Ray Dickinson states: Why do we need the authority of the …

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

Ray Dickinson states:

Why do we need the authority of the church to define our beliefs, when we have Jesus’ authority?!

In light of Ray’s understandable concern, all of us in the discussion of the needed amendment of FB6 can take courage at the extraordinarily significant preamble to our statement of Fundamental Beliefs voted in 1980. Its powerful language shows that our statements are not creedal, can be revised, and that the Bible is our only creed:

“Seventh-day Adventists accept the Bible as their only creed and hold certain fundamental beliefs to be the teaching of the Holy Scriptures. These beliefs, as set forth here, constitute the church’s understanding and expression of the teaching of Scripture. Revision of these statements may be expected at a General Conference session when the church is led by the Holy Spirit to a fuller understaning of Bible truth or finds better language in which to express the teachings of God’s Holy Word.”

In view of this valuable preamble, it is important to note that in 2004 the Holy Spirit led the General Conference Executive Committee to vote clearer language, than now exists in FB6, by which to express the church’s understanding of the teaching of the Bible on this key biblical truth. Placing this helpful, Bible-honoring language into FB6 at a General Conference session is actually encouraged by the preamble of the church’s statement of beliefs. Doing so would not only bring honor to God in the church’s witness to the world regarding origins, but would also enable church members, students, teachers, administrators in the church’s schools and church structure to understand more clearly, endorse and support the the Holy Spirit-guided position of the church on origins.

John Also Commented

A little-known history about Belief 6
George,

You have also asked several times for an explanation regarding why a six-day Creation is said to be so important to the gospel. You wonder why do we not simply emphasize that humanity is sinful and that Jesus’ death on the cross saves us. In other words, you seem to be asking what does a six-day Creation have to do with these central facts of the gospel?

The following consideration is only one among several which have been of assistance to me in grasping why a six-day Creation is vitally important to the gospel. If the claim that life has been on earth for millions of years truly reflects earth history, then a six-day Creation cannot be a true earth history model, and the fossilerous geologic column indeed has taken millions of years to form. This would mean, of course, that human beings have allegedly made their appearance only recenlty in earth history. Above all, if the long age of life on earth model is true, this would show that life and death have been going on for millions of years before the existence of humans and before the first human sin. If this consequence is true, human sin in this case is no longer responsible for death either for humans or for the lower creatures. However, the Bible clearly teaches in Genesis 2-3; Romans 5 and 8 that by one man sin entered the world and death by sin. Even the lower creatures, that cannot sin, were subjected to corruption or to death not of their own will but by the Creator (Romans 8:20-23) because of the first human sin. Thus, accoridng to the Bible there should not be death in the animal kingdom or in the geologic column before the sin of Adam and Eve. But the geologic column, if interepreted by conventional geology, counters this biblical truth by having animals and even proto humans dying for millions of years before the first human sin.

Now, if physical death exits before human sin, what effect does this have upon the gospel, i.e., upon the substitutionary atonement, upon the cross of Christ, upon the heart of the gosepl? Nigel Cameron pinpoints the effect which death before sin has upon the gospel. He states that were Adam from the beginning under the effects of the curse of physical death as implied in evolutionary theory and in theistic evolution, “this overthwors the sin-death causality, and in so doing pulls the rug from under the feet of the evangeilical understanding of the atonement” (Nigel Cameron, EVOLUTION AND THE AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE [Greenwood, South Dak: Attic Press, 1983], p. 60).

Cameron is indicating that if true, long ages of life on earth before the sin of Adam and Eve show that death is not the wage of sin. However, that death is the wage of sin is the biblical foundation of the substitutionary atonemetn. This means that if the geologic column indeed shows that death is not the wage of sin, then the geologic column, interpreted conventionally, implies that the death of Christ is not the wage of sin and that, therefore, the blood of Christ no longer forgives sins. This means, George, that we have no gospel if death has been around for millions of years before human sin because there allegedly is no six-day Creation. How does a six-day Creation enter the picture with hope?

The answer is that a six-day Creation places the first appearance of death after the first human sin, thus rendering the death of Christ indeed the wage of sin. This means that with a six-day Creation the blood of Christ does indeed still forgive our sins. This shows how that without a six-day Creaiton we have no gospel, but how that with a six-day Creation we the gospel. This helps me to see why a six-day Creaiton is so important to the gospel. I hope, George, that you find it useful as well.

