It is encouraging to see such a large majority take a stand for the Fundamental Beliefs of the Church. However, I pray we can come to the point where leaders and people alike take a stand for truth irrespective of the numbers on their side. Since the days of Noah, God’s faithful messengers have been vastly in the minority, and will be again when the final crisis breaks.

Let us pray, at this year’s General Conference Session, that a leader will be chosen for God’s church who will be unsparing in his loyalty to Scripture and the writings of the Spirit of Prophecy, and thus bring about the beginning of the end of so-called “progressive” (better known as pseudo) Adventism.

Pastor Kevin Paulson

There is no middle ground when one becomes an SDA christian. Either you believe in what Adventism stands for or you don’t. How can our Church allow Leaders to teach “beliefs” that are not in accordance with Scripture?!

Thank you Kevin. I have always appreciated your precise and unmistakable loyalty to God and HIS Church. Let’s never forget that He is still in control here. I am so thankful that HE can be trusted!

I don’t like the way the question is phrased.

If “Yes,” there is a limit to the number of these fundamental beliefs a professor may openly reject and still be considered an adequate representative of the church, then what is the limit? All 28? Perhaps 20? Only 14? Two?

If “No,” there is no limit to the number of these fundamental beliefs a professor may openly reject and still be considered an adequate representative of the church, then what is the limit? None? Ten? Twenty Five?

In either case some or all can be openly rejected.

Personally, if a professor openly rejects 1, only 1 of the 28, that is 3.6% of our SDA fundamental beliefs, then how can that professor be considered adequate as a representative of our church when God expects 100% committment?

Is there something wrong with our 28 fundamental beliefs that we cannot expect an educated SDA professor to be committed to and profess to others all 28 (100%)?

I think the poll question is a bit unclear. What if I answer Yes, “there is a limit to how many fundamental beliefs a professor can openly reject…” but I am thinking that the limit should be three or four or maybe 10 beliefs? The same thing would be valid if the answer was Yes, the limit is just one belief. You may consider rephrasing the question, or change the possible answers…

Pastor Kevin, to “take a stand for the Fundamental Beliefs of the Church” is not the same as to agree that church employees should “openly” uphold those beliefs–which is what I understood the poll was asking.

The church has long confused the need for speaking with one voice OFFICIALLY, with the desire to control what people believe.

The whole Protestant movement was founded on the principle of “sola scriptura”, meaning that the Bible alone, and NOT the church, was to determine what is truth.

–Kathleen

@David: I couldn’t agree more! Very well said!

The questions are not worded correctly. But I believe there are some of our beliefs that we might disagree a bit on. There are some that the Bible isn’t purely black and white on. Sabbath is very clear. State of the dead, very clear. Health, very clear. Salvation ONLY in Christ, xtreamly clear. Creation, very, xtreamly clear. etc. But some, although clear to me and fully accepted by me, others have a different view and I can not prove them wrong. Some having to do with God, and the Holy Spirit for example. If we could understand and explain God then I am afraid He would not be the God I believe in.

I bet this will upset some people

I feel that all the principles of the 28 Fundamentals of Belief should be upheld, especially by our leaders and teachers. I feel the poll statement should be reworded for clarity.

If you are following scripture, can you affirm trinitarianism, which contradicts scripture? Can you call the Almighty by heathen names, in violation of Ex 23:13? Can you ignore the special days He set apart (Lev 23) and follow the days the Catholic church set aside????

There are several interesting comments above; many I can agree with, a few I have difficulties with. My vote was yes, and the number, in my view, is zero. By saying that I’m not trying to force any/everyone to agree with my position or even with the position taken by the SDA Church in its formal GC session over the years, known as The 28 Fundamental Beliefs. That would be totally inappropriate and smacks more of the Devil’s form of government than that of God.

I’m also not sure of the clarity of the wording of the poll question. The word “openly” gives the impression that if a “professor” were to reject one of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs secretly, it would be OK. If it were truly done secretly, how would anyone know and therefore be able to bring his rejection into question. In light of this conclusion, I would suggest that if a professor (or any other denomination-paid employee, for that matter) disagrees with a Fundamental Belief and makes it public, regardless or when, where, or to whom, that employee should be required to resign his/her position immediately. In fact, there should be a clause in every employee’s contract stating this as a condition of employment.

I know this is a very strong position to take and statement to make, but having observed certain circumstances in my own career as a church/conference employee, when this kind of position is not taken, it will eventually lead to all kinds of exceptions being made for questionable but allowed practices within our church owned/operated facilities. And I would add, contrary to what one person commented above, there are no beliefs so clear to everyone’s perceptions that those beliefs will never be compromised. And believe it or not, the Sabbath is at the head of the list.

If a belief isn’t actually fundamental to the SDA Church, as an organized body, let’s not call it “fundamental”. However, if we, as a Church body, actually believe something is truly “fundamentally” important, let’s not act as if it is not really fundamentally important by hiring those representatives to would go around publicly undermining a truly fundamental stand of the Church body – even if it is just one of the 28…

Sean Pitman
http://www.DetectingDesign.com

@frank Jarman:
@frank Jarman: @frank Jarman:
To Mr. Jarman: Please tell me where EGW says that ‘wearing a ring will let all kinds of jewelry come in?’ I cannot find such a statement anywhere in the writings of EGW. A search through the Index to the Writings of EGW as well as a computer search of her writings on CD failed to turn up such a statement. I would appreciate a reference.
Sincerely,
Ellie Green

I totally agree with Pastor Kevin’s remarks. Thank you for your faithfulness to the church. Such loyalty is getting harder and harder to find.

As to the poll–I also felt that it left room for interpretation. Like Jose, I was thinking of the number 0 when I was clicking on the ‘yes’. However, it would be wise, I think to reword it so that we have the option of saying that straight out–perhaps that could be one of the choices?

We really need to realize that fellowship in this or any other group depends on agreement with it’s tenets. I have seen so many people baptised while doing things they shouldn’t be–such as smoking, drinking, using tea and coffee, breaking the Sabbath, rejecting the Spirit of Prophecy, and worshiping in Sunday-keeping churches.

It seems that there is little regard even among some of our ministers for the pillars of the faith. With the Willow Creek movement that has infiltrated our churches and the “contemplative spirituality”, along with this mega monster “theistic evolution” that has reared its ugly head, our church is under a huge attack. It is time to get back to the pure church that was established by the pioneers with God’s direct help.

I daresay I will be attacked on this once again by people who think we should not be purifying the church, but as far as I’m concerned they are just working for Satan to block the work that needs to be done…so…I have broad shoulders–I can take it–with God’s help.

Faith

To say that there is “no limit” to the degree to which one my reject SDA doctrine and yet claim a paycheck from the church – is folly.

To say that “there is a limit” is helpful – but does not say if that limit is 1 or 27.

in Christ,

Bob

Any person considered to be a “representative” of the church, any church or organization for that matter, must speak for those he/she represents. He does not speak of his own, just as Christ did not speak of His own, but spoke only what the Father directed.

If a king or president sends an ambassador to another country to represent him, that ambassador is not commissioned to speak for themselves; they are only authorized to speak strictly according to what the king or president instructs him to speak – else he is no longer a representative but a free-agent.

I am in full agreement with the comment above: “I should expect that many people, whether professors or not, might struggle with various aspects of our faith. To the extent they have personal struggles, however, as long as they are on the payroll of the Adventist church, they must not openly teach in opposition its beliefs.”

