This highlights that there are influential church leaders that support each of the perspectives (literal/historical interpretation and non-literal/progressive interpretation). There also seems to be a significant number of members who support each of the perspectives. It seems to me that the denomination stands to gain by keeping a big tent with both perspectives and we stand to lose by forcing one side or the other out.  George(Quote)

“Although there must be nothing that resembles an inquisition, no effort to divide, hurt, or destroy those who may seem to have a slightly different orientation”"

Wishful thinking.  Geanna Dane(Quote)

Maybe we should be more humble about our personal convictions. As a life-long SDA I have always believed in a six-day creation week in the relatively recent past and I have always believed in a worldwide flood, based more on faith than physical evidence. However, I question the wisdom of being dogmatic about the details of what really happened. I think it is unwise to insist (as some here seem to wish) that all SDAs interpret all verses of Genesis literally. And I think it is equally unwise to insist (as some SDA professors do, which is the only reason why this website exists) that the Genesis account of origins is a myth that should be discarded. There are many, many unresolved questions that none of us know all the answers to.

I also think we should be more concerned about being better stewards of what we now have than arguing about how and when it all got here. I fully realize some of you will totally disagree with me, which is okay. Rather than attempting to impose my personal belief system on others, I’m content to let God be in control. I look forward to the day when I will no longer “see through a glass, darkly” and can get answers to all of my questions firsthand from the Creator when we meet “face to face” (1 Cor. 13:12).  Eddie(Quote)

It is interesting that even 30 years ago the liberals were carefully scheming to preserve ambiguity in the language, so that they could hide behind “anfractuosities of language”, as Clifford Goldstein so felicitously put it.

Putting Fritz Guy and Larry Geraty in charge of drafting a fundamental belief on creation is like having John Dillinger draft the laws against bank robbery.  David Read(Quote)

One of the things that even Fritz Guy appears to admit – is that the GC exec committee plan was NEVER for the team at Andrews to rewrite the existing 27 FB once the initial draft had been completed by the GC. Yet they did, and even Fritz Guy was surprised by that surprise level of innaction on the part of the GC.

While I DO support adding whatever language is necessary to clearly state what the actual belief of the denomination is in this regard (literal 7 day week, all genomes created, less than 10,000 years ago, real world wide flood… etc) – I have already listed the areas in which the (now 28) Fundamental Beliefs refute evolutionism even as they are today.

http://www.educatetruth.com/articles/evolution-in-education-by-jay-gillimore/comment-page-3/#comment-4813

And specifically stated this about Belief #6

SDA 28FB Belief 6
6. Creation:
God is Creator of all things, and has revealed in Scripture the authentic account of His creative activity. In six days the Lord made “the heaven and the earth” and all living things upon the earth, and rested on the seventh day of that first week. Thus He established the Sabbath as a perpetual memorial of His completed creative work. The first man and woman were made in the image of God as the crowning work of Creation, given dominion over the world, and charged with responsibility to care for it. When the world was finished it was “very good,’‘ declaring the glory of God. (Gen. 1; 2; Ex. 20:8-11; Ps. 19:1-6; 33:6, 9; 104; Heb. 11:3.)

Evolutionism denies every single point of doctrine 6 for it says;

1. God is not the Creator of all things. At best he created the big bang and then let everything else evolve and create itself over billions and billions of years. Thus the “intelligence” of the Creator cannot be seen in a single thing in nature today unless it is done “by faith alone” believing in spite of seeing nothing.

2. Scripture does NOT give an authentic account of anything such as the creation of all life on earth in a literal 7 day week. It is myth, poetry and storytelling.

3. God did not rest on the 7th day of the first week of Creation — because there was no “week of creation” with 6 literal days and then a 7th literal day in it such that God could rest in a completed work – with mankind already in Eden on day 7. Simply “no such thing” according to evolutionism.

4. Thus God could NOT have “established the Sabbath on day 7″. No not on “Day 7″ nor on the 7 Millionth year nor even the 700 Millionth year!

5. Since the Christian God is not a violent grunting animal-eating cave-dwelling hominid – the first humans were not in the image of God nor did they even have a language complex enough to understand a 7 day creation week concept much less the notion of “keeping the 7th day holy” or seeing God as the ONE true God creator of all life..

6. The first hominids were of such basic mind that there is no way they could have been given “charge” of the earth to “care for it”. They were lucky to even “survive” as day by day they bashed in their ration of monkey brains in their caves.

7. Evolutionism says that by the time mankind came along – the world was ruled by the law of tooth and claw. It was a ruthless and bloody place where “creation” was achieved by virtue of starvation disease, and predation. It was not “good” at all – and humans today should not seek to return to such a bloody death-overall origin.
============================

So while we can see how they have been chipping away at the Sentry Guard positioned at Belief 6 — they have far from removed it’s pointy spear aimed at their pet mythology. The TE’s false religion based on an atheist view of origins and unwittingly adopted (swallowed whole) by some non-critically thinking Theists – is fully exposed in the light of day – by details still remaining in Belief 6.

Recall that many people have claimed to “embrace the 4th commandment” while claiming it was changed to another day of the week – or claiming that it does not really mean the seventh-day from Friday evening to Saturday evening. As much as they like to imagine that “the text does not support the Saturday Sabbath” teaching – it does.

Do we really need to chisle into the 4th commandment “And by this we mean Saturday” or are these imaginative musings of our theistic and anti-Saturday friends really that compelling?

I would be happy for more specificity – but I believe the Theistic Evolutionists myths are much more fully impaled by the remaining statements of Belief 6 – then they want you to realize.

in Christ,

Bob  BobRyan(Quote)

Far from declaring victory and sitting down – our theistic evolutionist evangelists realize that in fact they have a long way to go beyond the tiny victory they achieved in 1980 – if they really want TE to be supported by actual Seventh-DAY Adventists.

Fritz Guy admits his evolutionist bias and his desire to see the Adventist denomination CHANGE –

Realities for Adventist Theology in the 21st Century
Fritz Guy

In the meantime, the evidence for a long developmental history of the visible universe
(something like 13.7 billion years since the “big bang” and often known as “stellar evolution”) has become conclusive, and is accepted by most Adventist scientific and theological scholars. This consensus represents a significant development in much Adventist thinking—from a short age of the entire universe to a short age only of life on planet Earth—in spite of its evident tension with a literal reading of Genesis 1:1-2:4a and Exodus 20:11, and with the expressed view of Ellen White.33

There Fritz Guy claims victory over the long-ages idea for the Universe – but STILL admits that we have a “short age LIFE” doctrine for earth (inspite of his efforts regarding belief 6.)

Furthermore, the available empirical evidence regarding Earth’s own biological history is recognized as more compatible with a long scenario of gradual development than with a short scenario of sudden, recent appearance of present life forms. 34 The accumulating evidence has come from various sources—radiometric dating, genetics, comparative anatomy, geology, and paleontology—and it “has convinced virtually all working biologists” that a “framework of variation and natural selection is unquestionably correct.” 35

Initially there was only one method of radiometric dating—using carbon-14—that projected dates back to 40,000 or 45,000 years, which of course was already a problem for those who believed the whole universe was created less than 10,000 years ago. But it assumed that the production and radioactive decay of carbon-14 has been stable throughout time; but the assumption about radioactive decay was (and is) unprovable, as young-earth creationists quickly pointed out. Now, however, there are forty to fifty radiometric dating methods, including uranium-lead and similar methods (such as potassium-argon) and some completely independent methods (such
as fission-track dating and hydration layer measurements). Some of these newer methods produce ages of four to five billion years for the earth, and two to three billion years for fossils preserving life forms.

At the present time there seems to be no good reason to doubt the gradual development and increasing complexity of life over an extended period of time.

Fritz Guy makes it clear that his own views do NOT favor the “short life” or “young life” position of Seventh-DAY Adventists – and so he argues that we need a CHANGE. He is trying to argue from the standpoint of success regarding the age of the Universe and possibly the age of rocks on earth – in an effort to move the bolder uphill one last mile.

The fact that this (billions of years of evolution of life on earth) recognition complicates our theology hardly justifies discounting the overwhelming empirical evidence. In 1844 our Adventist forbears recognized the empirical evidence that their theology was mistaken, and they revised it accordingly.

So our intellectual efforts in the 21st century ought to be directed not to attacking various details of the prevailing developmental model, much less to denying it outright, but either (a) to developing a comprehensive alternative model, which no one has done
or is likely to do, or (b) to incorporating into Adventist thinking the idea of a gradually increasing complexity of living organisms over a long period of time 36 as an alternative to the traditional paradigm of a six-day creation less than ten thousand years ago.37

Guy freely admits that our statement on doctrine DOES NOT support his belief in billions of years of life on earth! He argues explicitly for a change! He argues that just as the Millerites had WRONG doctrine – so do we now have WRONG doctrine.

He never argues “Belief 6 teaches that life has evolved for billions of years” all he did with Belief 6 is try to adjust the stranglehold noose that Belief 6 puts on evolutionism – by a notch. But it is there all the same and he knows it!

Make no mistake about it.