One additional point. The conclusion above also shows why a global Flood is so important in any acount of a recent six-day Creation model of earth history and how the Flood is important to the gospel. In ways that continue to be studied, many stata, not all, were deposited during the global Flood, thus accounting for the deposition of basic portions of the column during the Flood, and, thereby, making possible a recent, six-day Creation. In this fashion the Flood safeguards the gospel, because without the Flood, death would exist in the geologic column before the first human sin. But with a Flood the basic column with its death is formed after the first human sin, thereby preserving the essential sin-death causality, which, as notd above, is the basis of the biblical, evangelical understanding of a Calvary able to forgive sins.


Recent Comments by John

Lawrence Geraty, Fritz Guy, and the Framing of Fundamental Belief #6
Thank you, Ken, for your kind evaluation of my remarks, and for your sound explanation of the time period to which your perspectives pertained.
In appreciation,
John


Lawrence Geraty, Fritz Guy, and the Framing of Fundamental Belief #6
Regarding the question whether in its currently worded form does FB6 represent the official position of the Seventh-day Adventist church, we need to remembeer that in General Conference session, 2010, the delegates voted to affirm “A Response to an Affirmation of Creation.” andalso voted that a reformulated FB6 in 2015 should be voted which reflects the contents of “A Response to an Affirmation of Creation.” Importantly, the content of “A Response . . .” rejects the notion that life forms have been on earth on earth for millions of years, and at the dame time “A Response . . . ” affirms a global flood, thus strongly rejecting progressive creation and theistic evolution. Happily, this means that until 2015 we have an officially voted General conference interpretation of the current wording of FB6 which interpretation, as noted above, does not support the teaching of macroevoltion in our schools as the position of the SDA church regarding earth history.


Jay Gallimore comments on evolution conflict
This thoughtful assessment by Jay Gallimore is encouraging and on target. It seems to me that at Atlanta, the Holy Spirit gently took the hands of Ted Wilson and placed them onto the helm of the ship,His church,and turned it directly into the looming iceberg, in response to the heavenly command, “meet it!” As never before, this is a time for the continuing expression of genuine Holy-Spirit-promted inter-family love, prayer, respect, dialogue, and patience. As guided by God, in the end, only good and healing can flow from such decisions taken at Atlanta. May God give me and each of us the living faith needed at such a time.


One reason why the debate about origins is relevant
Well said, Roger, this is part of the big picture puzzle of which David Read speaks so well. I am very concerned about the approach taken by Steve at the moment. Perhaps we can expand the response by Jesus to Steve and to all of us before the time of the ultimate judgment along the following lines. I begin by quoting what Steve says:

Jesus saves me because I have a trusting, committed relation with him. [So far so good.] I simply do not believe on the Day of Judgment I will find myself standing before Jesus to hear him say, “I know you loved me with all your heart and to the best of your ability; I know you took every opportunity to draw close to me; I know you cared for the unlovable, but [now we need to let Jesus speak more fully]:

“But, and I say this with a broken heart, because you did not believe in six recent literal 24 our days of Creation, about which I lovingly and repeatedly told you about in the Scriptures, and which idea was not new to you but you had studied about it all your life, and the Holy Spirit had keep prompting you to believe this truth all your life, but you rejected His sweet voice to the end, you, and I say this with tears in my voice, cannot enter into eternal life. Why? Steve, I am the way, the truth and the life (John 14:6). This means that I and my teachings are one which means that to reject what I say is to reject me. To not trust what I say, is to not trust in me. To not love and accept what I say is to not love me, and not to be in committed relationship with me.

“All those individuals, Steve, who enter my kingdom, accept gladly, happily and eagerly whatsoever I have taught and have commanded them in both the Old and New Testaments (Matt 28:20). This includes my teaching about a six day creation, and the fact that I created humans both male and female at the beginning (Matt 19:4-6), even on the sixth day of Creation (Gen 1:27, and amplified in Gen 2:7, 15-18, 21-25).

“I would love to welcome you into the kingdom, but if you were to come into my kingdom, and if you do not believe in a six day recent creation, you would need to change your mind and believe in my teaching about a six day creation, which, unfortunately, it seems you will not do, and which I neither can nor will force you to do because I respect your freedom. So I say this weeping, it is not I who have rejected you–if your absolute, ultimate, and final life position remains that you continue to disbelieve me in my teaching about a six day creation–it is you who have rejected me, my beloved Steve, whom I adore beyond words. Nevertheless, [before the Day of Judgment] I hold out hope to you, and invite you to believe my words. If you love me, please believe and obey me (John 14:15)”

Perhaps we can imaging Jesus gently and with tears saying something like this to all of us human individuals before the final day of judgment?


“Don’t go backwards to interpret Genesis as allegorical or symbolic”
Well said, Yolanda. I join you in a renewed committment to being about our Father’s business. The merciful and faithful Creator is moving with a strong arm. With Zacharias, we can continue to say, “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel” (Luke 1;67).