This is a no brainer! NONE! I cannot believe that this would even be considered! If my children were going to this school you all would see nothing but their taillights. Over the years our belief systems has erroded to the point we are no different than any other religion out there–especially what I see in California–sad to say!

This is a bad poll. If you answer yes, you are saying that there is a limit although the limit could be anywhere from 0 to 28. If you answer no, you are saying there is no limit, and again it could by anywhere from 0 to 28. Someone needs to rephrase the question.

When anyone rejects the truth of Genesis 1, then the rejection of all other divinely revealed truth inevitably follows. There may be a difference in how long this takes for different people, but the end result has been demonstrated so many times as to be very predictable.

You simply cannot BE an Adventist if you do not believe that Genesis 1 is a true account of our origins (and our destiny).

If God is not our creator, but is instead a liar, then the entire Gospel collapses.

There is no room for middle positions on this question. There is no neutrality presented in scripture.

I voted yes also but also didn’t like the wording, we as a people need to have the eye save of Jesus so we can see error but also see God’s truth.Convinced by the Weight of Evidence.–God is presenting to the minds of men divinely appointed precious gems of truth, appropriate for our time. God has rescued these truths from the companionship of error, and has placed them in their proper frame-work. When these truths are given their rightful position in God’s great plan, when they are presented intelligently and earnestly, and with reverential awe, by the Lord’s servants, many will conscientiously believe because of the weight of evidence, without waiting for every supposed difficulty which may suggest itself to their minds, to be removed.–Manuscript 8a, 1888.
What are these precious gems of truth, they are none other than Ron Wyatts Discoveries that so many want to disreguard. they are the SHOW of the show and tell that God is giving us adventists today http://www.bibleportraits.org

We should consider carefully what is happening in the investigative judgement right now, especially considerint Revelation 11:1 “Arise and measure the temple of God, the altar, and those who worship there.” It seems like this, along with many other abuses of God’s grace and disregard for His original instructions, are defining our corporate spirituality. Though God is so longsuffering toward us, and has patiently extended His hand of mercy, the church is in danger of repeating the experience of Israel- in passing the point of probation and rejecting their Savior. “Do not say ‘We have Abraham as our father.’”

I personally believe this event with La Sierra teaching evolution is extremely significant in the eyes of heaven- one of so many signs that we are truely almost at the very end of time, and the Lord is soon to come. “He who has an ear, let Him here what the spirit says to the churches.” “Lift up your eyes, for your redemption draweth nigh.”

“Where are the watchmen on the wall” are we ready for this, brothers and sisters? Are we ready to stand for God wherever we are and in the Spirit of Christ, and the spirit and power of Elijah fight for the Lords honor- even if it cost’s us all that is dear in life?

We have read and loved the Great Controversy book’s stories- stories of history and heroism. But do we realize that now is also history in the making? Now is the time when the final chapters of the book will be written, and now is the time when God needs heros to stand for Him…

Rom 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned;and avoid them.

How hard is the decision? In the interest of preserving God’s will in our body and in an attempt to redeem those who stray – this decision should be straight forward. If we think about those who gave their lives in behalf of the Gospel – the alternatives are limited. Have we become so politically correct that we can not support the Truth boldly? Alan

We should be openly accepting 100% of these fundamentals. Those things are the bases and beliefs of the adventist church. How can you say you don’t believe in the second coming of Christ or creation and still call yourself an adventist? To say you do not believe in these truths is saying you do not believe in the Bible. So if thats what our church is based how can you say you only believe in some of it? The answer is you can’t.

Let us say for example you have a math teacher or a Music teacher that objects to some statement in the 28 FB about the nature of Christ – should they be released even though they never share that view with students?

That can be debated.

But in the case of biology teachers and theology teachers at LSU – they make that rejection of ADventist doctrine part of their COURSE WORK – part of the require teaching for students!!

What kind of blindness is that????

Hmm – according to 3SG 90-91 it is not blindness at all – it is craft and skill.

in Christ,

Bob

My feeling either you belive or you don’t! Why teach what you know not to be true ……

Hello,
I really admire the persistence on this matter by Bro. Shane. We ought to uphold the truth as it is in Jesus. But I would like to point out something here and before I do I want to let everyone know that I am a 20 year Seventh-day Adventist and love this church and the truth that it has. But about the Bible being our ONLY creed – I agree the Bible is the book to define our doctrine and should be our only creed. But if the Bible is our only creed, as mentioned in the beginning statement at the beginning of this page – then why is it that the 28 Fundamental Beliefs book is suddenly moved into place as a representation of what the Bible is to say??? Please don’t misunderstand me here – I have to bring up this very critical issue.
On one hand we are saying we don’t have any creed but the Bible, but on the other hand we are making the 28 Fundamentals a “standard” to look to. Many of us may deny this is what we are doing – but in actuality we are. Before I comment any further let me prove this point by quoting a section from the latest Church Manual – this is found on pg. 33 under the Baptismal candidate section entitled ‘Vow (Alternate)’ (Note: it should alarm us that we now have an alternate vow of only 3 professions for members to be baptized) here’s the quote from the Manual “2. Do you accept the teachings of the Bible as expressed in the Statement of Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and do you pledge by God’s grace to live your life in harmony with these teachings?” Please notice that the vow is making the Fundamental Beliefs book the ‘acid test’ and NOT the Bible. Please read it for what it is. The point I’m trying to make is we have to uphold the Bible and the Spirit of Prophecy and not ANY other book. I’m not against reading other books and learning from them but to make it such a ‘test’ is not in line with Protestant thinking.
Here is what I call the definitive statement of Seventh-day Adventists. From the book Evangelism, pg. 119-120 “In a special sense Seventh-day Adventists have been set in the world as watchmen and light-bearers. To them has been entrusted the last warning for a perishing world. On them is shining wonderful light from the Word of God. They have been given a work of the most solemn import,–the proclamation of the first, second, and third angels’ messages. There is no other work of so great importance. They are to allow nothing else to absorb their attention The most solemn truths ever entrusted to mortals have been given us to proclaim to the world. The proclamation of these truths is to be our work. The world is to be warned, and God’s people are to be true to the trust committed to them…” What a beautiful statement!!!
Once again please don’t misunderstand me – some might think I’m just being ‘critical’, etc… (There are many of our own members who are surprisingly sympathizing with La Sierra over this matter) I guess one could call it what they will but it is my only desire to help awaken Seventh-day Adventist to what could be a possible danger. I believe this is what we should do to help each other. What if the 28 Fundamentals had rank error in it?? – and we were holding it high up as a standard and as a representation of what the Bible says and what we believe as a people?? Could this be the case??? Well I’m sad to say this is the case. In chapter 23 on the Sanctuary (I’m quoting from my 27 Fundamentals book – the 28 Fundamentals is chapter 24 – but it’s still there) on pg. 315 it says “The Atonement, or reconciliation, was completed on the cross as foreshadowed by the sacrifices, and the penitent believer can trust in this finished work of our Lord.” How can such a statement be found in something that is supposed to represent what Seventh-day Adventism believes? We as a church do not believe this – our pioneers did not believe this. Anyone who has studied the Old Testament sanctuary service knows that the sacrifice was not the end of the process of the atonement for sin. But yet we are saying it is here in this book – in essence our central pillar is destroyed by this one sentence. Look at this statement in the Great Controversy pg. 489 “The intercession of Christ in man’s behalf in the sanctuary above is as essential to the plan of salvation as was His death upon the cross. By His death He began that work which after His resurrection He ascended to complete in heaven.” The work going on in the heavenly sanctuary on our behalf is AS ESSENTIAL as Jesus’ death on the cross in the plan of salvation.
The Sanctuary doctrine IS the central pillar of our faith. Without this doctrine Adventism has no reason to exist. There are other churches that keep the Sabbath, teach the correct understanding of the state of the dead, etc… But none of these have the sanctuary message – total victory over sin through the indwelling power of Jesus working in our lives. This is what really sets us apart from ALL other denominations. This is what defines us as a people and makes us a privileged people to present such a message in these very last days. May God be with us all in our journey.

