Rewrite of fundamental belief 6 voted by NCC

The Northern California Conference (NCC) will officially request that “the General Conference Church Manual Committee rewrite Fundamental Belief #6 to reflect the more specific language found in An Affirmation of Creation and Response to an Affirmation of Creation.” The Oroville Seventh-day Adventist Church, Ca., had recommended the NCC vote a request to the General Conference Church Manual Committee to rewrite Fundamental Belief #6. Today (May 16, 2010), it passed. Item #3 on the agenda did not pass.

See “A little-known history about belief 6

Share on Facebook0Pin on Pinterest0Share on LinkedIn0Tweet about this on TwitterDigg thisShare on Google+0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Print this pageEmail this to someone

32 thoughts on “Rewrite of fundamental belief 6 voted by NCC

  1. I am shocked that the NCC would undermine Adventist doctrine by seeking to revise FB #6. I’m also shocked that EducateTruth would support it. How dare you people tell us that our fundamental beliefs are wrong as they are currently written. YOU are the ones who are undermining them!




    0
    View Comment
  2. @Geanna Dane:

    I am shocked that the NCC would undermine Adventist doctrine by seeking to revise FB #6. I’m also shocked that EducateTruth would support it. How dare you people tell us that our fundamental beliefs are wrong as they are currently written. YOU are the ones who are undermining them!

    FB#6 could be modified to more clearly reflect both the historical position and the current official position of the SDA Church regarding the literal nature of the creation week described in the Genesis account.

    – please reference the decision of the General Conference’s executive committee: http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/statements/main_stat55.html

    There’s nothing wrong with changing doctrinal statements. The problem comes when paid representatives expect the Church, or any organization for that matter, to continue to pay them despite their active opposition to the clearly stated current ideals of the organization…

    I was at the NCC constituency meeting yesterday as a voting representative. I spoke and voted in favor of this recommendation and heard the opposing arguments – ranging from “academic freedom” to worries about “witch hunts” or the “inquisition”.

    Yet, no one seems to use such inflammatory language when it comes to describing popular measures of Church government and order. No one would think twice about asking a pastor to resign from employment in the SDA Church if he/she started promoting Sunday sacredness, or eternal torment in Hell fire, or the virtues of worshiping the Virgin Mary or any other such doctrine in clear opposition to what the SDA Church stands for as an organized body. There are other Christian churches where such ideas would pose no problem for a paid representative to promote. It is just that the SDA Church is not one of these.

    Why then is it some sort of “inquisition” or “witch hunt” or suppression of “freedom” when it comes to the expectation that those individuals employed as teachers within our Church should be held to this same standard with regard to certain pillars of the SDA faith? Teachers can promote anything and actively proselytize for any and all philosophical or doctrinal positions with impunity? – and expect to get paid by the SDA Church at the same time? Really?

    I’m afraid that such individuals confuse the civil liberty of freedom of speech in this country with the expectation to be paid for their free speech by any particular organization. They forget that the rest of us also have the liberty to choose who we want to hire to represent us and to expect to actually get what we are paying for…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com

    P.S. My father, Tui Pitman, says to tell you hi and that he remembers you as a sincere and intelligent student…




    0
    View Comment
  3. I am shocked that the NCC would undermine Adventist doctrine by seeking to revise FB #6.

    Easy to assert, but difficult to show. The recommendation they made does not undermine our FB #6. Rather, it strengthens it by making it very clear what Seventh-day Adventists believe. I know you would agree with these changes since you’re a creationist as well. I don’t see why you would object. We’re already in agreement on this issue.

    I’m also shocked that EducateTruth would support it.

    I support clarity and this is what this change would bring.

    How dare you people tell us that our fundamental beliefs are wrong as they are currently written.

    Just because they’re requesting a rewrite does not mean they were originally wrong in the way they were written. If people weren’t play loose with the meaning of FB #6, I’d see no need for the change. This assertion is reaching and I see no basis for it.

    YOU are the ones who are undermining them!

    If the “you” were referencing those at LSU who teach contrary to a recent, literal six-day creation, then yes, I would agree. But if you’re referencing those of us who support the teaching of a recent, literal six-day creation, then no, I would not agree.