From the “BEING ADVENTIST IN 21st CENTURY AUSTRALIA “

Envisioning an Effective Adventist Future:
What the Church Can Be in the Twenty-first Century
by Fritz Guy, Ph.D.

http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/doctrines/au2002conference/guy/guy-future.htm

• A subject that just won’t go away is the time and manner of creation—that is, the relation of the creative activity of God to natural history. At the International Faith and Science Conference at Ogden in August 2002, the fundamental issue was the extent to which modern science influences our interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis. It is important to note that the issue was “the extent to which,” not “whether,” science influences our interpretation. …

But there was considerable disagreement was about the age of life on planet Earth. Some argued that the evidence for a very long history of life is persuasive, and that Genesis 1 should be understood as a theological affirmation of God as the source of everything that is. Others insisted that the available evidence is not sufficient to invalidate the traditional understanding of Genesis 1 as a factual description of the actual process of creation. The general discussions were courteous and respectful, but the differences were deep and sometimes passionately expressed. A possible outcome of our continuing conversations might be a recognition and acceptance of a diversity of views on this subject.

http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/doctrines/au2002conference/guy/guy-future.htm

in that above statement – Fritz Guy adds the point that at present not only does Belief 6 condemn his “3 billions years of fossil life on earth” mantra – it also leaves us in a place that does NOT support “a diversity of views on this subject” and so — at the very least – he urges that we change in that regard.

This is far from “I changed belief 6 and now it is all over but the screaming and yelling”.

in Christ,

Bob  BobRyan(Quote)

Geanna Dane: So all this fighting and bickering about an official church position that La Sierra may well be upholding?? And now the church has to more narroly define its position for what- “practicality”? Practicality? So that current employees can be shown the door?

Let the inquisition and hurting and purging begin. I used to love my church but the more I learn about the way Adventists treat Adventists the more shame I feel being an Adventist and I want to vomit.

There’s nothing to fight or bicker over since the general issue is cut and dried, and clear and simple.

As far as vomiting goes, have you considered Jesus’ words in Rev. 3:16? “So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.” If we Adventists refuse to take a stand for Bible truths like creation because of a treasonous desire to get along with apostates, we will be spewed out of Christ’s own mouth. Not a pleasant thought.

Adventists who have apostatized to the point that they have embraced a most dangerous form of infidelity, and are using their position as employees to poison others with their apostasy, shouldn’t be employees.  Bob Pickle(Quote)

@Paul:

Is this about pursuing truth, or is this about some kind of weird purging of the church in which anyone who believes a little differently is booted out?

This is about distinguishing truth from error – light from darkness.

This is about stating accurately what the denomination’s doctrine actually IS and not simply saying “I choose to believe it is wrong so I will make up another doctrine”.

This is about having the honesty not to knowingly and deliberately undermine voted Adventist doctrine – while claiming a pay check from the Adventist system itself FOR supposedly teaching the REAL view of Adventists on that very subject. About having SDA Administration at ALL levels “wake up” to that not-so-subtle reality.

And ultimately it is about having a level of clarity in our statement of beliefs such that the average Joe-member can read it and say “I either DO agree or I do NOT agree” and then make their own choice of what group better suits their own view of the Bible and the World.

As much as these principles may irritate evolutionists — they are still the “1,2,3″ basics of any religious organization.

in Christ,

Bob  BobRyan(Quote)

Curious, isn’t it, how clearly church leaders of the past attempted to prevent statements that went beyond what the Bible says about creation. And now, the sponsors of this Web site claim that we must make things more clear than the Bible statement because we can’t change our traditional beliefs.

So, what’s more important: Limiting ourselves to what the Bible says or preserving our traditions?  Carl(Quote)

Carl: Curious, isn’t it, how clearly church leaders of the past attempted to prevent statements that went beyond what the Bible says about creation.

When? Where? The Bible explicitly states that creation took 6 days, that Noah’s Flood was worldwide, and that life on earth has existed for but thousands of years. The presentation says nothing about statements that go beyond these simple, plain teachings of Scripture.

George:
We need to take a stand that we need to help people know Jesus and be liberated from the burdens of sin. We need to stand up and say that spreading the gospel is more important than origins.

Yet evolution destroys the gospel, and thus your suggestion does not make sense.

The Bible teaches that the human race fell. Evolution teaches that the human race is climbing ever upward.

The Bible teaches that that fall brought death into the world for the first time. Evolution teaches that death existed long before man.

The Bible teaches that we need a Savior in order to be transformed. Evolution teaches that we are improving on our own, and have been doing so for millions of years.

The Bible teaches that its utterances are authoritative truth. Evolution teaches that the Bible is full of error.

Evolution undermines the gospel to the point that, from what I recall, doctorf, an evolutionist who is a professor at an Adventist school, and who somehow still claims to be an Adventist, has stated that he does not believe in the virgin birth, and that he is unsure whether we will be resurrected. And Erv Taylor could not state a single Bible story that he believed to be accurate and authoritative as written, whether from the OT, the gospels, or Acts.

Why don’t you take a little survey of the skeptic academicians out there and see how many believe various facets of the gospel message, like the fall of man, the depravity of fallen human nature, the virgin birth and incarnation of Christ, the deity of Christ, the substitutionary atonement, the resurrection of Jesus, the high priestly ministry of Christ in both its phases, the soon return of Jesus, and the resurrection of the righteous dead at that return? You might be surprised at the results.  Bob Pickle(Quote)

@Carl:

Curious, isn’t it, how clearly church leaders of the past attempted to prevent statements that went beyond what the Bible says about creation. And now, the sponsors of this Web site claim that we must make things more clear than the Bible statement because we can’t change our traditional beliefs.

So, what’s more important: Limiting ourselves to what the Bible says or preserving our traditions?

“SIX DAYS you shall LABOR.. for in SIX DAYS the Lord Made” Ex 20:8-11

Only a gross level of eisgesis would demand inserting DIFFERENT meanings for day into the text when dealing with the SAME author on the SAME subject in the SAME sentence!

Adventists simply are not known for the extreme eisegesis you are hoping for when it comes to the text of scripture.

in Christ,

Bob  BobRyan(Quote)

George: I agree. We need to take a stand that we need to help people know Jesus and be liberated from the burdens of sin. We need to stand up and say that spreading the gospel is more important than origins.

The Gospel’s message of a solid hope in a bright literal future is largely based on a correct understanding of origins…

Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com  Sean Pitman, M.D.(Quote)

George: The logic of this article seems to me to be that we should hold this doctrine because of it is our tradition.

We should hold this doctrine because this is what a straight reading of the Bible says about a literal creation week. It is very clear, from a straight reading of the text of the first two chapters of Genesis, that the author(s) of this account intended to describe real historical events that took place in a week of six literal days.

Consider the following comments from James Barr, Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford:

Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the “days” of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.

Letter from Professor James Barr to David C.C. Watson of the UK, dated 23 April 1984.

Consider that Prof. Barr did not believe in a literal creation week. But, he did believe that the writer(s) of Genesis believed in a literal creation week.

So, it is not us “historical” Adventists who are trying to alter the obvious intent and meaning of the biblical authors. We believe that their understanding was correct. Those who think that they didn’t understand what they were talking about are the ones who wish to take the Church away from a truly biblical basis of belief.

Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com  Sean Pitman, M.D.(Quote)

Sean Pitman, M.D.: It is very clear, from a straight reading of the text

Agreed. This is the case for a 6-day creation.

Sean Pitman, M.D.: he did believe that the writer(s) of Genesis believed in a literal creation week.

I agree that the writer(s) of Genesis believed in a literal 6-day creation week. I have also read that they believed the sky was made of hard metal that was hammered out by God, and that it is held up by pillars beyond the horizon. I’m not going to press this point. I’m just sayin…  George(Quote)

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(Quote)

@George:

George: My question for you is, why does the Seventh-day Adventist Church have to change its doctrines in order to incorporate Darwinism? All of the mainstream Protestant denominations have made their peace with Darwinism, so it is very easy to find a Christian fellowship that tolerates Darwinism in its midst.

What you are really arguing, in effect, is that every single form of Christianity–every single denomination that has ever existed or ever will exist–must bend the knee to Charles Darwin. Because if there is one denomination that should be allowed to continue to believe in a literal six-day creation, it is the Seventh-day Adventist Church, with its emphasis on the Biblical Sabbath, and worshipping the creator God on the day of rest that He specified as a memorial to His six-day creation.

You speak of tolerance and diversity, but when you think about it, what you are really demanding is that no denomination, not a single one, should be allowed to believe in, and insist on, what the Bible clearly teaches on origins. How can you not recognized the totalitarianism of your demands?  David Read(Quote)

“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.” (George)

Amen to this!  Geanna Dane(Quote)

David,

I really appreciate your comments.

Apparently, Adventism offers something to cultural Adventists that they want to keep even if they don’t accept all of the doctrines. It seems some people don’t make these decisions based on doctrine alone.

Again, I really appreciate your comments!  George(Quote)

George: Sean,

I think this is critical. Origins are very important. They do significantly affect our future.

I’m going to ask, what is the Gospel? I would say that it says that humanity is sinful and in need, and that God has come to save us. This is here and now and very real.

It seems to me that this works with or without a belief in a literal 6-day creation. Am I missing something?

Upon what basis do you believe that God even exists? – or that He is trustworthy and will really come back here to save you or me? A belief in this very good news is nothing more than wishful thinking, or hoping in vain, as St. Paul put it, if the biblical stories aren’t real – if they didn’t really happen as described. If Jesus wasn’t raised from the dead, all your hope in the Gospel’s “good news” of forgiveness and salvation is worthless.

Now, it is quite possible to live according to the Royal Law of love without ever having a conscious knowledge of the solid hope of the Gospel. The heathen who have never heard the name of God, even atheists who strong oppose the idea that God exists, can be saved because of this. However, hope is not based on being morally good or following the law of love that is written on the hearts of us all. A solid hope in the Gospel is supported by the demonstrated reliability of the messenger – the biblical authors in this case.

Reliability or trustworthiness, as you know, is based on a form of scientific predictive value. If you can show that the biblical authors are clearly not reliable in that which you can physically put to the test, then that puts into serious question their reliability regarding their metaphysical claims as well.

There are many other problems as well for the Gospel’s “good news” if a literal creation week isn’t true – but this will do for now…

Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com  Sean Pitman, M.D.(Quote)

@George:

Bob,

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.