Wanda Bohl: There is no middle ground when one becomes an SDA christian. Either you believe in what Adventism stands for or you don’t. How can our Church allow Leaders to teach “beliefs” that are not in accordance with Scripture?!  

Hi, One of the main reason why nothing is done in these situations is because of “accreditation”. All of our schools have become accredited. This was never in accord with God’s plan. Please study this issue out. This is probably one of the main reasons why nothing is being done about this situation at La Sierra. This is why we have openly gay rights groups at Andrew’s University and other places. If we were to get rid of these people and stop what they are doing (even when it is so clear from the Bible) not only would a big lawsuit be brought against the church but the State could also come in and bring havoc on the situation. Federal money will be taken away (and we are probably relying on it at this point to operate our schools). I believe accreditation has wreaked havoc on our perfect plan of educating our people which was laid out by the Spirit of Prophecy.

This to me is only one of so many reasons these people need to be brought into account of their actions. The teachers and the school that upholds them.
“Satan has been using you as his agent to insinuate doubts and to reiterate insinuations and misrepresentations which have originated in an unsanctified heart, which God would have cleansed from its pollution. But you refused to be instructed, refused correction, rejected reproof, and followed your own will and way. Souls are defiled by this root of bitterness and are, through these questioning, murmuring ones, placed where the testimony of reproof which God sends will not reach them. The blood of these souls will be chargeable to you and to the spirits with whom you are in harmony.” {4T 229.1}

Some people have mentioned that we shouldn’t have a creed or set of doctrines. But, if we don’t have that clearly laid out then it will be total anarchy and our church will quickly loose it’s identity, apostasy and deviation from the truth would increase exponentially, and the church might even disolve into splinter groups because it would go off in so many different directions. The doctrinal statements have been a blessing from God which have helped to keep some semblance of unity in a world-wide body of believers. Those who want to bring in dangerous doctrines and practices would have a hay day if we did away with the doctrinal statements.

Doctrinal statements are a way of communicating clearly among us and to others in answer to the question “who are we, and what do we believe.” If we don’t have that, we might as well not bother to call ourselves Seventh-day Adventist, just call it “multi-denominational,” or call it whatever you would feel like calling it- because there would be no particular definition of what it is.

Regarding creeds, (though I haven’t studied into it a lot, but from my brief look at the issue) Sister White does not seem to suggest that having creeds is wrong.

However, I also agree with the following statement from Barry; “The question should be whether or not our teachers uphold the teachings of the Bible and use the Bible as their rule of faith or not.”

And in agreement with what some others have said, that the doctrinal statements themselves should in no way replace the Bible as our foundation, the doctrines should always be worded in a way that POINTS us to the Bible as our test of faith. It seems that for the most part, what we have at this point comes pretty close to doing that (although there are some words that are starting do deviate from that a little- as has been mentioned already).

I also felt that the poll question was a little unclear, at first I wasn’t sure if I should check “Yes” or “No” in order to express my viewpoint.

@David R.:

Hi, One of the main reason why nothing is done in these situations is because of “accreditation”. All of our schools have become accredited. This was never in accord with God’s plan.

This has been suggested in the past – however we have a number of universities NOT selling Adventism out for evolutionism – and they are accredited.

But in the sense that a sudden loss of biology staff in significant numbers could affect accreditation for biology (not because of creation vs evolution – but because of a lack of post-grad and PHD level faculty in the biology department) could be an issue. They might have to can their offerings in biology until they can find good replacements.

in Christ,

Bob

@David R.:

David R. is absolutely right on!!! Amen to everything he said!

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

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

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

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

I could answer this question if it was reworded to say “How many SDA fundamental beliefs can a professor OPENLY reject, teach against and still be considered an adequate representative of the church (aka keep their jobs)?
This is the situation at LSU and as such makes more sense to poll on.
The answer of course is 0.
The only reason we have our own schools is to teach our students every subject in the context of our held beliefs. Context being a framework or worldview that we believe the Bible gives us and requires us to view every aspect of our lives.
We shouldn’t be going to college to become successful and make a lot of money.
We should go to college to prepare us to best carry out our work as a missionary to the world in what ever area we are called by God to work. Example (if you want to work in the area of science, you need to know everything about the evidence for Creation/the flood and how that relates to the world view so you can be a good witness in that field).
Every aspect of evolution we teach should be taught side by side with the compareable evidence of Creation/flood etc.
People say that would be too hard or take too much time. It will take a little more time, but if it’s the reason for your degree it’s of the most importance.
The main problem with our schools today is that we have lost sight of the very most important reason we exist as a people. “To carry the Gospel/Three angles message to the World”.

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

David R, thank you for your balanced contribution to this discussion.

Having survived the acid years of the 80′s at PUC when our church lost thousands of precious kids because of the un-Christlike spirit exhibited on all fronts (more so than over doctrine), I would plead with those involved in this debate to reflect the spirit of Jesus Christ.

Yes, Christ said He brought a Sword that would cut through the nonsense, but His prayer for us is that we will be one as He and the Father are one. The true followers of God will be known by their love, not by their doctrines. Yes, I believe that the doctrines are an outgrowth of our love for God resulting from actually reading, knowing and believing the Word of God, but I also believe that a result of our surrender to God and His will, will result in a passionate love for each other and not an infusion of venom.

It is crucial that we stand for truth, but let us never forget that the Truth is a Person. Truth is not the 28 or the 3 or the whatever. Truth is a Person. I am not saying to cry “Peace, Peace” when there is no peace, but for the love of God and our children, stand up for truth with the spirit of Jesus Christ and not with the spirit of the devil. More harm is done by an unconverted Bible thumper than any other kind of individual. This battle must be fought on our knees with the focus first being on the surrender of our own attitudes, agendas, and caustic spirits or the victor will not be Truth even if truth is the outcome.

The verse, “Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment.” (James 3:1) has always been a sobering verse to me. We are to be a highway of holiness that any person that ever has anything to do with us should be able to take straight to the heart of God. We need to fight our battles in God’s armor, not our own or we will surely defame the Name of God.