    0
    View Comment
  4. The leadership of Northern California Conference, the delegates and pastors, the Oroville church delegates and its pastor Larre Kostenko attending the constituency meeting held on Sunday are to be commended for entertaining and voting a recommendation to the Geneneral Conference Church Manual Committee to rewriet Belief 6 to more clearly reflect the church’s position on Creation as expressed in “A Response to an Affirmation of Creation” voted by the GC Executive Committee in 2003. I believe the constituency vote count reveals the strong moving and leading of the Holy Spirit in the hearts and minds of the delegates in this important action (yes 252, no 153) If acted upon, this recommendation will help to bring a full witness to the world regarding the truth about origins, will help to foster deeper theological unity in the church, and in what is taught in our school about Creation. Ultimately, if acted upon, the recommendation can promote deeper love,concern and care for one another in the church and in the fulfilment of the mission of the church.

    I also read with apprecaition that Sean Pitman spoke in favor of the recommendation and voted for its adoption, and that Shane Hilde supports the action because it brings needed clarity to the church’s understanding of the biblical doctrine of Creation.

    We can all join in prayer that the Holy Spirit will bless this recommendation and will move upon other church entities in similar fashion so that Belief 6: Creation, which is a good but incomplete statemet on Creation, can soon shine with even greater clarity to the glory of God and the leading of people to the heart of the living Creator who is truly loving (Rev 14:7), and not demonic as is the case regarding the character of the alleged god of theistic evolution.

    For the above reasons, we can be grateful to God for this one important step forward which has been taken.




    0
    View Comment
  5. @Richard Myers:

    Why were there so many opposed to the resolution?

    This came as a surprise to me as well. I would have thought that the NCC constituency would have been more decidedly in favor of supporting the pillars of the SDA faith. However, there were a large number, even of pastors, who strongly opposed the addition of anything at all more restrictive to the interpretation of the Genesis account as being a truly literal narrative.

    They felt that such a restriction would be equivalent to producing an unmovable creed when in reality our only creed should be the Bible which is alone unmovable. Our understanding of the Bible is much more fluid and changeable and should not be immortalized in creedal statements of belief.

    It was felt that such a creedal statement would remove needed “academic freedom” from teachers and even pastors to present the truth as their own consciences dictated as they, as individuals, were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Many others felt that even though a literal interpretation of the creation week was true and important that such explicit language would give fuel to “witch hunts” and a form of “inquisition” of a nature similar to that seen in the Dark Ages.

    Still others felt that such emphasis on doctrinal positions would take away from the main message of the Gospel – that of brotherly love and support for the individual worth of those with which we may have doctrinal disagreements. As an example, one pastor noted that James White was an Arian, believing that Jesus was created by the Father, yet “Ellen White did not remove him from her fellowship or even from her bed.”

    Besides the fact that James White eventually changed his mind when his wife received definitive light and wrote very clear statements on the nature of the Trinity, such arguments miss the concept of “present truth” as the founders of the SDA Church understood it.

    Mrs. White writes that no one is to go ahead or fall behind the current leading of God in the understanding of the Church as an organized body and expect to remain a recognized part of that body (much less a paid part of the body).

    God is leading out a people, not a few separate individuals here and there, one believing one thing, another that. Angels of God are doing the work committed to their trust. The third angels is leading out and purifying a people, and they should move with him unitedly. Some run ahead of the angels that are leading His people; but they have to retrace every step, and meekly follow no faster than the angels lead…

    – Ellen White, Testimonies for the Church. p. 207. Vol. 1.