It seems to me that John 1 is primarily talking about the origin of Jesus. He links Jesus to the concept of the Word, or Logos, that was prevalent in the Greco-Roman culture of the day. The story of the Word becoming flesh in the form of Jesus was kind of a new concept at the time.

In John 1 – Jesus IS God in human flesh.
In John 1 – it is affirmed that NOTHING has come into being apart from His creative act.

In John 1 it is affirmed that the WORLD was MADE by him

In John 1 – the role of Christ as CREATOR is the context and foundation for his work as savior.

The proposal that we toss what God’s Word says about His work as creator out the window — and then call the rest of it “gospel”, significantly underestimates the scope, urgency and solution found in the Gospel of our salvation.

John was helping people see that the concept of Logos that they already understand was actually a partial truth that is made clear by the Gospel of Jesus. It seems to me that the phrase “Through Him all things were made” works with or without a literal 6-day creation.

If we deleted the rest of the Word of God – you would be right.

But John 1 is written in the context of the “scriptures” of the OT already being accepted as the “scriptures” of NT saints. That is the context for John’s letter – and exegesis does not allow us to toss it out the window.

Given that context – John is arguing that the creation doctrine on origins is foundational to understanding the Gospel itself. And so he begins his Gospel with that very focus.

It is true that Paul writes against those that are preaching a gospel different than what he taught. In Galations, Paul is primarily writing against the Judaizers, who are preaching that people must keep the laws of Moses to be a real Christian and to be saved. (Am I getting that right?) In the current creation/evolution dialog, who is requiring that we hold on to ancient requirements of God in order to be true Adventists,

Actually I think you missed that one. Paul is not arguing in Gal 1:6-11 that “Scripture is bad” and that “now we have something new for you”. Paul argued from the beginning (as we see in Rom 3:31) that the NT Christian faith “establishes the Law of God”. His argument is not “ignore scripture because now we have better ideas to give you”. Rather as we see in Acts 17:11 the NT saints “studied the scriptures DAILY to see IF those things spoken to them by Paul WERE SO”

The idea that accepting God as Creator JUST as the Word of God presents Him – is now “a bad thing” is an idea that divides up the Bible into “Good Bible” vs “Bad Bible” sections. Something that the Adventist church has been against from day 1. And it is not supported in either NT or OT.

and who is advocating for promotion of the core of the Gospel and tolerance of diversity?

The core of the gospel – cannot escape the John 1 “foundation” for the Gospel which has to do with the Role of Christ as CREATOR.

You are right that the Bible teaches that humanity is fallen. Genesis tells a story of how that fall happened. As a sinful person, I know I need help, and Jesus is that help. I don’t necessarily need to understand how my ancient ancestors got us into this situation. I care about my own story

Indeed and if you were the one authoring and inspiring the text of scripture – perhaps you would not have made the ORIGINS doctrine foundational to the first 2 chapters of the Bible and foundational to the Gospel of John and foundational to the Worship of God as we see in Rev 14.

I grant you that – had you been sitting in His chair – and given your preference as stated above – you probably would have chosen another focus.

But this is not actually about “rewriting the Bible” or “editing what is written” is it?

So as interesting as that thought is – the substantive point is that God chose not to go the direction that you have shown a preference for –

Makes a good comparison and contrast I suppose – but not much else we can do with that.

The Bible also teaches that there is hope, there is a brighter future. As Adventists we believe in the concept of progressive truth and progressive revelation. Through history God has revealed more and more about himself so that we can better understand Him. There is a kind of upward growth through Abraham, Moses, Hezekiah, Josiah, Ezra, the Gospels, Paul, Martin Luther, William Miller, and Ellen White.

True. Which is why we think of 3SG 90-91 as something to be noticed and respected for what it is – rather than “tossed under the bus” (as some would say).

And there by divine revelation – we see the point made that evolutionism as a religion when taken into the soul and accepted — is poison to foundational truths clearly revealed in God’s Word.

And I think that is a key point to remember as context for that discussion.

in Christ,

Bob  BobRyan(Quote)

George: Genesis tells a story of how that fall happened. … I think the Gospel thrives with or without the Genesis story of the fall.

Yet that simple story in Genesis explicitly teaches that the fall occurred because of unbelief in the literalness of what God had said. God had said that they would surely die if they ate the fruit. Satan said they would not surely die. Eve believed Satan. Satan lied. Eve died.

The gospel is therefore a message of hope to lost men and women, that if they will believe, God can recreate them anew by grace because of Christ’s death on Calvary.

We cannot lose sight of the fact that the gospel’s purpose is to bring us back into belief in, submission to, and obedience to the Word of God, the very point from which we strayed in Eden.

On the other hand, evolution demands that we reject the gospel’s message of hope and continue in our unreasonable, inexcusable, rebellious refusal to believe the Word of God.  Bob Pickle(Quote)

Sean said “The idea that the ancient Hebrews believed that the heavens were a solid metallic vault appears to have emerged for the first time only during the early 19th century”

Thanks for sharing this Sean. I had heard about the metallic vault from Dr. Brian Bull. This is something for me to study further.  George(Quote)

Eddie: I question the wisdom of being dogmatic about the details of what really happened. … There are many, many unresolved questions that none of us know all the answers to. … I also think we should be more concerned about being better stewards of what we now have than arguing about how and when it all got here. … I’m content to let God be in control. I look forward to the day when I will no longer “see through a glass, darkly” and can get answers to all of my questions firsthand from the Creator when we meet “face to face” (1 Cor. 13:12).  

Amen.  George(Quote)

George -

I given my best effort at marrying the evolutionism taught at LSU with the Gospel in my example link here:

@BobRyan:

Do you have one to offer — since in fact you are suggesting the exercise to begin with? A solution that pays attention the details and how they would need to be reconciled?

in Christ,

Bob  BobRyan(Quote)

George: Thanks for sharing this Sean. I had heard about the metallic vault from Dr. Brian Bull. This is something for me to study further.

Yes, Dr. Bull is also a friend and mentor of mine. However, there are many things that Dr. Bull assumes are true, because well-educated people have told him so, that aren’t necessarily so after careful investigation. The whole idea that the biblical authors believed in a flat Earth covered by a metallic dome of some sort seems to be one of these “not necessarily so” ideas.

Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com  Sean Pitman, M.D.(Quote)

Sean Pitman, M.D.: The whole idea that the biblical authors believed in a flat Earth covered by a metallic dome of some sort seems to be one of these “not necessarily so” ideas.

Sean,

Can you recommend any books that would help me understand this better?  George(Quote)

BobRyan: George,

I given my best effort at marrying the evolutionism taught at LSU with the Gospel in my example link here: …

Do you have one to offer — since in fact you are suggesting the exercise to begin with? A solution that pays attention the details and how they would need to be reconciled?

I’m not sure how to respond. I’m not trying to reconcile creation and evolution, or the Gospel and evolution. I’m trying to identify what is truly essential, stand firm on that, and then in every other respect make the tent big enough for 7 billion people to join.  George(Quote)

@George:

It sounds like you do believe that belief in a 6-day creation IS essential and if that creates a barrier to entry for some, that’s just the way it is. We are to take the Gospel to the world, and the Gospel includes the fact that humanity is sinful, and God has come to save us, and a 6-day creation is an essential part of the framework that is the Gospel.

Am I reflecting correctly what you’re saying?

Your argument is that there is someway to marry evolutoinism to the Gospel and come out with a Gospel that is not “mush”.

I have shown how that exercise in fact results in a Gospel that is no Gospel at all.

@BobRyan:

So far you have found no fault at all with the details I presented there in terms of the salient argument in either evolutionism or the Gospel.

Darwin also noticed the problem and so he tossed Christianity out the window.

Dawkins, Provine and Meyers are all on record as saying that they too “noticed the problem” and dumped Chrisianity.

Evolutionism’s doctrine on origins is poison to Christianity – poison to the Gospel. Hence the “makes mush out of the Gospel” problem I identified earlier.

Ellen White in 3SG 90-91 states that God Himself argues the case – that there is a huge problem trying to draw reach your hand into evolutionism and draw out “the Gospel”. It simply is not there.

It is like saying – I perfer to think that Satan was never kicked out of heaven – and that everyone goes to heaven no matter what Jesus said about the Narrow Road and FEW that are choosing to travel that way.

It is a happy thought – but it never goes anywhere.

in Christ,

Bob  BobRyan(Quote)

Sean,

Politics, to some extent, is the art of compromise. Incorporated churches have the strengths and weaknesses of every organization. Compromise at its most elemental level is the acknowledgment by everyone that no one will be perfectly satisfied.

What you see as “false advertising” the church may see as a compromise.

I think you fail to appreciate the very “American” nature of the SDA church which is expressed in its decentralized structure and government, giving more administrative authority at the local level than it retains at the upper levels.

At least one of your disagreements with many of the church’s scholars is, what exactly is the proper forum in which debatable issues should take place? You feel the classroom or pulpit is not the proper forum. You may have described what you believe the proper forum to be, I don’t remember, but whatever it is, it is clear that others disagree with you. This disagreement about the “proper forum” for discussion is at least as sharp and contentious as your position with regard to how to understand Genesis…so there are three issues, a scientific one, a political one, and “proper forum for discussion” one.

The church understands to some degree that there are issues that should not be “clarified…so that those who do actually want to take a real stand…can go elsewhere and form a new organization…” because most people want to think and debate in the nurturing atmosphere of a familiar place and social group where different rates of growth and understanding are tolerated, not condemned. (Even in a new group the same politics and compromises will soon apply).

You wrote:

“So, to that end, I will push for clarity on this issue until it happens… one way or another… It is the only fair and right thing to do.”