A good SDA professor can reject some of the 28 fundamental statements.
A good SDA professor can accept some of the 28 fundamental statements.
A heretical SDA professor could reject some of the 28 fundamental statements.
A heretical SDA professor could accept some of the 28 fundamental statements.
It just depends how carefully you read the 28 fundamental Statements.
I will show that the question posed is made by someone who has never really read the 28 fundamental statements carefully.
The 28 fundamental statements are worded in areas to mean two different things.
For instance Statement #12 is defining “the Church.” You think it is about the SDA church, but it is not. It defines “the church” as any “community that confesses Christ.” A community can mean a church system, or a local church of any denomination. Catholic, Methodist, Lutheran, SDA–all are included in this definition. We believe that Catholic church fell centuries ago, and that the Protestant churches fell in 1844. We call these fallen church systems “Babylon.” In point #12 we are esentially saying that the SDA church is grouped in with Babylon. This is definitely not a true statement, and therefore a good SDA professor would have to reject this article of the 28 statments.
Instead, the definition of “the church” should be any “individual” that confesses Jesus Christ. This would include individuals in Babylon that have not received all the light of present truth, as well as the truly converted in SDA. Specifically, Rev. 14:12 defines the true visible church today.
Statement #13 is about the SDA church. It says that the SDA “remnant” church is part of the “universal” church. This can mean many things, because “universal” is another word for “Catholic”, meaning not that it is worldwide, but that it includes everyone.
Statement #14 on Unity in the church. You think it about unity in the SDA church, but it is not. It is talking about an ecumenical unity based on the Catholic concept of the Trinity–the Triune God. This is the exact language found in the 1995 ecyclical of Pope John Paul II–Ut Unim Sint.
This points us to Article #2 that defines God and uses the strange word “co-eternal” when “eternal” would do just as well, except the former agrees with Catholicism, and the latter with Spirit of Prophecy–”the Heavenly Trio.”
The 28 statements also leaves out important SDA doctrine. It never defines who the beast is, or the image of the beast, or what Babylon is. These are vital points of the Three Angel’s Messages that the SDA church was raised up to preach.
The Three Angels Messages is clear on the subject of Evolution: Worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.” Rev. 14:7.
Thus we see that the true question should be: Can a teacher in our schools openly reject the Three Angels’ Messages and represent the true SDA church?
The answer is absolutely NO.
But if you go by the 28 fundamental statements, the answer is absolutely YES. Because “the church” is not the SDA church, and most other churches that fall in the definition of fundamental statement #12 believe in evolution.

Someone earlier also mentioned that it might be alarming to some that there is an alternative option of only 3 statements for the baptismal vows. I find that very concerning, because it means people coming in may not be required to understand or accept the majority of our beliefs at all. Especially when numbers and sensation seem to be the desired result -like the huge (“Pentecost” -was that the name?) mass baptism that was organized in Central America where something like more than a hundred-thousand people were baptized in a day in order to get the number of our members above the million mark in that division (or something like that).

In Taiwan I have sometimes heard calls being made to groups of non-Christians (ie Buddhist, etc.) to come up to the front “if you want to be baptized this Sabbath (that is without much time to have studies of any kind),” (although recently they have not been saying it that way as much).

It seems that perhaps many things we are seeing in regard to the churches stand on doctrines are in line with the “post-modern ministry methods” ideas being promoted by some leaders in our church. In some places (here at least) conference representatives are openly saying that we should not make our doctrines distinctive to anyone outside the church, as in holding Daniel and Revelation seminars, etc.- or if we do, be careful not to say anything that might offend other churches (such as by identifying Babylon). They say that we should just “celebrate our differences,” that when you’re working together in community outreach programs “who cares (direct quote)” what our doctrinal differences are. I also heard that key world church leaders and evangelists were also complying with this, not being willing to speak clearly when giving Revelation seminars, etc.

As I mentioned before, it seems we should consider carefully what is happening in the investigative judgment right now, especially considering Revelation 11:1 “Arise and measure the temple of God, the altar, and those who worship there.” It seems like many other abuses of God’s grace and disregard for His original instructions, are defining our corporate spirituality. Though God is so longsuffering toward us, and has patiently extended His hand of mercy, the church is in danger of repeating the experience of Israel- in passing the point of probation.

As individuals, however, it seems we should not make any hasty movements or manifest a spirit of extremism. Satan would love that- because he can use that to make charges against us and cause people not to listen to our counsel because they think we are “unbalanced” or not able to control our emotions (we MUST be able to maintain wisdom- keep the relationships and work through love). God still loves His church so dearly, and I don’t believe that the church is past it’s probation yet by any means- even though it does seems to be flirting with it in many ways. God’s patience is so longsuffering and so must ours be- We must act as Christ did toward Jerusalem and Israel of old – loving the people, laboring among them, though standing for the right and speaking the truth- always in love (even any rebuke He gave was with tears in His voice, as Sister White says). It was with weeping that wracked His whole body that He finaly said “Oh Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how I longed to gather you under my wings… but you would not.” What sad words those are! Pray that it will not be the fate of our dear people also.

The Seventh-day Adventist Church’s 28 fundamental beliefs are the framework for our denomination’s beliefs, based on Biblical truth. If these are rejected (not upheld) by our leadership and/or institutions, then the very reason for our existence as a denomination begins to unravel. In regard to the teaching of evolution in its various forms at LaSierra University, it strikes at the very heart of Adventism…the belief that the fourth commandment was referring to a literal seven day creation week. Any form of evolution (including theistic) is incompatible with the fourth commandment. They are opposites, and simply cannot both be true. Either we believe the fourth commandment, which was written by God’s own hand (twice!), or we must accept that God wrote a lie…its just that simple. I have difficulty understanding why we are tolerating obvious error for so long with no resolution of the situation…other than another committee being formed to discuss it. The problem has “evolved” into a leadership problem at this point…or a lack thereof.

Is there a limit to how many of these fundamental beliefs a professor can openly reject and still be considered an adequate representative of the church?

Anyone who professes to be a Seventh-day Adventist is a professor of the church. The biggest problem with the opening question is that no Adventist in his heart really believes all 28 official beliefs. It’s impossible to justify believing in a contradiction. No one really believes belief number 14:

“Through the revelation of Jesus Christ in the Scriptures we share the same faith and hope, and reach out in one witness to all.”

The Spirit of prophecy compilation titled The Seven Faces of Seventh-day Adventism refutes that official belief in a flash.

Vicki Gillham: In some places (here at least) conference representatives are openly saying that we should not make our doctrines distinctive to anyone outside the church, as in holding Daniel and Revelation seminars, etc.- or if we do, be careful not to say anything that might offend other churches (such as by identifying Babylon). They say that we should just “celebrate our differences,” that when you’re working together in community outreach programs “who cares (direct quote)” what our doctrinal differences are. I also heard that key world church leaders and evangelists were also complying with this, not being willing to speak clearly when giving Revelation seminars, etc.

I agree with what Vicki said here–it comes from the Willow Creek church teachings based on what Robert Schuller is teaching. Our church is soaking up heresy like a sponge from these seminars that our ministers are attending. We need to know what is going on so we can beware of these worldly teachings in our church.

Of course Satan wants us to quit making our doctrines distinctive–that would suit his purposes just fine. But this is directly contrary to what our commission is, wouldn’t it? We are to go to all the world, preaching the straight truth–and we cannot do that as long as we are trying to conform to the world and hide our truths in the shadows like they are something to be ashamed of.

Woe to the ministers that are practicing and promoting this heresy.
I posted this comment once before on the EducateTruth site, but I think it is serious enough that it bears repeating.

In the chapter “The Earth Desolated” in Early Writings, Ellen White points out the horrendous punishment meted out to the False Shepherds that mislead the people. Here she is describing the aftermath of Christ’s second coming.

“The false shepherds had been the signal objects of Jehovah’s wrath. Their eyes had consumed away in their holes, and their tongues in their mouths, while they stood upon their feet.”–Early Writings P.289-290

Ous leadership should stop and take a look at where they are heading. Not one dime of church funds should be spent sending ministers to attend these seminars of heresy.

