Defining Adventism: A poll

Connie: 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.  

Hi Connie, Thank you for your response. While I agree God’s people will be known for their love – but I think the problem lies in the fact that we may not understand the full meaning of certain words that are thrown around today: love, criticism, judgmental.
Before going any further: In Jesus’ prayer for unity in John chapter 17 please read vs. 17 – It says “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” Jesus is praying for unity of his follower based on “truth”. This is the only kind of real unity we can have. It is always quoted (or I should say misquoted) that Jesus wants us to be unified as a church therefore you people that are causing a hornets nest need to settle down and let’s just have love and peace so we can be unified all for the sake of Jesus’ prayer. It sounds great but the context of that statement is misused because Jesus prayed that we be unified on truth.
1 Corinthians 1:10 “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.” Notice the emphasis placed upon doctrine in these texts Mark 1:22, Mark 4:2, Romans 16:17, Ephesians 4:14, 1 Tim 1:10; 4:13, 16; 5:17; 6:1, 2 Tim 3:16; 4:2, 3, Titus 1:9; 2:1, 7, 10, 2 John 1:9, 10. There are more but that is sufficient.
Love – Almost everytime someone comes along and calls sin by it’s right name they are branded as not being kind or not showing love and even being judgmental. You seem to imply it about me (which to me is being judgmental). It is NOT judgmental to point out sin or apostasy. It is not unkind or unloving to do this either. It is actually the opposite. The greatest act of love is to warn someone of the dangers they are in or approaching. There is a sentiment throughout Adventism about NOT preaching the Third Angel’s Message. What kind of love is this – not to proclaim this message with power and conviction. Then when the end comes – millions are lost who might have accepted the message if they had heard it earlier. That’s loving people straight to hellfire. Now I agree we should use tact and discretion but I believe we have gone way beyond this. I have a 5 year old ministry that is primarily dedicated to “inreach”. I have several presentations on end time events. Every church – and every time – I go to I have people commenting that they have been in the church for 10, 20 and even 30 years and have never heard an end-time message. How sad. My aim is to fire-up the SDA people and hoping they will share our Three Angel’s Messages with others. But the greatest act of love we can show to people is too tell them the truth.
Did Jesus have a bad attitude, or was unkind when he rebuked the leaders of his day? Was he unloving when he called them vipers? Did he have a demon in him when he did these thing? The answer is no. To rebuke and reprove someone is an act of love. Do a study on that word reprove and rebuke – I don’t have it here in front of me but one of the definitions (in the Greek) is “to add value to” – and this should be the motive of the one giving it. Rev 3:19 “As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.”
Love is the greatest thing available to us. Jesus is the ultimate example of love but as a people we must be careful not to fall into the “love” gospel trap – the SOP tells us that is a form of spiritualism.
God Bless!

---

Defining Adventism: A poll

Rich Constantinescu: Bob Ryan: “I also agree that the only thing “voted” by the entire church is the language of the actual 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.”David R: “Hi Bob, I have to kindly disagree – the Fundamentals book is an OFFICIAL book by our denomination on our beliefs. To my knowledge there have only been two books officially put out by the Conference on doctrine.”I agree with Bob.
Other books published by departments of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventist include, How to Give Bible Readings (Home Missionary Department) and Pastoral Ministry (Ministerial Association Department).
God bless,Rich  

Hi, I was familiar with this – But I’ll tell you what – Start putting this book down or denying it in anyway and you will be a ‘heretic’ to the vast majority. I would be willing to bet (if I was a betting man) that if you openly deny this book in anyway you would be pulled from your positions in your church, etc… Thus proving the importance put upon this book.
Also if the book is not ‘official’ then why is it the ‘acid test’ for baptismal candidates? Read it for yourself in the Church Manual on pg. 33 “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?” The Church Manual IS an official book – voted on by the General Conference in Session.

---

Defining Adventism: A poll

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.