Another point of disagreement is that it doesn’t appear to me and some others that “It is the only fair and right thing to do.”

The discussion you have prompted has been worthwhile. Your solution seems less felicitous.

Lynn

Hi Lynn,

I don’t mind if people want to be part of an organization like the one you would consider to be most ideal or “American”. I actually encourage and support the potential for such in free civil society. I just want the organization that I personally choose to be a part of to declare itself for what it really is. If it is in fact ambiguous in what it really stands for, then say so. If it will not actually do anything to internally support its stated positions, then say so very clearly. People have a right to know what they can expect for their invested time and money. Anything less from any organization is a form of deception or dishonesty toward the customer – the church member in this case.

It isn’t just harmless political “compromise”… it is a deception to say one thing and do another. There’s just no other word for it. This is why politicians are often viewed as untrustworthy… because often they get a reputation for saying a lot of stuff that they don’t really mean. I don’t care what word you want to call that sort of thing, but I call it lying…

All I’m doing here is asking for clarification so that I can know best what to do with my own support.

Personally, I’d rather be part of an organization that stands decidedly for, among other things, the notion of a literal creation week and has a decided policy of internal government to support such a stand by only hiring those who also agree with this stand. That’s just me. I know that many don’t agree with me for the reasons you list off. I don’t mind if they want their own organization with their own rules and I fully support their efforts to obtain such. I would hope, however, that the type of organization I’d like to be part of would also be tolerated in this great country of ours… but I fear that such toleration is slipping away fast even among those who claim to be “SDA”. Uniformity seems to be the only politically correct path these days…

I know it must sound somewhat humerus to you that I speak about the need for toleration and uniformity when it might seem that I’m being very intolerant and strictly uniform in my attitude toward those who disagree with me. The fact is that I’m only intolerant of deception within the Church. I think it is a moral wrong to advertise one thing and deliver something completely different. If the advertising were in line with the product, even if I personally wouldn’t want to buy the product, I’d have much much less problem with that. Of course I’d leave if I didn’t agree with the product – but not with any hard feelings nor with any effort to force an end to the efforts of those with which I don’t agree. I just don’t like their product is all – nothing personal. And, I would hope that if they didn’t like my product that they would feel quite free to simply shop elsewhere… Again, nothing personal.

Anyway, I hope this helps to clarify why I’m doing what I’m doing…

Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com  Sean Pitman, M.D.(Quote)

The Holy Spirit is purposing to write ’6 days’ on our hearts/minds. What does that say if we refuse to allow that?  Victor Marshall(Quote)

The Bible has very little to say about our origins. It has a lot to say about salvation. I, personally believe that life on earth was created in six literal days several thousand years ago. But is that the gospel that will reunite man with his Maker? No. Therefore it is of less importance.

If we allow narrow views of origins hinder our efforts to reveal the loving God to His people, we fight against God. The great plan, laid from the foundation of the earth, was not the particular way that God laid the foundation of the earth, or how He brought life to its current state, but it was a plan of how He would restore man to Himself.

Why, then, do we burden ourselves (the Adventist church) with so many beliefs (28), which only have the tendency to separate, albeit in the name of unity? How many of our so-called “fundamental beliefs” are truly fundamental to salvation? Or are they just fundamental to the religious body? Will an incorrect view on origins prevent us from entering God’s kingdom? No! But will an incorrect understanding of who Christ is prevent us from entering? Quite possibly! So which is more important? Which is truly fundamental to salvation?

I fear this has become such an issue, not because it is central to salvation (and therefore God’s work), but because it threatens those who place their identity in a belief system, rather than in Christ.

Is our Savior coming to save those who believe all the right doctrines (as though any church, including our own, has all the “right doctrines”)? Or is He coming to save those who have lived their lives according to the light that He (as opposed to the church) has given them? Let us never get side-tracked on enforcing belief in menial details like origins, but only make issues of those beliefs that are truly fundamental to salvation.  Ray Dickinson(Quote)

@David R.:

I am sitting here in complete sadness at many of the answers and comments posted here. Most here are worried about changing Belief #6. This is one of the roots of the problem: 1) Will changing this belief in any way fix or alter the problem at La Sierra. NO! 2) I’ve said it before and I’ll say it here again – A Fundamental Statement of Beliefs shouldn’t even exist – a man-made book has become a standard as to what SDA’s believe.

That is the LSU POV — But Ellen White herself stated that the “voice of God” is heard when the church meets in session and affirms a doctrinal position.

David R said:
The Pioneers (including our prophet EGW) were against any creeds. They actually said that to get up a creed would be fashioning our church and copying the Babylonian churches (who also had similar books or statements) and would be a step in the wrong direction.

Creeds that do not allow for advancement in new light – was the focuse. Tearing down the foundation that had already been built was not the focus of those statements by Ellen White.

David R said:
Why are many SO worried and concerned about this book (Fundamentals Book)? This is not the Bible or Spirit of Prophecy. Until we realize this the problems will continue and worsen.

We are told that God wants us to take those voted statements as authorotative.

9T 260
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

Thus the importance of the 28 FB.

Thus the downfall of the LSU all-for-evolutionism argument that would pretend to exault itself higher than the appointed means God has set up.

As FOR WHY we even HAVE Beliefs as a Church that we unite upon – glad you asked.

Paul says in Gal 1:6-11 that we ARE to stand on the foundations that have been established – rather than tossing them out the window.

Ellen White appears to agree with Paul –

Our first conference was at Volney in Bro. Arnold’s barn. There were about thirty-five present, all that could be collected in that part of the State. There were hardly two agreed. Each was strenuous for his views, declaring that they were according to the Bible. All were anxious for an opportunity to advance their sentiments, or to preach to us.

They were told that we had not come so great a distance to hear them, but had come to teach them the truth.

Then she gives a list of wild crackpot errors.

1. Bro. Arnold held that the 1000 years of Rev. xx were in the past;
and

2. that the 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 quagmire”

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.

in Christ,

Bob  BobRyan(Quote)

Why is it that our church leaders keep falling into the category of being ‘the Laodecidean church’ neither hot nor cold. They all seem to think that they are smarter than God – no way – God is omnipotent, man is a failure without God, but keeps trying to say that they know best.

It specifically states that ‘God created the earth in six days and rested and blessed the seventh day’ is that not clear enough OR do all of these supposed leaders of the church and ‘earthly shepherds of Gods flock’ think that they are much more knowledgeable that the Creator?

If you follow the years of life of the Patriarch of the Bible, it is clear that this world is just over 6000 years old, NOT infinitismally long ages.

Let us go back to being a Bible believing church, rather than this collection of ‘garbage.’ We are suppose to show respect the pastors that are doing their best to cripple this church, why?

NO MAN should be able to make the decisions of how the churches beliefs are to be shown, TRUST GODS DESCRIPTION.  William J(Quote)

@Ray Dickinson says:

The Bible has very little to say about our origins. It has a lot to say about salvation. I, personally believe that life on earth was created in six literal days several thousand years ago. But is that the gospel that will reunite man with his Maker? No. Therefore it is of less importance.

What is the gospel but the good news that God in Christ is reconciling the world to Himself, through Jesus’ perfect life and death on the cross for us?

And why do we need to be reconciled? Because of sin, which brings death. Death occurred *after* and as a result of Adam’s sin. If you believe in long ages of evolution prior to Adam and Eve, then you believe in death before sin. And if so, there is no reason for Jesus to die to bring you eternal life, because your sin is not the cause of death, and thus His salvation cannot actually save you from death.

Now, do you see why creation is so important, as taught by the Bible?  Warren(Quote)

Shane Hilde: Equating church membership with salvation is wrong.

This is an interesting thought. Does this mean that people can be saved without believing the correct doctrine? However, in order to be a member ofthe SDA church, one must have the correct doctrine? So, in God’s eyes, the SDA church is a special group of those who have the truest doctrine?

Is this common among educate-truth-ers?

Is this common among last generation believers?  George(Quote)

@Geanna Dane:

Doesn’t the 7th day sabbath hinge on the six literal days of creation. For in 6 days God made heaven and earth and rested the 7th day. How can the sabbath question remain so important to us as SDA’s if the six days before can be indefinite time periods?  Chris Calvin(Quote)

Shane Hilde: @George: So you’re saying that just because you’re a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church you’re saved?I have to disagree with you. I can’t speak for other’s on this site.  

Does one have to be a member of the SDA church to be saved? No. I agree. (If I typed otherwise, it was a mistake.)

Should the SDA church require members to believe in all the fundamental beliefs, including a corrected version of #6?

Are there any last generation believers here who can say whether, in the last days, those who do not perfectly reflect Christ’s character will be saved?  George(Quote)

@Chris Calvin:

Doesn’t the 7th day sabbath hinge on the six literal days of creation. For in 6 days God made heaven and earth and rested the 7th day. How can the sabbath question remain so important to us as SDA’s if the six days before can be indefinite time periods?

Good point!  BobRyan(Quote)

@George:

Anyone can post on Wikipedia. Do you believe everything you read?

SH  Shirley H.(Quote)

6. Creation:
God is Creator of all things, and has revealed in Scripture the authentic account of His creative activity. In six days the Lord made “the heaven and the earth” and all living things upon the earth, and rested on the seventh day of that first week. Thus He established the Sabbath as a perpetual memorial of His completed creative work. The first man and woman were made in the image of God as the crowning work of Creation, given dominion over the world, and charged with responsibility to care for it. When the world was finished it was “very good,” declaring the glory of God. (Gen. 1; 2; Ex. 20:8-11; Ps. 19:1-6; 33:6, 9; 104; Heb. 11:3.)

“In six days the Lord made “the heaven and the earth” and all living things upon the earth, and rested on the seventh day of that first week.”