Faith

@Herb Douglass:
Herb,
I can’t seem to find the fundamental belief that says the Atonement was “completed” on the cross. Can you please let me know in which of the formal 28 statements I can find that?

Faith: Woe to the ministers that are practicing and promoting this heresy.
I posted this comment once before on the EducateTruth site, but I think it is serious enough that it bears repeating.

The Bible says, “Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth.” 2 Peter 1:12
God bless,

Rich

It was said,

Not one dime of church funds should be spent sending ministers to attend these seminars of heresy.

I’m afraid this statement is really to strong. We must be careful to fully reflect the spirit of Christ and the Spirit of Prophecy teachings in all that we say- especially on matters like this we must manifest a reasonable spirit which will help us to build bridges and solve problems.

I’ve heard people saying things in this type of language at times, which I feel is not best- that is to seemingly use Sister White’s manner of speech making statements, but it is not said in the moderate and loving spirit, so it misrepresents the Spirit of Prophecy. People listening who have little experience with the Spirit of Prophecy writings (such as young people) will think “wow, if he/she represents what Ellen White and the Spirit of Prophecy writings are like, then I want nothing to do with that.” Ellen White truly was a prophet- so she sometimes made statements in more the form of a proclamation, perhaps, based on what God had showed her, but we do not have that role.

I really believe that one of Satan’s tactics to destroy people’s confidence in the SOP writings is to cause people to take things to extremes or speak without love, and thus misrepresent them. Sister White herself warned a lot against that kind of thing.

Some people above were discussing the issue of showing love versus speaking truth. But BOTH must be done together at the same time, really. Satan knows EXACTLY what he is doing, and he’s very good at it. He has been doing this with our church for a long time- he causes people to go to extremes and then plays one extreme side against the other. That’s also how He instigates argument and wars all over the earth.

If we examine society, we will find these same elements all throughout it- there almost always is a liberal left and conservative right, arguing with each other, sometimes fighting, sometimes warring. This is Satan’s method. In Christ, in the church, we should be able to somehow rise above these basic dysfunctions of society, rather than perpetuating them. That’s why the Bible and Spirit of Prophecy writings counsel us to avoid all extremes, I believe.

How do you shoot an arrow? You have to pull back to one extreme in order to get the energy to propel it out to your goal of the other extreme- so Satan’s plan for destroying faith and Christianity all along has been to create that tension of extremism (for example pharisaism) which causes people to go to the other extreme in reaction.

That was the exact way that he accomplished the goal of getting the world to accept the theory of evolution to begin with- by causing the tension on the people through the Catholic’s dogmatic control of everyone, and the doctrine of eternally burning hell fire, etc.- which made religion a huge burden that so many people were grateful to be free of as soon as they could find another theory.

In saying “avoiding all extremes” I am not suggesting that we compromise on doctrine in any way -that certainly is not my point. I myself am very firmly fundamentalist in viewpoint and often contend to defend the truths of our faith in my local setting. I am talking about the spirit which we manifest in doing this work of defending truth- that we should be careful to avoid manifesting harshness or intolerance, or taking things out of context, or make Religion seem like a burden to young people through our lack of having a sweet and natural spirit that is filled with love and patience.

These are the two extremes we should avoid also; 1) arguing for more “love and grace,” almost as an excuse for moral compromise (in the name of tolerance), and 2) unsympathetic forcefulness in manner of speaking, or driving issues to an extreme conservative that even Christ and Sister White herself never did.

I hope that we can truly find the beautiful moderation in Christ that helps us to win hearts to Christ, while holding firmly to every truth of God- after the example of our great Model, Christ. “Love will cover a multitude of sins.” 1 Peter 4:8

“Mercy and truth have met together; Righteousness and peace have kissed.” Psalm 85:10

Maybe I should clarify, the quote I quoted above was something another member of this forum posted above as her opinion, it’s not an Ellen White quote.

I don’t feel that anything Sister White says is to strong, because she includes so many explanations, stories, context- and overall has a tone of Christian moderation in what she’s saying, as well as constantly emphasizing the love of God. And she was really a prophet, so some stronger statements that seem like a proclamation of what the Lord has showed her are of course only natural and acceptable. But it’s not natural or good for us to make the same type of proclamation using language that was unique to her- when we don’t have a revelation from God like she did (That’s what I was trying to say).

We can so easily misrepresent the Spirit of Prophecy writings to other people that way, by presenting ourselves as close followers of these words (even speaking like she does), but not demonstrating the same spirit that she did. Because the young people, etc, may not take time to read the Spirit of Prophecy writings, they will just look to our example.

We must be fully as Christ was- “the word made flesh” – fully reflecting the whole beautiful spirit the writings when we present the truths that are in them- so that people can really understand what they are like (because just like “you’re the only Jesus some will ever see,” our lives may also be the only glimpse of the Spirit of Prophecy writings that some people ever get).

Of course, perhaps not everything that Sister White says is appropriate to be used in every situation, just as when she said it she was addressing a specific issue.

The statement from Spiritual Gifts Vol 3 pg 90-91 (right?) seems quite appropriate to the situation about the problem of geological interpretation (about evolution). If you look at the whole passage, you can get a feel for her spirit- even though she says the word “infidel geologists” she’s saying it as a matter of fact, not in an accusatory or emotionally out-of-control way. She is explaining everything, and she returns to talking about the Lord and His greatness- there are gentle undertones of peace, hope and love in all that she’s saying, even if you are stirred emotionally or feel convicted (rather than undertones of cold accusation, unkindness, discourtesy or despair that comes out through the spirit of extremism).

I’m glad “David R.” is an active participant in this important discussion; however, I doubt that he would like to be confused with me! Many thanks!!

David R. Larson
Loma Linda, California

Jesus taught different from the organized, recognized schools of the Sanhedrin; but it is also true that whereas the “professors” at the “Sanhedrin university” taught falsehood(“teaching for doctrines the commandments of men”..)Jesus taught the whole truth and nothing but…!

If the professors are to be put in the one category or the the other! To which would they themselves as “representatives of Jesus” prefer to be in?

Would they prefer to be seen as promoting “the commandments of men”, if even apparently so; or would they prefer instead to be seen as promoting only the “teachings of Jesus”?

It is Jesus who said that He is “The beginning of the creation of God”…Revelation 3:14…and in addition in John 1:1, Jesus’ own disciple,John, and to whom Jesus also conversed re the fact that He is the “begining of the creation God,in the book of the “Revelation of Jesus”…he John informs us that “all things” were created by Jesus; and without Him nothing was ever created.

It certainly doesn’t require higher learning for any to see the obvious….But while truth should never be taken for granted; this business of truth revealed must be seen for what it really is!

That:Jesus could not have been in the “beginning” be “creating all things”…and then at the same time…’only start the process’ of “creating all things”…Then after he Himself ‘started the process of evolution’…became a product of that which He himself had started.

Anyone who therefore teaches any other doctrine than that delivered to the apostles…”let him be anathema”..so says another of Jesus’ disciple.

If the LSU professors who insist on teaching theistic evolution believe that Jesus started the process of evolution, then became himself a product of what he himself had started..and if they believe that this is what Jesus would have taught were He a professor at LSU, then they should certainly be allowed to continue in this teaching….But if Jesus would not have so taught, were He a professor at LSU, then neither should anyone misrepresent himself as teaching as Jesus would have taught.

