Comment on Creeds and Fundamental Beliefs by Holly Pham.
Ben B.: I agree with the article. Let’s maintain order and accountability in God’s church! We uphold the standard of God’s word in our church entirely. The church is to be the “pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:16). The literal 7 day week from Creation, and the Sabbath are Bible teaching…plain and simple. It’s not merely some person’s conjecture. We have every right and necessity, as God’s people, and His church for the last days to UPHOLD the Bible’s true and clear teachings. If some individuals want to distort or misrepresent those Bible teachings, the church must, needs to, and shall hold them accountable. If they don’t like it, they can go start their own church of “so and so says” religion, and mix whatever kind of philosophy and heresy they want to. But don’t call it 7th-day Adventism. That’s the farthest thing from it.
One of the major “creedal beliefs” of liberal and progressive SDA’s is that “nothing is salvational.” No matter what you believe or don’t believe, it really doesn’t matter since you probably believe some other “true” stuff, and that is “enough” to make it into heaven.
One of the principal objections to this website, as stated over on Spectrum and Adventist Today, is that belief or non-belief in “evolution as fact” doesn’t matter since the belief in the Genesis account is “not salvational.”
Name any biblical truth, and many Spectrumites will tell you it “isn’t salvational.”
Holly Pham Also Commented
Creeds and Fundamental Beliefs
I have attended several “new believers” Sabbath School classes where the Fundamental Beliefs (both 27 and 28) have been used as a text. This is a great way for members, both old and new, to become acquainted with what and why we SDA’s believe what we do, based on biblical evidence.
Jon S. Klingbeil: “People who think that the Scriptures should be the sole authority, should logically become Seventh Day Adventists and keep Saturday holy” (Saint Catherine Catholic Church Sentinel, Vol. 30, Nov. 22, May 31, 1995)
Great Quote. Has anyone ever tried to dispute this logic? From either within or outside our SDA Church/
BobRyan: The “mechanism” for creationism is observed every day. Intelligent designers create books, computer programs, works of art that rocks and gas will never produce no matter the times the blind-faith evolutionist utters their sacred mantra “beeeellions and beeeellions”.By contrast – the “mechanism” for evolutionism whereby static genomes acquire new coding genes such that the amoeba turns into the horse (after the appropriate beeeeellions and beeeellions is said over it) – has never been “observed in nature”.in Christ,Bob
Well stated, Bob. Intelligent being do create things. However, rendomness and blind chance don’t seem to.
Recent Comments by Holly Pham
Why do accrediting bodies have the right to force religious universities to teach what they demand they teach? Is it not a violation of religious freedom to demand that evolution exist as the only exclusive worldview? Why have we given scientists the role of Papel See?
La Sierra is under no demand to teach “evolution as fact” as many other colleges and universities, SDA and non-SDA teach “about evolution” but do not teach it as factual. La Sierra WANTS to teach evolution as fact, and will do anything it can to keep on keeping on teaching it!
David Read: @Sean Pitman: There is certainly documentation somewhere of what the remainder of the bond funds was spent on. I imagine that the University was required by the bond trustee to document the capital projects the money was used on (because the funds could not be used for salaries or ordinary current operation expenses). So this is probably a public document that can be obtained through the freedom of information act.Also, I imagine that this information has been made available to the Board of Trustees and/or constituents, so if you have any contacts in those bodies, ask for the information.Keep digging, because you or Shane will find this information somewhere.
Dave, I agree with you completely. We need to have this investigated by somebody or some SDA group, preferably the GC. But, I do not think anyone there will step up to do it. So, we do need Shane, Sean, or someone.
Charles, I agree with you. But, this type of reasoning is very common among liberals. This past Sabbath on LLBN, John Jones and Ivan Blazen tried to convince Carolyn Thompson that sin is “relative” meaning that something may be a sin to one person, but not to another.
She questioned them, and offered examples, and they stuck to this idea.
That is why I remain open to scientific investigation of the concept of Intelligent Design. In fact, as many of you know, I have advocated for and agreed to support a Chair in Intelligent Design at any Adventist university. Strangely, not a single person has taken me up on the idea. Why?
Your agnostic friend
Ken, No “Chair of Intellegent Design” needs to be started, since our whole philosophy is of Intellegent Creationism. Nobody has taken you up on it because it is not needed. We need to have our SDA institutions supporting all of our beliefs, not just one “Chair”.
By faith you believe in creation and by faith you believe in evolution!!What do you want to place your faith in God or Man?
You are completely correct. Who are we to believe? God? Man’s “wisdom?” Liberals and progressives believe in human wisdom over what God has said.
We see that at La Sierra, very prominently, and they are PROUD of it!