Creator decided that “salvation at any cost” – no matter the price – was worth it to save mankind. And Christ said in Matt 10 that those who freely choose that path of salvation must “take up their cross and follow Me”.
This is a world where Satan has obtained the cooperation of man in many respects.
The Angels of heaven said on that day “Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace good will toward men”. Luke 2
And yet another angel from heaven say in Rev 12:12 regarding the fact that Christ was winning the war against Satan — “Woe to those who dwell on the earth for the devil has come down to you knowing that he has but a short time”.
Even Christ Himself said in Matt 10 “do not think that I have come to bring peace – I have not come to bring peace but a sword” Matt 10.
Christ was referring to the fact that Satan – as the “god of this world” 1Cor 4:4 is at war against our Creator and leads as many of mankind as will – to follow his directions – whether wittingly or unwittingly.
in Christ,
Bob
A little-known history about Belief 6
BobRyan: I am wondering if some over at the spec of truth board – are suggesting that being employed by the SDA church and consuming SDA tithe, offering and gift dollars is a “basic right” of hindus, atheists and evolutionists – such that any denial of their demands in that regard is a “civil penalty” being applied?
Time will tell if they are trying to make that case.
Frankly I doubt that we will see a rush for employment applications by members of those groups operating outside the SDA church today
Ron said : Sean, This statement is completely dis-ingenuous. The intent of the movement to “clarify” the 6th fundamental belief is exactly that – to impose a civil penalty on those who anything other than the most limited of interpretations.
BobRyan:
What civil penalty would that be?
Ron: Perhaps “civil” penalty isn’t the right word, but I am referring to the penalty of having your job threatened and your character maligned.
Ok but that brings us back to my prior statement – listed first in the text above.
in Christ,
Bob
Recent Comments by BobRyan
Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
george:
By definition, I don’t believe in miracles or apocryphal, anthropomorphic stories about same.Why aren’t scientists observing them today if they occur?
Circular argument. If they were naturally occurring we would expect scientists to see that they are still occurring today. If they are singular events caused by an intelligent being – that being would be under no obligation to “keep causing world wide floods” as if “to do it once you must continually do it”. Armstrong went to the moon.. shall we argue that unless he keeps going to the moon so each new generation can see it … then it did not happen?
Your argument is of the form “all eye witness evidence to some event in the past is no evidence at all unless that event keeps repeating itself so we too can witness it”. Seems less than compelling.
“Could it be that science is better able to detect hoaxes and false claims?” As a rule for dismissing every eye witness account in the past – it is less than compelling. (even when that event cannot be repeated)
Evolutionists “claim” that dust, rocks and gas (in sufficient quantity and over sufficient time and a lot of luck) self organized into rabbits via prokaryote-then-eukaryote-then-more-complexity. But such self-organization cannot be “observed” today.
(What is worse – such a sequence cannot even be intelligently manipulated to occur in the lab)
By your own argument then you should not believe in evolution.
Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
@Sean Pitman:
Suppose you were at a crime scene … there is a tree limb on the ground and a bullet hole in the victim — “all natural causes”? or is one ‘not natural’? Those who say that nothing can be detected as “not naturally occurring in nature” – because all results, all observations make it appear that every result “naturally occurred without intelligent design” seem to be missing a very big part of “the obvious”.
Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
george:
Gentlemen,What just God would allow an innocent child to be born guilty for the sins of a distant ancestor? …What if there was only One Commandment? Do Good. ‘Kant’ see a problem with that.
An atheist point of view is not often found here – but this is interesting.
1. God does not punish babies for what someone else did – but I suppose that is a reductionist option that is not so uncommon among atheists. The “details” of the subject you are commenting on – yet according to you “not reading” – is that humans are born with sinful natures. A “bent” toward evil. That is the first gap right out of the gate between atheism and God’s Word..
2. But still God supernaturally enables “free will” even in that bent scenario, the one that mankind lives in – ever since the free-will choice of the first humans on planet earth – was to cast their lot in with Satan and rebellion..(apparently they wanted to see what a wonderful result that poor choice would create). John 16 “the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin and righteousness and judgment”. And of course “I will draw ALL mankind unto Me” John 12:32. (not “just Christians”). Thus supernatural agency promotes free will in a world that would otherwise be unrestrained in its bent to evil.
3.God says “The wages of sin is death” — so then your “complaint” is essentially “that you exist”. A just and loving God created planet Earth – no death or disease or suffering – a perfect paradise where mankind could live forever … and only one tiny restriction… yet Adam and Eve allowed themselves to be duped by Satan… tossing it all away. The “Just God” scenario could easily just have let them suffer the death sentence they chose. He did not do that… hence “you exist” – to then “complain about it”.
4. Of course you might also complain that Satan exists – and Satan might complain that “you exist”. There is no shortage on planet earth of avenues for complaint. But God steps in – offers salvation to mankind at infinite cost to himself – – and the “Few” of Matthew 7 eventually end up accepting that offer of eternal life. The rest seem to prefer the lake of fire option… sort of like Adam and Eve choosing disease and death over eternal life (without fully appreciating the massive fail in that short-sighted choice).
In any case – this thread is about the logic/reason that should be taken into account when a Christian owned and operated institution chooses to stay faithful to its Christian mission — rather then getting blown about by every wind of doctrine. Why let the alchemy of “wild guessing” be the ‘source of truth’ when we have the Bible?? We really have no excuse for that. As for science – we can be thankful that it has come as far along as it has – but no matter how far back you rewind the clock of our science history – we should always have chosen the Bible over wild guessing.
Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions
Ervin Taylor:
Perhaps Dr. Pitman would enlighten his readers what on earth “the neo-Darwinian story of origins” might be. Darwin did not address origins.
Origins of what?? the first eukaryote??
Or “origins of mankind”??
Darwin himself claimed that his own false doctrine on origins was totally incompatible with Genesis and that because of this – Genesis must be tossed under a bus.
hint: Genesis is an account of “Origins” as we all know — even though “bacteria” and “amoeba” are terms that don’t show up in the text.
The point remains – Darwin was promoting his own religion on origins totally counter to the Bible doctrine on origins. He himself addresses this point of the two views.
Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions
Ervin Taylor:
Here we go again.If the footprints upon close examination, are determined not to be from a hominim/hominid, I wonder if Educate Truth (sic) will announce that determination.Or if the date of the surface is determined to be much younger, will there be a notice placed on fundamentalist web-sites.If you believe the answer to these questions are yes, I have a big bridge that I would like to sell you for pennies on the dollar.
Here we go again … hope piled upon hope…no matter the “observations in nature” that disconfirm the classic evolutionary hypothesis
Reminds me of “What we still don’t know” by Martin Reese and Leonard Suskind