    This concept of “present truth” and the idea that Church government should be based on this idea, that perfect liberty to do as one pleases independent of the body cannot be sustained by the Church ( especially as a paid representative) was also supported, very strongly, by both James White and J.N. Loughborough. Loughborough, in particular, wrote a book on the maintenance of Church order and discipline through the use of “Card of Commendation”. The response was not uniformly positive. Loughborough described the reaction as follows:

    Of course those who claimed “liberty to do as they pleased,” to “preach what they pleased,” and to “go when and where they pleased,” without “consultation with any one,” failed to get cards of commendation. They, with their sympathizers, drew off and commenced a warfare against those whom they claimed were “depriving them of their liberty.” Knowing that it was the Testimonies that had prompted us as a people to act, to establish “order,” these opponents soon turned their warfare against instruction from that source, claiming that “when they got that gift out of the way, the message would go unrestrained to its `loud cry.’ ”

    One of the principal claims made by those who warred against organization was that it “abridged their liberty and independence, and that if one stood clear before the Lord that was all the organization needed,” etc… All the efforts made to establish order are considered dangerous, a restriction of rightful liberty, and hence are feared as popery.

    – J.N. Loughborough, Testimonies for the Church. p. 650. Vol. 1.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  6. Sean Pitman wrote:

    “Many others felt that even though a literal interpretation of the creation week was true and important that such explicit language would give fuel to “witch hunts” and a form of “inquisition” of a nature similar to that seen in the Dark Ages.”

    I have always believed in a literal six-day creation week in the relatively recent past, but I agree with this concern–it’s happening already, and it’s divisive.

    “Still others felt that such emphasis on doctrinal positions would take away from the main message of the Gospel – that of brotherly love and support for the individual worth of those with which we may have doctrinal disagreements.”

    I agree even more strongly–much more strongly–with this concern. Which is why I wish we SDAs weren’t quibbling publicly over all of this. The more narrowly we interpret scripture the more hate and less love there will be among us. What would Jesus do: would he simply state the truth and let others decide what to believe, or would he argue and argue and argue? I wish we would spend more time on our knees in prayer and less time hammering on keyboards. The Bible can speak for itself. The word “literal” simply isn’t there. A literal interpretation seems obvious to me, but if not to others, why love them any less?




    0
    View Comment
  7. @Eddie:

    “Many others felt that even though a literal interpretation of the creation week was true and important that such explicit language would give fuel to “witch hunts” and a form of “inquisition” of a nature similar to that seen in the Dark Ages.” – Sean Pitman

    I have always believed in a literal six-day creation week in the relatively recent past, but I agree with this concern–it’s happening already, and it’s divisive.

    Truth itself is divisive. Jesus did say that he came not to bring peace, but a sword. – Matthew 10:34.

    Of course, this isn’t to say that we shouldn’t strive for peace. We should strive valiantly for peace. However, we shouldn’t strive for peace at all cost – certainly not at the cost of foundational truths that have been given to us by very clear leadings of the Holy Spirit and at great cost to many people who have defending these truths so that we could have them today at the cost of their fortunes and very lives.

    It is similar to the situation where King Ahab asked Elijah why he was troubling Israel? Elijah responded that he wasn’t troubling Israel by speaking and standing up decidedly for the truth. Rather, it was King Ahab who was troubling Israel by not standing firmly for the truth. – 1Kings 18:18.

    “Still others felt that such emphasis on doctrinal positions would take away from the main message of the Gospel – that of brotherly love and support for the individual worth of those with which we may have doctrinal disagreements.” – Sean Pitman

    I agree even more strongly–much more strongly–with this concern. Which is why I wish we SDAs weren’t quibbling publicly over all of this. The more narrowly we interpret scripture the more hate and less love there will be among us. What would Jesus do: would he simply state the truth and let others decide what to believe, or would he argue and argue and argue? I wish we would spend more time on our knees in prayer and less time hammering on keyboards. The Bible can speak for itself. The word “literal” simply isn’t there. A literal interpretation seems obvious to me, but if not to others, why love them any less?

    I dare say that the doctrinal pillar of a literal creation week is not a “narrow” interpretation of Scripture or some minor detail. It is a foundational concept that upholds the “Good News” of the very Gospel itself in my opinion. It is the very basis of a solid hope in a bright literal future. It is even foundational to the Sabbath and is part of the very name “Seventh-day Adventist”.