There is no way anyone can be confused over this statement. it clearly says “day” and “week.”

Just like the Sabbath commandment except for the “week,” however the week is still given in “six days” and “seventh day.”

Exo 20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day:

Belief # 6 parallels Vs. 11 here; and other proof texts are given also. Adding “literal” “consecutive” or “24 hour days” will do nothing for the heretic who disbelieves the Bible record anyway. All this conjecture about 1000 year days in Genesis, came from those who were reading…..Genesis. So re-writing # 6 will do nothing for anyone who doubts God’s word.

it is impossible for LSU to find a loophole in # 6 now unless they change the worldwide definition of a day to something else. They cannot do that.Then they would have to convince millions otherwise.

A heretic is a heretic, and will remain such until he repents of his unbelief.They already know the correct/accepted teaching of Christianity and the SDA church is day=24hrs. Re-writing the belief will not suddenly make them believers.

Someone is splitting hairs in saying LSU has a loophole in 6.

Theres only two options here. Fire all the heretics and “do nothing” conference heads, and get people in who believe the Bible. Or continue to do nothing and nothing will get done.  Steve Billiter(Quote)

We have already presented the case for how effectively evolutionism’s atheist doctrinal core – specifically destroys the gospel.

@BobRyan:

And so far we have no “solution” for that problem posted here – coming from our evolutionist friends.

So why are evolutionists willing to let their narrow, and unwittingly atheist views of origins, make “total mush” of the Gospel and thus hinder their efforts to reveal the loving God to His people. Why do they choose to embrace “the worst kind of infidelty” — and so fight against God? The great plan … was a plan of how He would restore that which was lost — Paradise restored. Recall that in the Paradise of God, man was in perfect and full sinless, harmless, peaceful fellowship with God and with life on earth. Thus the promise of God that the saints “shall inherit the earth” just as we see in Daniel 7 and in Heb 11 and in Matt 5.

Why then do they also choose to burden themselves by staying in the Adventist church which has officially voted so many beliefs (28)? Beliefs which more times than not – run counter to the atheist core of evolutionism’s doctrines on origins? Pushing their evolutionist agenda inside such a group has the tendency to separate, (albeit in the name of unity and pluralism?)

But one thing we do applaud our evolutionist brethren for – is transparently and openly “going after” the voted doctrines of the Seventh-DAY Adventist church as in the following

How many of our so-called “fundamental beliefs” are truly fundamental to salvation? Or are they just fundamental to the religious body? …

Thus no one “needs” to be mislead by their goal and objective.

Each time these inconvenient details are brought up – the response from those promoting evolutionism inside Adventist institutions seems to be of the form “we will not let the inconvenient facts (regarding the way evolutionism poisons both science and trust in the bible as well as the goodness of God seen in the Gospel) get in the way of a good story”

in Christ,

Bob  BobRyan(Quote)

Ray,
I can’t understand how you could feel that our origins are not important or how they are separate from our belief in Christ and our salvation. Our origins lie in the very foundation of the great controversy. Whether you realize it or not, you are actually allying yourself with the enemy when you belittle the importance of our origins and take away the glory due to Christ for His wonderful creative powers. Do you not see that this is the very thing Satan was determined to do? He doesn’t want Christ to have the worship He deserves for creating us and our planet. Your statement seems to support Satan’s agenda.

As to our fundamental beliefs, they were actually developed with the Lord’s help as was shown by the visions He sent to His servant Ellen White when the pioneers met to establish the beliefs of this church. Apparently God considered it that important. Should we consider it any less so? If you don’t fully believe that our church has the right doctrines, you err, and you had best look to your own salvation, my brother. This is the remnant church, and we have been instructed by God that it will go through to the end. How you consider the church to be opposed to the light God has given her baffles me.

Our belief in creation in six literal days is not a “narrow view”, but rather a succinct statement of truth. I find it very strange that you cannot see how our salvation is indeed interconnected with our belief in Christ as the Creator. Far from “fighting against God” in this issue, we are actually bringing truth to light and fighting for Him. It is the Sabbath, the celebration and remembrance of Creation, that will be the final test of all mankind just before the close of this earth’s history. How, then, can you separate salvation from creation? You cannot. I fully believe that if we reject Christ as our Creator and disbelieve the clear statements Christ has made on the subject, we will be prevented from entering heaven…how you could see it otherwise, how you could call it a menial detail when Christ puts so much emphasis on it, is a total mystery to me.  Faith(Quote)

The Pioneers (including our prophet EGW) were against any creeds. They actually said that to get up a creed would be fashioning our church and copying the Babylonian churches (who also had similar books or statements) and would be a step in the wrong direction.

David,

You are correct, the pioneers did INITIALLY stand against any type of organization and adopting any creed. The experiences they had gone through prior to, during, and after the Great Disappointment made them a bit gun-shy of organized churches. But if you knew your church history, you would know also that eventually the Lord specifically, through a vision to Ellen White, instructed them to organize and actually helped the process of establishing our doctrines through further visions. This church was organized and is sustained by the Lord Himself, and to fight against our organization or the doctrines established by the pioneers with Divine help, is to surely lose your salvation.  Faith(Quote)

@BobRyan:
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. 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.
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. Matter of fact it is the other way around: Here is the official statement from the 1883 Church Manual Committee printed in the Review and Herald Nov. 20, 1883: Review and Herald, November 20, 1883
“It is the unanimous opinion of the committee appointed to consider the matter of a Church Manual. We consider it unnecessary because we already have surmounted the greatest difficulties connected with church organization without one; and perfect harmony exists among us on this subject. It would seem to many like a step toward the formation of a creed or a discipline, other than the Bible, something we have always been opposed to as a denomination. If we had one, we fear many, especially those commencing to preach, would study it to obtain guidance in religious matters, rather to seek it in the Bible, and from the leading of the Spirit of God, which would tend to their hindrance in genuine religious experience and in knowledge of the mind of the Spirit. It was in taking in similar steps that other bodies of Christians first began to lose their simplicity and became formal and spiritually lifeless. Why should we imitate them! The committee feels, in short, that our tendency should be in the direction of the policy and close conformity of the Bible, rather than to elaborate, defining every point in the church management and church ordinances.”
PLEASE NOTE in the above statement that they UNANIMOUSLY rejected a man-made book because it would bring in “difficulties” and people might start to use it as a form of governance other than the Bible. And this surely today is in full force.
A week later General Conference President, Elder George Butler (President 1873-1874 and 1880-1888) comments in opposition to a Church Manual:
Review and Herald, November 27, 1883
“When brethren who have favored a manual have even contended that such a work was not to be anything like a creed or a discipline, or to have any authority to settle disputed points, but was only to be considered as a book containing hints for the help of those of little experience, yet it must be evident that such a work, issued under the auspices of the General Conference, would at once carry with it much weight of authority, and would be consulted by most of our young ministers. It would gradually shape and mould the entire body; and those who did not follow it would be considered out of harmony with established principles of church order. And really, is this not the object of a manual? What would be the use of one if not to accomplish such a result? But would this result, on a whole, be a benefit? Would our ministers be broader, more original, more self-reliant men? Would they be better depended on in great emergencies? Would their spiritual experiences likely be deeper and their judgment be more reliable? We think the tendency all the other way…We have preserved simplicity, and have prospered in so doing. It is best to let well enough alone. For these and other reasons, the church manual was rejected. It is probable that it will never be brought forward again.”
PLEASE NOTE that those who did not agree with a man-made book (if adapted) would be considered “out of harmony”
Would this be an official act from God because as you stated by supplying a SOP quote that “the General Conference in session is the voice of God”? Well many times when I present a SOP quote that condemns error I get accused of taking her writings out of context. I never get corrected just accused. But in essence this Bob, is what you are doing (and you may be doing it unawares). Here is a progression of statements made in the SOP about the GC as the voice of God:
Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 3, pg, 492 (1875)
I have been shown that no man’s judgment should be surrendered to the judgment of any one man. But when the judgment of the General Conference, which is the highest authority that God has upon the earth, is exercised, private independence and private judgment must not be maintained, but be surrendered.

(1894) Paulsen Collection, pg. 422
Do not understand me as approving of the recent action of the General Conference Association, of which you write, but in regard to that matter it is right that I should speak to them. They have many difficulties to meet, and if they err in their action, the Lord knows it all, and can overrule all for the good of those who trust in him. – Testimony To Elder Littlejohn, August 3, 1894

(1894) (Letter 71, April 8, 1894, Pamphlet #149, p 22)
…that would make Battle Creek, like Rome, the great head of the work.

(1894) Manuscripts Release Vol. 9, pg. 178, 179 (also MR No. 714 Presidents)
The fact that a man has been selected to be the president of a conference does not mean that he shall have authority to rule over his fellow workmen. This is after the practice of Rome, and it cannot be tolerated, for it restricts religious liberty, and the man is led to place himself where God alone should be. Work has been done in the conference before the ruling president was placed as its head. If he assumes to restrict individual action, and confine men to his own ideas, which he supposes to be right, or if a board shall make rules that enter into the details of what the workers should do, no help will in any way come to those who are engaging in the work.
God has not laid upon any living man the burden of jealously guarding the movements of his fellow men, for this would restrict their intelligent freedom.
In following a course of this kind, men are pursuing a similar course to that of the Roman Catholics who center in the pope every power of the church, and ascribe to him authority to act as God, so that those below him in station lay every plan at his feet that he may prescribe the rules for men and women in every minutiae of life. In following a course of this kind, there is danger that no chance will be left for God to answer the prayers of His delegated servants according to His promise in giving them wisdom in pursuing their work.
God does not purpose to have one man prescribe how his fellow workmen shall perform His work. When this manner of action comes in among our people, there is need of a protest.

