Comment on A little-known history about Belief 6 by Ray Dickinson.
The Bible has very little to say about our origins. It has a lot to say about salvation. I, personally believe that life on earth was created in six literal days several thousand years ago. But is that the gospel that will reunite man with his Maker? No. Therefore it is of less importance.
If we allow narrow views of origins hinder our efforts to reveal the loving God to His people, we fight against God. The great plan, laid from the foundation of the earth, was not the particular way that God laid the foundation of the earth, or how He brought life to its current state, but it was a plan of how He would restore man to Himself.
Why, then, do we burden ourselves (the Adventist church) with so many beliefs (28), which only have the tendency to separate, albeit in the name of unity? How many of our so-called “fundamental beliefs” are truly fundamental to salvation? Or are they just fundamental to the religious body? Will an incorrect view on origins prevent us from entering God’s kingdom? No! But will an incorrect understanding of who Christ is prevent us from entering? Quite possibly! So which is more important? Which is truly fundamental to salvation?
I fear this has become such an issue, not because it is central to salvation (and therefore God’s work), but because it threatens those who place their identity in a belief system, rather than in Christ.
Is our Savior coming to save those who believe all the right doctrines (as though any church, including our own, has all the “right doctrines”)? Or is He coming to save those who have lived their lives according to the light that He (as opposed to the church) has given them? Let us never get side-tracked on enforcing belief in menial details like origins, but only make issues of those beliefs that are truly fundamental to salvation.
Table of Contents
Ray Dickinson Also Commented
A little-known history about Belief 6
Good points Sean. Thank you.
A little-known history about Belief 6
For those who would use the FBs (or any other thing) to separate brethren, advocating, in its purest form, disfellowshipping those who do not believe given doctrines, what do you have to say regarding these scriptures?
(Mouse over each to view the text.)
Matthew 13:24-30, NKJV
(Note: the tares were allowed to grow with the wheat until the harvest. Matthew 13:30, NKJV)
Matthew 13:37-42, NKJV
(Note: the angels are the ones who gather out those who offend. Matthew 13:40-41, NKJV)
Matthew 13:47-50, NKJV
(Note: the separation happens at the end of the age. Matthew 13:49, NKJV)
A little-known history about Belief 6
Do you think that this article, which advocates for a revision to FB6 because it is missing 3 Adventist Historical Landmarks, is an appeal to “tradition†in the codifying of belief?
Yes! Hence my disapproval of it. Because we have distilled our study of Scripture into nice bits of truth, we feel justified in holding those bits of truth as the standard, in essence transferring our loyalty from God’s spoken word to our diligent study of that which was written, which was to lead us to Him.
But in making this transfer, we hold man’s authority as the standard. Some claim that because Ellen White said that the voice of God is heard in the GC session, that apparently anything that they vote is then infallible. Yet they fail to note the spirit of her statement. She indicated that she had not confidence in certain individuals of authority in the church to reveal the will of God, but that, in a greater assembly, she would be confident. Yet the principle remains: if the leaders are not setting their own ambitions and motives aside, God’s will will not be accurately revealed through them, whether few or many.
To make the church’s voted statements while in GC session an infallible revelation of God’s will, is eerily reminiscent of papal infallibility. The only difference being the number of individuals involved.
Let us use the Bible as our creed, and yes, hold our educators accountable to it. We should not be teaching Evolution as fact, not because it conflicts with the voted “Belief #6,” but because it is contrary to the teaching of our Saviour, Jesus Christ. Why do we need the authority of the church to define our beliefs, when we have Jesus’ authority?! The authority of the church is in the pay stub, and they thus have the right to specify that the professors teach according to the teaching of Scripture, just as my employer has the right to specify the nature of what I am to do for them.
It is clear from the Scripture that God created in six literal days, as has been brought out in this forum. This should be the standard for our professors, not “Belief #6,” as endorsed by the church.