    Now, don’t get me wrong, everyone should always be perfectly free to decide what to believe on these issues. The Church should never ever think to force itself on anyone with the use of civil power. That never works and is directly contrary to the Spirit of Heaven. However, if someone decides, of his/her own free will, to join the SDA Church and to take on official responsibilities as a paid representative of the SDA Church, surely the SDA Church has not only the right, but the obligation to expect that such a paid representative will uphold the stated ideals of the SDA Church in their capacity as an official representative.

    If such a person cannot, in good conscience, uphold the foundational pillars of any organization, to include the SDA Church, that person should not think to receive money from his/her employer while undermining what that employer is paying him/her to do and should therefore resign. It seems to me like robbery of the employer’s time and money to do otherwise. Upon what basis should the SDA Church be expected to pay any and all for any kind of idea that a person decides is “true” independent of the Church opinion as a body of believers? – regardless of how sincere the person might be? It is kind of like expecting to be paid by Nike while working for Reebok.

    This sort of thing does not a viable organization make. It has nothing to do with friendship or the love of the individual. Some of my very good friends are agnostic and a few are strong atheists. We still get along great and like each other. It is just that they do not claim to be SDA and do not expect to get paid by the SDA Church to promote their own personal views on these issues…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  8. Immanuel, Item #3 referred to “accountability” of pastors, profs, and other denominational educational workers with regards to creation, the Spirit of Prophecy, and biblically appropriate sexual relations. It also required accountability for “specific actions” to be taken by the NCC.

    Why didn’t it pass? [edit]




    0
    View Comment
  9. Sean Pitman wrote “The Church should never ever think to force itself on anyone with the use of civil power. That never works and is directly contrary to the Spirit of Heaven.”

    Never ever? Dude where have you been? If you really believe this you need to start a new website TolerateTruth.com. OUr church has taken others including to court many many many many many times. (Actually I would’nt be surprised if they took you to court one day) Why do’nt you persecute employees engaged in that work as much as those supposedly teaching evolution?




    0
    View Comment
  10. @Geanna Dane:

    Sean Pitman wrote: “The Church should never ever think to force itself on anyone with the use of civil power. That never works and is directly contrary to the Spirit of Heaven.”

    Never ever? Dude where have you been? If you really believe this you need to start a new website TolerateTruth.com. Our church has taken others including to court many many many many many times. (Actually I wouldn’t be surprised if they took you to court one day) Why don’t you persecute employees engaged in that work as much as those supposedly teaching evolution?

    The Church has many important problems to deal with. Certainly the LSU problem is not the only one, but it is something that is very close to my own heart and has affected my own family and many of my friends very dramatically. It is also something I know a fair deal about and have significant personal interest in.

    I’m not saying that other problems in the Church don’t deserve attention, they do. However, I can’t deal with all problems effectively. I think I can do something effective about this particular problem though.

    Also, I fail to see how the suggestion that the Church cannot pay just anyone to teach or preach just any idea is a form of “persecution”. It is like suggesting that the police are intolerant of bank robbers, depriving them of their liberty to earn a livelihood in the way that they personally see fit. Or, it is like a Nike employee complaining that Nike refuses to pay him for suggesting that people buy Reebok a clearly better product as anyone with eyes can see! I’m sure that such people feel “persecuted” by those who would limit their freedom to get paid for doing what they want irrespective of the thoughts or wishes of anyone else… even of those who are actually providing the money that they want…

    Humor aside, all are and should be free to join or to leave the SDA Church at will – free of any civil or even implied moral penalties over doctrinal differences. However, not all are free nor should all be free to demand a paycheck from the Church. It is the Church who is and should be free to hire only those who accurately represent the Church’s fundamental goals and ideals.

    I’m not sure how anyone can argue against such logic with any sort of real sincerity…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  11. @Geanna Dane:

    Just to add a little balance (which you won’t find much of here):

    John 14:27 “Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you.”

    God’s peace is only promised to those who actually follow and seek after Him. Not everyone has such this peace. Those who deliberately reject his Truth have no real peace… or solid hope in the future.

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  12. @Carl:

    Thanks, Eddie. I find it strange that we try to improve on Scripture.