(1894) Publishing Ministry, pg. 144 (also Letter 71, April 8, 1894)
Battle Creek Not to Swallow Up Everything – The present is a time of special peril. In 1890 and 1891 there was presented to me a view of dangers that would threaten the work because of a confederacy in the office of publication in Battle Creek. Propositions which to their authors appeared very wise would be introduced, looking to the formation of a confederacy that would make Battle Creek, like Rome, the great head of the work, and enable the office of publication there to swallow up everything in the publishing line among us. This is not God’s wisdom, but human wisdom.

(1895) Manuscripts Release, Vol. 4, pg. 441 (also Ms 11, 1895, p. 12)
It would be dangerous to consolidate all our institutions under one head at Battle Creek, and let one institution control all the others. This would prove a curse.

(1895) Testimonies to Ministers and Gospel Workers, pg. 359, 361
At the center of the work matters are being shaped so that every other institution is following in the same course. And the General Conference is itself becoming corrupted with wrong sentiments and principles. …They are following in the track of Romanism.

(1895) Testimonies to Ministers and Gospel Workers, pg. 359
I do not find rest in spirit. Scene after scene is presented in symbols before me, and I find no rest until I begin to write out the matter. At the center of the work matters are being shaped so that every other institution is following in the same course. And the General Conference is itself becoming corrupted with wrong sentiments and principles.

(1896) 1888 Materials, p 1558-1573 (also Letter 81, May 31, 1896)
A warning that “the same work that has been done in the past will be carried forward under the guise of the General Conference Association.”

(1896) PH080 – Special Instruction Relating to the Review and Herald Office, and The Work in Battle Creek, pg. 19-20
Who can now feel sure that they are safe in respecting the voice of the General Conference Association? If the people in our churches understood the management of the men who walk in the light of the sparks of their own kindling, would they respect their decisions? I answer, No, not for a moment. I have been shown that the people at large do not know that the heart of the work is being diseased and corrupted at Battle Creek. Many of the people are in a lethargic, listless, apathetic condition, and assent to plans which they do not understand.

(1896) Ellen White 1888 Materials, pg. 1608-1609 (taken from a letter to Elder O.A. Olsen, Sunnyside, Cooranbong, N.S.W., August 27, 1896
It is not in the order of God that a few men shall manage the great interests throughout the field. Many of the men who have acted as counsellors in board and council meetings need to be weeded out. Other men should take their places; for their voice is not the voice of God. Their plans and devisings are not after the order of God. The same men have been kept in office as directors of boards until under their own management and their own opinions, common fire is used in the place of sacred fire of God’s own kindling. These men are no more called Israel, but supplanters. They have worked themselves so long, instead of being worked by the Holy Spirit, that they know not what spirit impels them to action.

(1896) Ellen White 1888 Materials, pg. 1558-1559 (taken from a letter to Elder O.A. Olsen, Sunnyside, Cooranbong, N.S.W., May 31, 1896)
Much pride and loftiness and a spirit which desires to rule has been manifested, but very little of the spirit which leads men to sit at the feet of Jesus and learn of him, has been shown. Human inventions and human plans are eclipsing sacred things, and excluding divine instruction. Men are taking the place of God by seeking to assume authority over their fellow-men.

(1899) MR No. 1048 – “Church Leaders to Obey God’s Word” (taken from a letter to S. N Haskell, “Sunnyside,” Cooranbong, N. S. W., Nov. 16, 1899)
Let those in America who suppose the voice of the General Conference to be the voice of God, become one with God before they utter their opinions.

(1901) General Conference Bulletin, April 3, 1901,
That these men should stand in a sacred place, to be as the voice of God to the people, as we once believed the General Conference to be,–that is past…God has not put any kingly power in our ranks to control.

We were never to have a hierarchal system of church organization.
(1901) General Conference Bulletin, April 5, 1901 (“In the Regions Beyond” remarks by Mrs. E.G. White)
We want to understand that there are no gods in our Conference. There are to be no kings here, and no kings in any Conference that is formed. “All ye are brethren.”
The Lord wants to bind those at this Conference heart to heart. No man is to say, “I am a god, and you must do as I say.” From the beginning to the end this is wrong. There is to be an individual work. God says, “Let him take hold of my strength that he may make peace with me, and he shall make peace with me.”

The Early Elmshaven Years, Vol. 5, pg. 257, Letter 24a, 1896 (also General Conference Bulletin, April 10, 1903, pg. 160)
It is not wise to choose one man as president of the General Conference. The work of the General Conference has extended, and some things have been made unnecessarily complicated. A want of discernment has been shown. There should be a division of the field, or some other plan should be devised, to change the present order of things.

Letter to Judge Jesse Arthur from Ellen White, Elmshaven, January 15, 1903
The result of the last General Conference has been the greatest, the most terrible sorrow of my life. No change was made. The spirit that should have been brought into the whole work as the result of that meeting was not brought in because men did not receive the testimonies of the Spirit of God. As they went to their several fields of labor, they did not walk in the light that the Lord had flashed upon their pathway, but carried into their work the wrong principles that had been prevailing in the work at Battle Creek.

(1903) Kress Collection, pg. 1-6 (also Manuscript 94, August 27, 1903)
Warning that the 1903 adoption of a new organizational structure was similar in rebellion to the building of the tower of Babel. (Read the entire pages)

(1903) Spalding and Magan Collection, pg. 325 (also Letter 212, September 23, 1903)
We are to have no kings, no rulers, no popes among us. It is time for us diligently to heed the messages that have brought us out from the world.

(1905) Special Testimonies B#7, pg. 15, November 20, 1905
That which has been done there since the General Conference held at Oakland in 1903 will result in the loss of many souls.

Please take these into consider
David R.  David R.(Quote)

Warren said:

George, I think we all understand that there will be many people saved who didn’t even have a Bible. It is simple trust in God that saves us.

But, from those to whom much has been given, much will be required. God isn’t keeping salvation from the simple believer who never saw a Bible. But one who doesn’t believe the Bible God has given him, does not really trust the God who gave it.

Is there a difference between never having a Bible and not believing in a 6-day creation, and having a Bible, understanding it is a source of spiritual truth, but not understanding that it is the clear Word of God, and therefore not believing in a 6-day creation? If one has a Bible (and thus, much has been given), but doesn’t understand it correctly, is much still required. If one is convinced that a 6-day creation is correct, and yet rejects it, that is a clear rejection of God’s word. What if one has God’s Word but doesn’t rightly understand it? Are they lost?  George(Quote)

@George,

Is there a difference between never having a Bible and not believing in a 6-day creation, and having a Bible, understanding it is a source of spiritual truth, but not understanding that it is the clear Word of God, and therefore not believing in a 6-day creation? If one has a Bible (and thus, much has been given), but doesn’t understand it correctly, is much still required.If one is convinced that a 6-day creation is correct, and yet rejects it, that is a clear rejection of God’s word.What if one has God’s Word but doesn’t rightly understand it?Are they lost?  

I can only let God be the judge of that. However, each must check his motives. Is is truly a search for truth, or is it an effort to harmonize human opinion (e.g. modern science) with truth? “Friendship of the world is enmity with God” (James 4:4)  Warren(Quote)

The Pillars
If we really want to look at “fundamentals” we should consider the four pillars of connected belief we have. They are a connected system of Biblical truth that are important for these last days. I call them the “four S’s”.

Second Coming
Sanctuary
Sabbath
State of the Dead

These all relate to our obedience to God’s commandments and our faith in Jesus (see Revelation 14:12).

The Second Coming is the event we look forward to in faith. The Sabbath is the point of obedience especially under controversy in the last days. Our understanding of death as a sleep protects us from the false manifestations of the devil working miracles to deceive if it were possible even the elect. Understanding Jesus work in our lives to cleanse us as he is finishing his work in the Heavenly sanctuary, helps us to cooperate with Him as he changes us into His image (See Malachi 2:17-3:6)

Yes, there are other important things in the Bible, but these four pillars all build on the foundation of faith and obedience, relevant to what we should be doing to prepare for Jesus soon coming.

Of course, if you are introducing someone to Jesus, you won’t start with these. But they are especially important for people to understand and put into practice in these last days.

The crux of the matter is, do we trust Jesus enough to obey Him? Do we trust Him to work in our lives and change us into His image? Are we confident that “He who has begun a good work in us will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil 1:6) and are we submissive to Him as he does this work?  Warren(Quote)

George:
What if one has God’s Word but doesn’t rightly understand it? Are they lost?

Warren:
I can only let God be the judge of that. However, each must check his motives. Is is truly a search for truth, or is it an effort to harmonize human opinion (e.g. modern science) with truth?

Can/should the SDA church accept someone who is sincerely searching for truth, wants to be in the SDA church, yet sees the evidence for an old earth as reasonable (even if that evidence is ultimately groundless)?

Or, is it that they can be saved and join another denomination, we just shouldn’t accept them into the SDA denomination?  George(Quote)

George, if someone is seeking a way to combine pagan and atheistic theories of origins with a Biblical world view, that person should find, and will have no trouble in finding, another denomination. The Adventist Church must stand for and defend a purely Biblical world view.

Even if we wanted to try to combine the pagan with the Biblical, we’re so many centuries behind other denominations in this project that it is pointless to try to catch up. We’ll never be able to compete on the basis of “Join our church; you won’t have to forsake any of your pagan beliefs and practices” because we’re just too far behind other churches, e.g., the RCC.  David Read(Quote)

@George,

Can/should the SDA church accept someone who is sincerely searching for truth, wants to be in the SDA church, yet sees the evidence for an old earth as reasonable (even if that evidence is ultimately groundless)?Or, is it that they can be saved and join another denomination, we just shouldn’t accept them into the SDA denomination?  