And also: neither should such a misrepresntation of truth be given a platform to propagate falsehood in the name of Jesus….such a propagator of falsehood is proclaimed…”anathema”!….and so says the scriptures.

bevanton

The term “first born of creation’ refers to highest place of honor and authority. However God the Son was in fact from eternity past (Micah 5:2) as we see in – and has no beginning as we see in Heb 7:3.

You see this in 1Cor 15 “firstborn of the dead” – even though Moses was raised and taken to heaven before Christ.

in Christ,

Bob

Defining Adventism – or perhaps I should say – “How evolutionism undermines voted Adventist Fundamental Beliefs”

SDA 28FB Belief 1

1. Holy Scriptures:
The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God, given by divine inspiration through holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God’s acts in history. (2 Peter 1:20, 21; 2 Tim. 3:16, 17; Ps. 119:105; Prov. 30:5, 6; Isa. 8:20; John 17:17; 1 Thess. 2:13; Heb. 4:12.)

Evolutionism argues that
1. The Bible is not “the Word of God” – not in written form nor in any other form. Rather it is the “word of fallen and faulty man” who at various stages of ignorance tries to convey some truth via poetry or some other device.

2. As such the Bible is not a “trustworthy record of the acts of God” rather it is merely simply “poetry” or myth or story that illustrates a concept rather than relating accurately historic detail, when it comes to the doctrine of origins.

SDA 28FB Belief 3

3. Father:
God the eternal Father is the Creator, Source, Sustainer, and Sovereign of all creation. He is just and holy, merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness. The qualities and powers exhibited in the Son and the Holy Spirit are also revelations of the Father. (Gen. 1:1; Rev. 4:11; 1 Cor. 15:28; John 3:16; 1 John 4:8; 1 Tim. 1:17; Ex. 34:6, 7; John 14:9.)

Under the religious view of evolutionism – the term “creator” is redefined to mean that God did NOTHING at ALL in creation that could actually be “seen to show that the makER has intelligence” by the objective mind of man. So in essence – Romans 1 is dead wrong when scripture says that even pagans and barbarians can “clearly the see the invisible attributes of God” because they are “clearly seen IN the things that have been MADE”. The constant attacks evolutionists make against Intelligent Design (the argument that the design is SEEN IN nature showing intelligence was necessary in the design) – is (as it turns out ) a “distinctively atheist” argument in substance even when made by theistic evolutionists.

Originally Posted By: SDA 28FB Belief 4

4. Son:
God the eternal Son became incarnate in Jesus Christ. Through Him all things were created, the character of God is revealed, the salvation of humanity is accomplished, and the world is judged. Forever truly God, He became also truly man, Jesus the Christ. He was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. He lived and experienced temptation as a human being, but perfectly exemplified the righteousness and love of God. By His miracles He manifested God’s power and was attested as God’s promised Messiah. He suffered and died voluntarily on the cross for our sins and in our place, was raised from the dead, and ascended to minister in the heavenly sanctuary in our behalf. He will come again in glory for the final deliverance of His people and the restoration of all things. (John 1:1-3, 14; Col. 1:15-19; John 10:30; 14:9; Rom. 6:23; 2 Cor. 5:17-19; John 5:22; Luke 1:35; Phil. 2:5-11; Heb. 2:9-18; 1 Cor. 15:3, 4; Heb. 8:1, 2; John 14:1-3.)

Evolutionism does not value a “restoration” to conditions in the hominid caves of mythical (metaphorical) “Adam and Eve”. Such a thing would be a giant step into disease, starvation, predation and ignorance having no concept at all of science art religion or history as we have today. By comparison – we NOW live in the Garden of Eden.

SDA 28FB Belief 5

5. Holy Spirit:
God the eternal Spirit was active with the Father and the Son in Creation, incarnation, and redemption . He inspired the writers of Scripture. He filled Christ’s life with power. He draws and convicts human beings; and those who respond He renews and transforms into the image of God. Sent by the Father and the Son to be always with His children, He extends spiritual gifts to the church, empowers it to bear witness to Christ, and in harmony with the Scriptures leads it into all truth. (Gen. 1:1, 2; Luke 1:35; 4:18; Acts 10:38; 2 Peter 1:21; 2 Cor. 3:18; Eph. 4:11, 12; Acts 1:8; John 14:16-18, 26; 15:26, 27; 16:7-13.)

Evolutionism teaches that we need to divorce literal belief in the Bible account of creation from literal belief in the Bible account of redemption.

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 a 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 and predation. It was not “good” at all – and humans today should not seek to return to such a bloody death-overall origin.

SDA 28FB Belief 7

7. Nature of Man:
Man and woman were made in the image of God with individuality, the power and freedom to think and to do. Though created free beings, each is an indivisible unity of body, mind, and spirit, dependent upon God for life and breath and all else. When our first parents disobeyed God, they denied their dependence upon Him and fell from their high position under God. The image of God in them was marred and they became subject to death. Their descendants share this fallen nature and its consequences. They are born with weaknesses and tendencies to evil. But God in Christ reconciled the world to Himself and by His Spirit restores in penitent mortals the image of their Maker. Created for the glory of God, they are called to love Him and one another, and to care for their environment. (Gen. 1:26-28; 2:7; Ps. 8:4-8; Acts 17:24-28; Gen. 3; Ps. 51:5; Rom. 5:12-17; 2 Cor. 5:19, 20; Ps. 51:10; 1 John 4:7, 8, 11, 20; Gen. 2:15.)

By contrast the doctrines of Evolutionism are that mankind was created as a a violent, base cave-dwelling brute. By comparison to that we NOW enjoy a “high exalted position” rather than falling FROM such. Mankind living in neighborhoods today is far less violent and far more domesticated than the first hominids who had to kill every day as well as defending their caves, friends and family from their fellow hominids as well as the wild beasts.

SDA 28FB Belief 8

8. Great Controversy:
All humanity is now involved in a great controversy between Christ and Satan regarding the character of God, His law, and His sovereignty over the universe. This conflict originated in heaven when a created being, endowed with freedom of choice, in self-exaltation became Satan, God’s adversary, and led into rebellion a portion of the angels. He introduced the spirit of rebellion into this world when he led Adam and Eve into sin. This human sin resulted in the distortion of the image of God in humanity, the disordering of the created world, and its eventual devastation at the time of the worldwide flood. Observed by the whole creation, this world became the arena of the universal conflict, out of which the God of love will ultimately be vindicated. To assist His people in this controversy, Christ sends the Holy Spirit and the loyal angels to guide, protect, and sustain them in the way of salvation. (Rev. 12:4-9; Isa. 14:12-14; Eze. 28:12-18; Gen. 3; Rom. 1:19-32; 5:12-21; 8:19-22; Gen. 6-8; 2 Peter 3:6; 1 Cor. 4:9; Heb. 1:14.)

Evolutionism teaches that global mass “extinction events” happened numerous times on this planet before the first humans arrived and that none of those extinction events has anything to do with “war in heaven”. Creation itself is violent and disorderly making progress through a process of chaos and destruction.