    This isn’t an effort to improve on the language of the Bible. It is, however, an effort to present a clear interpretation of what we think the biblical authors as a whole were trying to say about creation. Different people disagree on this. However, the SDA Church, as an organized body, has a specific belief in this regard which is considered to be a fundamental pillar of our faith…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  13. I propose a new fundamental belief regarding the role of women in the church who continue to be second class citazens. At a minimum close to 50% of the church would take much interest in this proposal(at least in North AMerica). That’s much more interest than will ever be expressed in a rewrite of FB#6.




    0
    View Comment
  14. FB6 needs to be as clear on Creation as the Bible is clear on Creation.

    Unfortunately, as presently worded, FB6 is significantly less clear on Creation when compared with the clarity of Scriptre on Creation on several important points as this website has shown biblically. Take the following example. Approximately when did the week of Creation occur? Is the Bible clear about this crucial quesstion? Indeed, the finest Old Testament scholarship shows that the Bible is clear that a short chronology of life forms on Earth exists between the week of Creation and the present (e.g., Gen 5, 11; Matt 1 and so on). In other words Scripture clearly indicates that animals and other life forms have not existed on Earth for long ages or for hundreds of thousands of years, or as we would say today, for millions of years.

    Sadly, FB6 does not even begin to be clear about this important biblical point about the “when” of Creation, because FB6 is completely silent about the matter. This silence illustrates the need for FB6 to speak with the clarity of the Bible on Creation on this point, and on any other point about Creation concerning which FB6 is less clear than the biblical teaching.

    In 2004 the GC Executive Committee drafted and voted, “A Response to the Affirmation of Creaiton” which helpfully articulates at least four crucial biblical aspects about Creation which are not explicitly stated in FB6, as this website has explained in detail. This shows why it would be so God-honoring to permit FB6 itself to speak with the clairity present in the document, “A Response to the Affirmation of Creation.” This also indicates why the recently voted NCC recommendation asking the GC to do so is so laudable and on proper target.




    0
    View Comment
  15. @John:

    Sadly, FB6 does not even begin to be clear about this important biblical point about the “when” of Creation, because FB6 is completely silent about the matter. This silence illustrates the need for FB6 to speak with the clarity of the Bible on Creation on this point, and on any other point about Creation concerning which FB6 is less clear than the biblical teaching.

    I agree that FB 6 is less specific than what most Adventists believe the Scripture says. It appears to me that FB 6 was deliberately written as it is because many people already knew that we were in trouble with a short-history chronology. I think it’s really foolish to change it. The idea that life on Earth is older than 6,000 years is just as clear now as the idea that the earth orbited the Sun was clear to Copernicus.

    [Edited – the rest of this post is not relevant to the topic in this particular thread and has been transferred to the 3ABN thread instead for those who are interested in arguments for/against young-life creation:

    http://www.educatetruth.com/media/educatetruth-com-promoted-on-3abn/comment-page-3/#comment-12669 ]




    0
    View Comment
  16. @Carl:

    Note to Sean: When you respond, please point me to a short-history model that can be scientifically tested. You already know the list of events that it must explain in sequence, but you have never addressed that point. Simply saying that things can happen faster than the standard model claims is not sufficient.

    This is not the proper thread for this particular discussion. See my response to your questions at the 3ABN thread:

    http://www.educatetruth.com/media/educatetruth-com-promoted-on-3abn/comment-page-3/#comment-12669

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  17. I am shocked that the NCC would undermine Adventist doctrine by seeking to revise FB #6. I’m also shocked that EducateTruth would support it. How dare you people tell us that our fundamental beliefs are wrong as they are currently written. YOU are the ones who are undermining them!  

    Sean Pitman wrote “The Church should never ever think to force itself on anyone with the use of civil power. That never works and is directly contrary to the Spirit of Heaven.”

    Never ever? Dude where have you been? If you really believe this you need to start a new website TolerateTruth.com. OUr church has taken others including to court many many many many many times. (Actually I would’nt be surprised if they took you to court one day) Why do’nt you persecute employees engaged in that work as much as those supposedly teaching evolution?  

    We are not to use the gov’t to prosecute our brethren in the church. The GC is out of line when they take our members to court. It is clear Brother Pitman is not persecuting church employees, yet it is just as clear that the Church is persecuting the membership.