I’m happy to let someone searching for truth attend our church. That is the point of our church. They just should not be a member, if they don’t agree with what the Bible teaches. Membership is not just a change in status; it gives you rights and responsibilities (like any organization).

Regarding rights, as a member, you are able to be a teacher in Sabbath School. You may be asked to speak in Church meetings. You will now have more influence than you would as just another person attending. So you should hold to the Bible truths we agree on as a church, if you want to be a member.

In addition, as Christians, we all have the responsibility to share the Gospel. As an Adventist member, you should realize that the Gospel includes Revelation 14:6-7. This passage contains a clear quote from Exodus 20:8-11, which in turn references the Genesis account of creation. As Robin Lewis mentions, this includes Judgment as well as the call to give the God of creation glory. To glorify Him as Creator, we must accept His account of creation as reliable and accurate (though of course, we don’t know all the details we would like to know).  Warren(Quote)

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;
and

2. 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 quagmire”

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  BobRyan(Quote)

George,
If you personally “think evidence for an old earth is reasonable”, I recommend you do some reading on a Creationist site, say, for instance, creation.com. Here’s a google search to get you started:

http://www.google.com/search?q=young+earth+evidence+site%3Acreation.com&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

God bless,
Warren  Warren(Quote)

Sean,

In my opinion there really are shades of gray. The truly talented politician knows how to find his way through this fog of competing demands. This is a talent that I do not have. The really great and talented politicians do not lose their moral compass in the process of doing their work.

There are many people who can play the piano, but only a handful that can become concert pianists. Genius is rare. The present administrators of the SDA church are not geniuses, but neither are they incompetent or morally deficient.

To bring up an issue for debate is often useful. To force the administration of a large and complex organization to act is frequently counterproductive.

Political geniuses seem to know intuitively that slowness and inefficiency in politics is not only desirable but, essential.

Compromise is not lying. If it were, it seems to me, we would only need one word.

Lynn

Hi Lynn,

Claiming that you’re doing one thing while you’re really doing something completely different, even the complete opposite, is not “compromise”, but deception. That’s lying. It is claiming to provide a product that you’re not really providing. That’s stealing from the client.

Honest compromise, as I see it anyway, is where you would like to do W instead of Y, but end up in between doing X. Compromise isn’t telling everybody that you’re doing W while you’re actually doing X or Y. Compromise is telling everybody that while you would rather do W, you’re actually doing X or Y. Compromise, therefore, does not require deception…

So, you see, my problem isn’t so much with compromise within the Church, but with real deception within the Church… claiming to give people something that you know you’re not really giving them…

Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com  Sean Pitman, M.D.(Quote)

We have already presented the case for how effectively evolutionism’s atheist doctrinal core – specifically destroys the gospel.

@BobRyan:

And so far we have no “solution” for that problem posted here – coming from our evolutionist friends.

So why are evolutionists willing to let their narrow, and unwittingly atheist views of origins, make “total mush” of the Gospel and thus hinder their efforts to reveal the loving God to His people. Why do they choose to embrace “the worst kind of infidelty” — and so fight against God? The great plan … was a plan of how He would restore that which was lost — Paradise restored. Recall that in the Paradise of God, man was in perfect and full sinless, harmless, peaceful fellowship with God and with life on earth. Thus the promise of God that the saints “shall inherit the earth” just as we see in Daniel 7 and in Heb 11 and in Matt 5.

Why then do they also choose to burden themselves by staying in the Adventist church which has officially voted so many beliefs (28)? Beliefs which more times than not – run counter to the atheist core of evolutionism’s doctrines on origins? Pushing their evolutionist agenda inside such a group has the tendency to separate, (albeit in the name of unity and pluralism?)

But one thing we do applaud our evolutionist brethren for – is transparently and openly “going after” the voted doctrines of the Seventh-DAY Adventist church as in the following

@Ray Dickinson:

Why do you lump me in with “our evolutionist brethren”? I clearly stated at the beginning of my post that I believe in a literal six-day creation.

Sorry about that Ray – it was my mistake.

But the point about the gospel being “turned into mush” by evolutionism (and even shown in detail by the link I provided) remains.

And the point that our evolutionist “plurality” promoting brethren are on record as going after the 28FB in their defense of the case for including evolutionism within the Seventh-DAY Adventist church — also remains.

And could use some kind of answer.

The pioneers believed probation had closed, but they were corrected. Why then should we think ourselves beyond correction? Have we arrived? Are we in heaven? No, but what does Jesus say? “As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent.” We are not beyond correction, my sister! Job thought he was without fault before God, but thankfully, God corrected him, and to His delight, he repented.

There are “no” voted statements by the Seventh-DAY Adventist church that .. “Probation has closed”. And BTW – the 50,000 millerites that did teach this at one time – would not want to be labeled as Seventh-day Adventists since only about 50 of them went on to start the SDA church.

There are “no” voted statements of of this denomination against the Trinity, or against Righteousness by Faith etc.

In Fritz Guys efforts to gloss over the details and argue for a deconstruction of our 28 FB – he simply appeals to fiction via the fallacy of gross equivocation between historic incidents that had no support at all – of a voted position of this denomination – in general session in order to go after what actually IS such a position.

Far be it from the rest of us to use such methods.

in Christ,

Bob  BobRyan(Quote)

@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.  David R.(Quote)

I wonder whether any of you believe that a profession of faith in a 6-day creation week, an age of the universe less than 10,000 years, a flood covering all land masses, and no new species ever evolving should be required as a test of fellowship for anybody to become baptized as SDA or to worship with SDAs in Sabbath School or church.  Eddie(Quote)

I wonder whether any of you believe that a profession of faith in a 6-day creation week, an age of the universe less than 10,000 years, a flood covering all land masses, and no new species ever evolving should be required as a test of fellowship for anybody to become baptized as SDA or to worship with SDAs in Sabbath School or church.

You go a bit beyond the SDA fundamental position on origins which simply says that God created all life on this planet in 6 literal days. Also, we aren’t talking about preventing anyone from worshiping with us. All who actually wish to worship with us should always be welcome. We are simply suggesting that paid representatives should actually represent what they are being paid to represent. In other words, paid representatives should be held to a higher (or hire ) standard…

Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com  Sean Pitman, M.D.(Quote)

Eddie: “no new species ever evolving”??? Didn’t you read any of my long exchange with Geanna Dane on this point?

Almost all creationists believe in a period of rapid post-Flood diversification and speciation. This has been a mainstay of creationist thinking for at least 80 years. Please do not confuse the issue by implying that creationists believe in fixity of the species.

I would agree that no new Genesis “kinds”, or baramin, have ever evolved, but that is a very different category from any of the multiple definitions of “species.”  David Read(Quote)

Eddie: I remember your post about the two Adventist profesors you talked to. So you obviously did read the long exchange about speciation and rapid speciation. Then why did you put “no new species ever evolving” into your caricature of young earth creationism? Why do you seem to want to confuse the issues, when I was very patient with Geanna (and anyone else who was reading) in explaining what the true creationist position is?

I don’t think anyone at this site has dismissed micro-evolution as “junk science” and I agree that we need to be careful in how we treat people, but, speaking for myself, it is just appalling that we are having this debate inside the SDA church, when there should be a settled belief among Adventists in a six-day creation in the fairly recent past.  David Read(Quote)

@Eddie:

Geanna wasn’t treated particularly kindly here when she brought up evidence of VERY RAPID evolution of new species, such as rattlesnakes, Caribbean frogs and some South American birds, and Bravus was treated even less kindly when he stoked the issue with a few additional questions. I can’t help but wonder if some of you would exclude Geanna and Bravus from worshipping with you

1. I don’t recall anyone resorting to the ad hominem name calling that Geanna used when responding to some people who happened to differ with her opinions.

2. It is not “mean” to differ with someone – nor is it “mean” to point out areas where someone is making an accusation that is not backed up by any facts.

3. It is not “mean” to point out that “more snakes come from snakes” stories do not support “birds come from reptiles” kinds of stories.

4. It is not “mean” to point out that the Bible concept of speciation within the genome of what the Bible calls a “kind” is only in the context of a perfect sinless (vegetarian) creation that is instantly altered by sin, and by it’s creator, and by other intelligent beings capable of manipulating the genome. That context does not even exist for the atheist centric ideas of speciation and higher orders evolving from lower orders of life. Thus equivocating between the two very different models can be compared the “crossing the ocean” illustration we already gave –

Natives in a canoe cross the ocean slowly as compared to an astronaut in the space shuttle. But that space shuttle scenario cannot be equivocated to “a canoe crossing the ocean very fast”. You cannot mix the contexts without getting to a meaningless conclusion.

in Christ,

Bob  BobRyan(Quote)

Eddie,

1. Bob has failed to back up his claims that I resorted to name calling.

2. It is not “mean” to differ with someone – nor is it “mean” to point out areas where someone is making an accusation that is not backed up by any facts.

3. I never suggested that “more snakes come from snakes” stories support “birds come from reptiles” kinds of stories nor has anyone else to my knowlege at this website. It IS mean of someone to purposefuly miscontrue my statements.

Even moderates and obviously weel educated people like you get this patronizing treatment. That amazes me.  Geanna Dane(Quote)

Warren is right that using the word “evolution” without more context will often cause alot of confusion. Because anyone’s model of earth history, whether Darwinist or creationist, or anything in between, will include alot of evolution.

To describe the idea that all on earth life descended from one or few “simple” organisms, I use the term “Darwinism.” Leonard Brand uses the term “mega-evolution.” The Answers in Genesis ministry likes to use the phrase, “from goo to you via the zoo.” Some use the term “macro-evolution”, some use the term “evolutionism.”