SDA 28FB Belief 20

20. Sabbath:
The beneficent Creator, after the six days of Creation, rested on the seventh day and instituted the Sabbath for all people as a memorial of Creation. The fourth commandment of God’s unchangeable law requires the observance of this seventh-day Sabbath as the day of rest, worship, and ministry in harmony with the teaching and practice of Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath. The Sabbath is a day of delightful communion with God and one another. It is a symbol of our redemption in Christ, a sign of our sanctification, a token of our allegiance, and a foretaste of our eternal future in God’s kingdom. The Sabbath is God’s perpetual sign of His eternal covenant between Him and His people. Joyful observance of this holy time from evening to evening, sunset to sunset, is a celebration of God’s creative and redemptive acts. (Gen. 2:1-3; Ex. 20:8-11; Luke 4:16; Isa. 56:5, 6; 58:13, 14; Matt. 12:1-12; Ex. 31:13-17; Eze. 20:12, 20; Deut. 5:12-15; Heb. 4:1-11; Lev. 23:32; Mark 1:32.)

Evolutionism allows for no literal creation week, no Adam and Eve at the end of that 7 days, and thus no seventh-day Sabbath until the time of Sinai when it was simply “invented” as a nice idea using a story format that would appeal to superstitious slaves newly released from Egypt.

Hence as Darwin pointed out – he could not continue to hold to any form of Christian faith while faced with the glaring contradictions between the doctrines of evolutionism and the doctrines of the Bible.

So it is not surprising that we find at 3SG 90-91 that evolution is a direct attack on the Sabbath (among other problems identified for the doctrine of evolution on those pages)

in Christ,

Bob

Speaking of “Defining Adventism” and contrasting Adventism with the 3SG 90-91 concept of “disguised infidelity” we find this little tidbit of “disguise” commonly used by theistic evolutionists withint our denomination today.

Erv Taylor –
That fact is that, by definition, all Christians and thus all Adventists are creationists (with a small “c.”). They are creationists because they are theists. It would be very surprising if any Christian adherent whether Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, or any other member of any Christian denomination, sect, branch, or affiliation would dispute the confessional assertion that the God of Abraham and Jesus are ultimately responsible for the creation of all that is good in the physical universe.
Posted November 12th, 2009 by Ervin Taylor at this link
http://www.atoday.com/content/yecylc-adventist-creationism-ellen-white-connection

So this tells us that the devotee to belief in theistic evolutionism — will at times come to a web site like EducateTruth and claim “I too am a creationist”.

(I believe we have seen that once or twice on this board already).

Erv Taylor continues:

Beyond this, let us be honest and confess that contemporary institutional Adventist Christianity is in an extra bind when it comes to this topic. As a number of writers have previously suggested, the creation/Creationist division is a particular problem for the Adventist faith tradition in large part because of the manner in which many Adventists have been taught to view the function and role of Adventism’s 19th century prophetic voice, Ellen White.

Like essentially all of those who shared her immediate religious and social environment in her time and place, it was a simple given that the created world was only about 6,000 years old because that is what it said in the margins of their Bible.

She and they knew that there was an even more recent world wide flood (with the dates for the flood also in their Bible),

that the door of salvation was shut,

and the concept of the Trinity was not a Biblical concept.

She matured in two of these four beliefs and so the religious community which she helped to found eventually ceased to believe in the Shut Door doctrine and an Arian or Semi-Arian view of the Trinity.

Regretfully, she did not live long enough and her insights did not carry her along far enough to reevaluate her position with regard to a number of other beliefs including her understanding of the Genesis narratives. She was too busy focusing on what she viewed as much more important issues such as the theme that God is love.

Thus, the flexibility of early Adventist Christianity was lost when the generation that knew how she and her husband and others close to her developed her ideas, passed off the scene and were replaced by those who did not share the vision of the flexible creativity of “Present Truth.” That original vision was replaced by the static Fundamentalist orthodoxy of the “The Truth.”

Here we see that Taylor admits to the problem that Ellen White poses for truly determined evangelists for theistic evolutionism inside the SDA church.

Insead of paying attention “to the details” found in places like 3SG 90-91 as to where Ellen White claimed to have gotten her revelation from – Taylor muses the happy fiction that maybe – just maybe – Ellen White was actually inspired by “the margin of her Bible” whenever she said “God showed me” something like the Creation of the world. (Certainly Taylor knows that is where HE would get “his inspiration” at this point. And Erv seems to muse that maybe Ellen White was after all just like Erv Taylor himself when it comes to actual inspiration and revelation.)

In any case it is facinating that Taylor assumes Ellen White’s “understanding” was all that needed to be updated – and that her “understanding” was simply based on what she read in the margins of her Bible, and whatever her neighbors or husband happened to think at the time.

The other happy fiction is that Taylor seems to imagine that Ellen Harmon – raised as a Trinitarian — (United Methodist) somehow “discovered” the Trinity late in life (presumably in the 1880′s)

And finally Taylor “imagines” that Ellen White ever claimed that “God showed her” that evangelism had ceased (or maybe Taylor argues that this is yet another tidbit Ellen White picked up from the margin of her Bible? He doesn’t say in this case).

His point seems to be that if the “source” of Ellen White’s understanding is really just whetever her husband and friends and Bible-margin happpened to say – then the sources were indeed flawed and changing. Taylor’s article is designed to lead the reader to speculate on why in the world the denomination would ever have placed any kind of trust or weight in anything she said – vs whatever Samuel Clemens might have said.

How “instructive” that this appears to be all the grasp that some of our theistic evolutionist brethren seem to have on the topic.

in Christ,

Bob

@Vicki Gillham:
I’m afraid this statement is really to strong. We must be careful to fully reflect the spirit of Christ and the Spirit of Prophecy teachings in all that we say- especially on matters like this we must manifest a reasonable spirit which will help us to build bridges and solve problems.

So Vicki, what makes you think that statement was too strong and unreasonable? Do you think we should be funding Robert Schuller’s little university of heresy? Do you even know to what I am referring? As far as I am concerned, we have no business going to worldly churches looking for techniques to bring people into our church without any change in their lives whatsoever…actually, it is even worse than that because the Willow Creek church is suggesting we quit worshipping God as He directed, and substitute man in His place. To have coffee house/night club churches complete with food, drinks, and rock bands just to pander to the tastes of the worldly is absolute heresy…and our church has no business using the tithe contributed for the furtherance of the gospel to spend on this type of training. Our mission is to preach the truth and then we let the Holy Spirit do the converting. In the Willow Creek church, they aren’t interested in converting anyone, just filling the pews/tables and chairs.

There comes a time for plain speaking. I do not misrepresent the SOP by doing so or by posting a direct quote. Are you aware that Ellen White almost lost her gift of prophecy by softening the plain messages of the Lord? She didn’t want to hurt anyone, the dear soul. But God told her to give the messages as she was told or she would not be entrusted with them anymore. And of course I understand that I am not a prophet–never have I represented myself as being one…but that doesn’t mean I can’t quote our sister Ellen’s writings. These things were written down for us to refer to and use in times of distress. In my opinion, this is one of those times.

I am not saying that we shouldn’t be presenting the gospel in a loving manner…but we are not speaking of that right now…we are meeting heresy and we need to meet it head on…as the Lord told Ellen in one of her visions. Actually, it was a vision on this very topic of meeting heresy in the church. She was instructed to meet it head on.

I don’t feel guilty one bit for posting that quote concerning the false shepherds. It is a shocking thing, but it is a warning that needs to be heeded. Something has to shake these ministers and professors up…they need a wake up call. So why do you feel that I took that quotation out of context? How could it be out of context? It is referring to the punishment of people who teach heresy when they know better. I am sorry if it offends you, but then, unless you are one of them, I guess the message really isn’t meant for you, is it? I don’t look forward with any glee or pleasure to these people being punished like that–neither did Ellen White–and certainly neither does God. All I want to do is give them fair warning in time for them to repent of their sins. Isn’t that only fair? Aren’t we supposed to rebuke sin in the church?