    When we respond to these posts we are not to be guided by emotion, rather than reason and logic. We should take the time to pray and reflect before we react out of the heat of the moment. When we do, we might see things in a different light.




    0
    View Comment
  18. The whole idea that we should never say one iota more than the Bible on a particular point of belief is looney. After all, take for an example our belief about the 2300 days that ended in 1844. Nowhere does the Bible say in such express language that the “2300 days are 2300 years, which shall be fulfilled in October [or whatever the Hebrew equivalent is] of 1844 [or equivalent].” Yet that does not stop us from stating our belief. Why? Because as truth unfolds, the church’s collective understanding of truth grows, and can no longer be confined to the sometimes coarse and fragmentary aspects found in Scripture. Eventually the truth “seed” becomes a tree. This has happened in our church with Bible prophecy (the meaning of many symbols is never explained in concrete terms), with our understanding of the state of the dead (despite a few verses on the subject, the truth about what happens when someone dies is not the subject of any Bible chapter), with our beliefs about healthy living and lifestyle (nothing about being vegetarian in the Bible, drinking enough water, etc.), and with our beliefs about origins … among many other things.

    It is absolutely important for the church body to nail down this belief which has already reached virtual consensus (we hope) everywhere. (By consensus I don’t mean absolute unanimity, which will never happen and never has happened.)

    And I have to say that comparing the currently words-only conflict over LSU to the persecutions of the Inquisition or Salem witch trials is ridiculous in the extreme. Even if it resulted in firing some persons, it would still be a ridiculous comparison. Even if people were disfellowshipped it would be a ridiculous comparison. There is no persecution involved in requiring employees of religious institutions to support the beliefs of their institutions.




    0
    View Comment
  19. The question was asked above, “Why were there so many opposed to the resolution?” I found myself asking the same question during the Constituency meeting. The debate on “Other Agenda Item” #3 was fascinating. I believe the answer to this question is multifaceted. First, the unfortunate reasons. I say “unfortunate” because I basically believe the authors were sincere, and I would have liked seeing their goal achieved – and hope still to see success on these issues.

    This proposal – as written (see top of this page) – can imply a level of intrusiveness that makes people – especially USA citizens – uncomfortable, e.g. “…adhere in their teachings AND LIVES.” I’m thinking some felt this last part went too far. Would there be peeping into the bedrooms of teachers and pastors to ascertain whether sexual practices were in accordance with the Bible? Would their personal libraries or mailboxes be examined to see if they were reading books or subscribing to magazines that promote heresies? Secondly, what does “prophetic authority of the Spirit of Prophecy” mean? This wording is extremely vague and open to abuse. In light of some extremists’ use of the Ellen White’s writings, it is likely that many constituents worried that these most wonderful revelations could move out of the “moon” position, in which Mrs. White stated her writings should be, and into the “sun” position where the Bible must remain if we are to retain and deserve the title of “Christian”. One last “unfortunate” reason is that of “attitude” emerging from the tones and words of at least 2 of the most adamant proponents of this measure. The strident, somewhat spiritually arrogant and judgmental approach failed to win hearts and, instead, repulsed some attendees. I believe the majority in the PUC sanctuary favored the Oroville proposal’s INTENT and would vote to achieve its purest purposes, but for the reasons stated above, could not vote in favor of this proposal at this time.

    Now for the “sinful” reasons. First, worldliness, and that science which is falsely so-called, both hate restraint and will always fight against its exercise. Lucifer and a third of his followers fought expulsion from heaven, all the while declaring their commitment to the REAL truth, claiming they were misunderstood and mistreated. We shouldn’t be surprised that those amongst us who do not believe the Bible, hate the truth revealed in the Spirit of Prophecy, pride themselves in being our enlightened ones, and love sin would fight these proposed restraints. Second, and lastly, Satan hates the church which knows more about his designs and strategy than any other denomination – and he continually seeks to gut us and leave an empty, impotent shell in place to represent the SDA church. Altho there were certainly speakers at those mics whose hearts were not wholly the Lord’s, the fact is we do not wrestle against them – but their father the devil. The devil’s undermining of truth has sadly lived to poison our students another day – but his time remains short, and is getting shorter. Until his time is ‘up’, may we be faithful and courageous in our sphere, and leave the rest to the God we say is all powerful, all wise, and all loving.
    Larry