All these terms are used because participants in the conversation understand that anyone’s model of earth history must include a great deal of evolution, and you can’t simply say, “I don’t believe in ‘evolution’” and expect to be taken seriously. Conversely, when a creationist says, “I believe in evolution” he has to immediately make clear that he is speaking of “micro-evolution” or diversification, modification and speciation within the Genesis kinds or baramin, and that he does not accept the Darwinian/Lyellian origins model.

A further complication arises because the term “evolution” evokes not just the concept of organic change over time, but also current theories as to the mechanism of such change. Currently, the term “evolution” evokes the neo-Darwinian synthesis, which proposes natural selection of random, undirected DNA copying errors. But I personally do not believe that this mechanism can explain either the speed or the extent of the rapid post-Flood micro-evolutionary changes that most creationist models incorporate.

So tossing around the term “evoluton” without immediate and extensive definition and context is certain to cause misunderstandings.  David Read(Quote)

Sean,

Compromise has been said to be the art of keeping everyone moderately unhappy.

Honest compromise as I see it, is where X wants A and Y wants N but what they both get is P. Thus all are “equally” unhappy.

Or to put it another way:

The conservative scientists, theologians and church members want the everyone fired who doesn’t uphold, in both belief and practice, SDA Fundamental #6. The liberal scientists, theologians and church members want Fundamental Belief #6 removed. What they are getting is: #6 is left as it presently is but no one will get fired at this time.

I’m willing to live with that because over time things change…the debate continues, as it should, without harsh measures being taken and without anyone being labeled a lair or a deceiver and without anyone getting fired.

Some situations are win-win and some are lose-lose. It all seems to me to be part of the art of administration and politics, in neither of which do I have any expertise. So I could be wrong.

Lynn

Hi Lynn,

I agree. It is just that there’s a difference between being unhappy about compromise and feeling that one is being deliberately deceived. There’s simply no excuse for the deception taking place in this case with LSU.

Again, the problem with the LSU situation is not so much the compromise that is taking place (which I obviously don’t like), but the fact that this compromise is not being acknowledged for what it is. People want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to act as if they are not compromising when they really are. They therefore deceive others about their compromise.

LSU is acting and extensively, even desperately, advertising as if it is full support of all of the fundamental pillars of faith of the SDA Church. It is not acknowledging that it has compromised in this regard to an almost unrecognizable level when it comes to an “SDA” institution, allowing pretty much its entire science department to directly oppose key SDA pillars of faith in the classroom in a very decided manner. This fact of so-called “compromise” is not advertised or clearly presented to the church membership. Great effort is being expended to cover up this compromise, misdirect those interested in discovering the truth, and to act as if it isn’t really taking place. LSU is also threatening concerned students with permanent negative comments on their transcripts, potential expulsion, and a lack of letters of recommendation if a student thinks to reveal what is actually taking place in the classroom to the church membership at large.

In my book this is going beyond compromise, adding obfuscation, strong arm tactics, and deliberate deception on top of compromise. That’s not right. This is lying to and ultimately stealing from the client – hardly to be described as simple “compromise”. Lying is not the definition of compromise. Again, honest compromise is not dependent upon deception…

So, at the very least, it seems self-evident, to me at least, that LSU and even the SDA Church at large need to be more transparent and honest about what they are doing. Clearly, all Church membership and potential LSU clients have a right to know the truth as to what they can expect to receive for their time, money, and general support of LSU and the Church organization. If a person likes the compromised situation at LSU regarding its decided undermining of certain historically “fundamental” SDA doctrinal positions, they have all the right in the world to promote such an institution or organization – a right which I fully support and find most vital to any free civil society. However, if a person does not like what is really taking place at LSU, that individual also has a right to know the truth and to remove their support as well.

There simply is no good argument to be made in favor of deliberately deceiving or lying to anyone about the actual truth of the situation however. That isn’t honest compromise. That’s just plain old-fashioned lying…

Sincerely,

Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com  Sean Pitman, M.D.(Quote)

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?  

Yes! Hence my disapproval of it. Because we have distilled our study of Scripture into nice bits of truth, we feel justified in holding those bits of truth as the standard, in essence transferring our loyalty from God’s spoken word to our diligent study of that which was written, which was to lead us to Him.

But in making this transfer, we hold man’s authority as the standard. Some claim that because Ellen White said that the voice of God is heard in the GC session, that apparently anything that they vote is then infallible. Yet they fail to note the spirit of her statement. She indicated that she had not confidence in certain individuals of authority in the church to reveal the will of God, but that, in a greater assembly, she would be confident. Yet the principle remains: if the leaders are not setting their own ambitions and motives aside, God’s will will not be accurately revealed through them, whether few or many.

To make the church’s voted statements while in GC session an infallible revelation of God’s will, is eerily reminiscent of papal infallibility. The only difference being the number of individuals involved.

Let us use the Bible as our creed, and yes, hold our educators accountable to it. We should not be teaching Evolution as fact, not because it conflicts with the voted “Belief #6,” but because it is contrary to the teaching of our Saviour, Jesus Christ. Why do we need the authority of the church to define our beliefs, when we have Jesus’ authority?! The authority of the church is in the pay stub, and they thus have the right to specify that the professors teach according to the teaching of Scripture, just as my employer has the right to specify the nature of what I am to do for them.

It is clear from the Scripture that God created in six literal days, as has been brought out in this forum. This should be the standard for our professors, not “Belief #6,” as endorsed by the church.  Ray Dickinson(Quote)

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?  George(Quote)

In the post at this link below – I show where “Bible as my only creed” was being used as a shield to unleash a 100 discordant errors.

@BobRyan:

It should be noted that evolutionists have come here using that same excuse by arguing that any appeal to the Bible that is not pleasing to the doctrines of evolutionism is “just your view – and my view of the Bible is every bit as valid as yours”.

The unity in Doctrine – principle revealed there came from intense sola-scriptura based efforts. Which is exactly how we got the 28FB.

@Ray Dickinson:

To make the church’s voted statements while in GC session an infallible revelation of God’s will, is eerily reminiscent of papal infallibility. The only difference being the number of individuals involved.

Let us use the Bible as our creed, and yes, hold our educators accountable to it. We should not be teaching Evolution as fact, not because it conflicts with the voted “Belief #6,” but because it is contrary to the teaching of our Saviour, Jesus Christ. Why do we need the authority of the church to define our beliefs, when we have Jesus’ authority?! The authority of the church is in the pay stub, and they thus have the right to specify that the professors teach according to the teaching of Scripture, just as my employer has the right to specify the nature of what I am to do for them.

It is clear from the Scripture that God created in six literal days, as has been brought out in this forum. This should be the standard for our professors, not “Belief #6,” as endorsed by the church.

1. In the case of evolutionists arguing Bible alternatives in the form “well that is just your interpretation not mine” (though it is explained in triplicate that the bible supports no other) the point of then directing them to the voted positions of the church – is that we have an actual Denomination that has voted doctrines and has real schools. Thus going off the reservation in areas so central to our voted doctrinal statements and then asking to get paid BY the denomination for doing it – is not a case of “well that is one man’s opinion” and is ethically questionable.

2. In my link above – I also point to he fact that God HAS determined that those voted statements should have “authority”. Nothing we can do about that. So it is not a matter of “well that is just your opinion” in cases like that.

Ellen White was firm on the fact that we are not to circle back and destroy the foundational doctrines that have been firmly established. Rather new light BUILDS — it does not destroy.

3. And lest we carry opposition to an extreme – remember “in context” that the evolutionists are not actually known for making a Bible case here. If anything they are “known” for “Bible avoidance”.

in Christ,

Bob  BobRyan(Quote)

@George:

How might it come to pass that the GC would vote for doctrinal error?

Good question – especially since God has given a message saying that the voted statements of the denomination are to be accepted as having authority.

Maybe God just “didn’t see it coming”?

If it was voted for, how would anyone know it is doctrinal error?

All of our doctrines are tested “sola scriptura” and it is the responsibility of each individual to learn to do it.

Would there be a majority that supports what was voted for?

As usual — (remember this is not a case of “imagining” how a doctrine might get voted by the GC session – we need not imagine how it is done. It is a matter of history).

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?

Again we need not “imagine” because in fact we already have a minority that believes our stand on the Godhead – on the Trinity – is “in error”.

Not something we need to imagine to see it in real life.

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?

Indeed – as it turns out over the decades of time – one or two Adventists have chosen to differ on one doctrinal point or another and have already left. And were we to summ up all the variant views that they took out with them – and group them all into one pluralistic morass – we would have “mush” for a doctrinal statement.

We have Shepherd’s Rod, we have the Ford groups, the Davidians and others.

How would an SDA who is not well versed in the issue know which group is correct?

How do non-SDAs study the Bible and join the church today?

Turns out that this sola-scriptura exercise is another example of what is not simply a hypothetical exercise – it happens every day — and the church is growing rapidly because of that Acts 17:11 principle.

in Christ,

Bob  BobRyan(Quote)

It is clear from the Scripture that God created in six literal days, as has been brought out in this forum. This should be the standard for our professors, not “Belief #6,” as endorsed by the church.

The problem with this argument is that there are many Christian denominations that do not interpret the Genesis account literally. It is the literal interpretation of the Genesis account that is specifically upheld by the SDA Church, as an organization, as being the “correct” biblical interpretation.

So, you see, it just isn’t enough to simply argue that “It is clear from the scripture…” when it comes to a basis for paid SDA Church representation because many will argue saying, “No, it is not clear from the scripture! That’s just your interpretation of scripture…” When such a disagreement cannot be resolved on an issue considered to be “fundamental” for one or the other or both groups of people, a person from one group simply cannot effectively represent the opinion of the other group in their organization…

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…

Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com  Sean Pitman(Quote)

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?  George(Quote)