Vicki Gillham: We can so easily misrepresent the Spirit of Prophecy writings to other people that way…Because the young people, etc, may not take time to read the Spirit of Prophecy writings, they will just look to our example.

As far as the young people go, my statement should not be the first introduction of the SOP to the vast majority of them. If we are doing our part, the SOP should be well-known and understood by the time they reach their teen years and are interested enough in this topic to be part of it. And in using that quote I misrepresented nothing.

Just so you know, I never wrote that passage out of anger, but out of conviction. I tend to look at things logically and state straight facts–perhaps not in the most politic way, but in sincerity nontheless. Personally, I think it would be better if we were to unite in the truth rather than quibble about the way I put things vs the way you would put them. There is a place in the work for straight speaking, as was evidenced by James White, who also spoke in a straight forward manner. In any case, if I offended you, sister, I am truly sorry, but sometimes the truth is sharper than a two-edged sword and must be used to cut out heresy. I believe that this case is one of those times.

Faith

Given that our quarterly is on fruits of the Spirit – and that today’s lesson is on meekness, it is certainly right that we be highly focused on the spirit and Christian content of whatever criticism we may have – of anyone.

So thinking along those lines – take a look at this -
http://www.educatetruth.com/la-sierra-evidence/perspectives-from-alleged-lsu-students/comment-page-4/#comment-9770

Do you think of the reference given there as a case of the right amount of criticism given the level of the crisis being addressed?

in Christ,

Bob

@Denver Fletcher:

Bob

My view is that – claims to possessing an education notwithstanding – those who claim that Christianity and evolution can be reconciled, simply do not understand either.

Denver -

That is true. What is amazing is that Darwin himself figured that out – as did Richard Dawkins, P.Z Meyers, Provine… et al.

Certainly in 3SG 90-91 it is clear that Ellen White was informed in no uncertain terms about that point you raise in the post above.

And then there is that list of a few examples our 28FB showing just where evolutionism flatly contradicts the doctrinal statement of Seventh-day Adventists.

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

in Christ,

Bob

Adventists have more freedom than members of many other denominations to interpret the Bible individually. I appreciate this, and wish it to continue. However, there is a limit to how far “off” one can go. I disagree with the “Fundamental Beliefs” in a number of places…but it is unlikely that my disagreements would put me greatly out of favor with other Adventists. Here are some examples:

3. Father:
God the eternal Father is the Creator, Source, Sustainer, and Sovereign of all creation….

I don’t believe the Father is the Creator. My Bible tells me this title belongs to Jesus. John summed it up nicely in his first chapter.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made…. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us…. (John 1:1-3, 14)

God the Father was not made flesh, so the “Word” of whom it is said that “All things were made by him” can be none other than Jesus Christ.

I also disagree with the first “Fundamental” in reference to the scriptures. The Bible defines what constitutes “scripture” and by its definition, Mrs. White’s writings are also “scripture” (given by inspiration of God, aren’t they?). So I do not limit scripture to just the Old and New Testaments, as the “Fundamentals” do.

There are other disagreements I have. But not a one of my beliefs contradicts Scripture. If I am shown from the Bible where my belief does not match, I will accept the truth and adjust my belief accordingly.

If Adventist professors are equally willing to grow in the light of truth, and to only differ with the “Fundamentals” where to do so follows the Bible even more closely, then I see no reason to “limit” their liberty. The “Fundamentals” should not really be our ultimate guide–that place is reserved for the Scriptures.

Erik

Patrick,

The word “Lord” in Rev. 4:11 is the same Greek word which clearly refers to Jesus in other passages (see Matthew 7:21-22, 8:25, 12:8, etc.). Eph. 3:9 likewise speaks of any member of the Godhead, to include Jesus, in using “God.” This Greek word speaks specifically of Jesus in multiple places as well. I agree with you regarding the Sabbath. It is a clear sign that God created this world and created us, and He is therefore Lord of this world, the Sabbath, and us.

The discussion over to whom the title “Creator” belongs is a far better one than the one many so-called Christians are having over whether God was even involved in the creative process. This illustrates my point quite well, that there is a limit to the liberty and independence an Adventist institution or its employees can have from our fundamental beliefs. While I choose still to believe that Jesus is the Creator, and I have texts to support my view (and which clarify your texts to show they support my position too), I would never be so radical as to suppose that you or other Adventist employees should adhere to my view in place of yours, nor would I call for you or others to be fired for such a small difference.

But to teach agnostic, macro-evolution and/or “mainstream science” as if it were fact, and that God did not do what He said He did in the Bible (Creation, the Deluge, etc.) is pure, unadulterated foolishness (see 1 Corinthians 3:19). To know the Adventist message, and to have the privilege of God’s truth in our hands and yet _still_ covet the world’s praise by accepting its agnostic theories hook, line, and sinker–and to further scoff at those who would find fault with such fiction–is a significant step beyond foolishness. Can we safely allow such false shepherds to teach our lambs without being held accountable for it in the Judgment?

Erik

Erik…..Jesus and His Father are one. This statement indicates that there is no degree of importance re the one being above the other for any reason. Saying that God created the heaven and the earth is not any different from saying that Jesus created the heaven and the earth. Both God and His son are one and have no desire to show who is the greater.

This fact is seen in the statement of Jesus re the resurrection of Lazarus….”I thank thee that thou hast heard me”..John 11:41…”but because of the people….I said it…that they may believe that thou hast sent me” John 11:42.

The resurrection of Lazarus is the same as the creation of Lazarus. His cells were all putrefied and were as non existing as had been the cells of Adam…so in the truest of sense Lazarus was created by Jesus..as we will be recreated in our immortal bodies….and just as Jesus was recreated in His.

And whereas Jesus will be calling us from the graves at the first resurrection…do you think it then matters who has the power to call us from the grave—He or His Father?

But should in case you still have questions—-read Proverbs chapter 8:22-36…..and tell me what you think. Who would you say did the creating? God or Jesus?

Here’s another question. We are sinners—-we are undeserving to be called “sons of God” and “joint heirs with His Son”….but aren’t we? Are you as “joint heir” equal with Jesus? If you are—-You then should not have a problem in seeing Jesus equal to His Father and as a consequence, equal in every respect. So any reference to Jesus as creating the heaven and the earth; is the same reference as God creating the heaven and the earth.

Re Ellen White’s writings as scripture…..
Ellen White’s writings can only be considered scripture, if her writings add to scripture what is not already revealed in scripture; re the salvation that is already and totally there; and is all about Jesus… and all about Jesus alone…and all already in scripture!

The entirety of scripture is about Jesus and the salvation he came to give sinners. There is nothing else! So if Ellen White adds to the story of salvation what is not already known re salvation; her writings would then have to be considered scripture.

The parts of scripture that have nothing to do with salvation, are there for our admonition, encouragement, advice etc; and whether we read and obey or other, will have no bearing re our salvation, if we ignore in any way shape or form, the core of salvation; Jesus our Passover Lamb. On the other hand; anyone who loves the author of salvation would live out in their lives any godly advice given by a parent, a pastor, or one’s next door neighbor;including, be that next door neighbor, Ellen White. And whereas the advice, encouragement, or other from pastor or next door neighbor, is not considered scripture, neither would any such similar advice from Ellen White.

Courtney