    0
    View Comment
  20. Having just read “The affirmation of creation” and the “Response to the affirmation of creation” I find them singularly disappointing. While the questions raised in the first document are important, and deserve answering, the title of the document pre-judges the answers to the questions, and neither of the documents provides even a shred of evidence for the conclusions. It is obvious that the congresses were not really dealing openly with the issues raised, but mearly a ruse for those who would “purify” the church.




    0
    View Comment
  21. @Geanna Dane:

    I am shocked that the NCC would undermine Adventist doctrine by seeking to revise FB #6. I’m also shocked that EducateTruth would support it. How dare you people tell us that our fundamental beliefs are wrong as they are currently written. YOU are the ones who are undermining them!

    I am shocked and dismayed that a teaching institution like LSU would directly undermine belief #6 by evangelizing for evolutionism at all costs.

    I am “not surprised” that the quiquinium sessions deal with the subject of Adventist doctrine since this has been done many times in the past. The 27 Fundamental Beliefs in 1980, the 28 Fundamental Beliefs in 2005.

    in Christ,

    Bob




    0
    View Comment
  22. @Larry Roberts:

    The question was asked above, “Why were there so many opposed to the resolution?” I found myself asking the same question during the Constituency meeting. The debate on “Other Agenda Item” #3 was fascinating.

    I agree with your critique of Agenda Item #3. It was poorly worded and went too far – as far as a suggested intrusion into one’s personal life. This is, hopefully, the primary reason why it was voted down. It was possible, however, to reword the proposal during the meeting, but no one had enough foresight to suggest such a thing – including me. Things happened so fast that it was hard to think of such things at the time. Perhaps such a reworded proposal can be introduced next time which will be more in line with your suggestions…

    Until then, the LSU situation in still on the table and still needs to be addressed in a decided manner if the school, and perhaps even the Church, is to be saved from a severe fracture…

    Sean Pitman
    http://www.DetectingDesign.com




    0
    View Comment
  23. I just re-read my entry from Sabbath afternoon and am convicted that the last half is not Christlike. To be sure, none of us can know the motives of those who spoke against item #3, least of all me. My writing sounds like I was painting all of them with the same broad brush, when I only wanted to convey that there are some church members whose hidden agenda is to normalize sin, while out-maneuvering those who promote holiness and truth. Paul warns us about the existence of such people and their goals. I believe that some of these folk spoke, and that all of them voted, against the measure. I believe, too, that people whose hearts are more pure than mine also voted against the measure, and with sanctified motives, if not also with clearer understanding of God’s will than I possess. Please forgive my critical spirit. Sincerely, Larry




    0
    View Comment
  24. I have confidence that the church and university is in a process that will reaffirm our historical understanding of the Genesis account of creation. I didn’t have time to read all the comments, but I do believe that love and patience represents the spirit of Jesus. We should remain calm and considerate in our treatment of others with whom we may differ. On the other hand, our love for Christ is manifested in our love and commitment to truth. We should be sure that we have a sound understanding of Scriptural teachings that our in harmony with our understanding of truth as a spiritual community. We stand for something as Seventh-day Adventists. Also, I would urge that we consider the inspired revelations from God given us on these matters in the Spirit of Prophecy or, as I prefer, “the testimony of Jesus.” The vital function of that gift has been to affirm Biblical truth. Interpretations of Scripture that differ from those affirmations should raise deep concerns. Science itself is interpreting the evidence. If we are going to interpret something so vital that has deep ramifications on our understanding of God and His creative power and the validity of the seventh day Sabbath, I personally embrace the interpretation of the evidence given to us by Scripture. Has the Creator/God of the universe revealed Himself to us or not? And, if by our profession we agree that He has, then we are duty bound to that revelation.




    0
    View Comment

Comments are closed.