---

A little-known history about Belief 6
@BobRyan:
Hi Bob Ryan,
Again you are completely speculating (and not even a good speculation). Those quotes are about the leaders of this church. You prove my point even further by stating over and over that the 27 FB is always the book to ‘unify’ on. This is all that you say every time. What a shame. Don’t you want to unify on what the Bible says? Again the 27 FB is confusion. Our pioneers were right when they said people would look to books like these (creeds) for insight, etc… I’m sorry that you cannot see this.
God Bless,
David R.

---

A little-known history about Belief 6
@BobRyan:
Hi Bob Ryan,
Please re-read all the statement I gave where Ellen White said over a succession of years about the voice of the GC being the voice of God. She says in one of the statements “that is past”. She said what she did in the statement you are quoting at a time when the current GC was is harmony with God. But soon after things started to change.
You have NO basis other than human wisdom to uphold a man-made creed. You are putting ideas into her writings that are not there. How is unifying on the Fundamental Beliefs helping us when the book is so unclear on many points of our doctrines. Jesus said in John 17 that we can only unify on truth.
As for offshoots – I’m not sure exactly what you mean – but I am not or even part of an offshoot just because I don’t accept a man-made book. By your own definition who is really the offshoot? The one who is planted on the firm foundation or one who is steering off and upholding man-made books as equal as or better than the Bible or SOP? Who would be considered shooting-off – the one who stays with the Bible and SOP or the one who goes to Willow Creek to learn how to do church? Who is the off-shoot – the one who preaches the Three Angel’s Messages or the one who has forgotten about them and shuts their mouth when a major event happens confirming that Jesus is about ready to come.
Read in the Great Controversy about the Waldenses – they did not leave the church – it was Rome who left. The Waldenses stood right where they were. Martin Luther (and others like him) did not leave the church – Rome did. But yet most would say these people left the church.
Like the Reformers – I will stay put on a firm foundation. I’m not leaving historic Adventism.
God Bless,
David R.

---

A little-known history about Belief 6
@Faith:

Hi Faith,
I appreciate your input. Again when have I ever said I’m against organization? I have actually confirmed the opposite. Yes the Lord DID establish our doctrines (and our whole church) through our pioneers and our prophet BUT where is the statement that a Church manual or any type of creed was approved by God? You have not produced any statements to show this. In essence I agree with the actual statements you make but you are putting it in the context that it applies to a written creed. At this point I may have to suggest you do not know the church history based on what you have presented. Please provide some clear statements. I am not and do not want to fight against the Lord.
God Bless,
David R.

---

A little-known history about Belief 6
Hello,
I noticed I made a mistake in my reply to Shane. In the 2nd sentence of my reply I said “And I believe that others like myself are misjudging.” I MEANT TO SAY “And I believe that others like myself are misjudgED.”
Thanks,
David

---

A little-known history about Belief 6
@BobRyan:
Brother Bob,
I appreciate your opinions but you are living proof to my whole case. You actually believe that if we didn’t have the 28 Fundamentals book we would be blown around by every wind of doctrine and fall apart. Amazing!!! Well please look around – there IS so much doctrinal confusion (and more so than at any other time in the history of Seventh-day Adventism) within the church and we HAVE the Fundamentals book.
You “claim” that the pioneers were only against certain creeds that didn’t allow advancement. I noticed that you did not (and I will say cannot) produce any inspired statements to back up your claim. Matter of fact it is the other way around: Here is the official statement from the 1883 Church Manual Committee printed in the Review and Herald Nov. 20, 1883: Review and Herald, November 20, 1883
“It is the unanimous opinion of the committee appointed to consider the matter of a Church Manual. We consider it unnecessary because we already have surmounted the greatest difficulties connected with church organization without one; and perfect harmony exists among us on this subject. It would seem to many like a step toward the formation of a creed or a discipline, other than the Bible, something we have always been opposed to as a denomination. If we had one, we fear many, especially those commencing to preach, would study it to obtain guidance in religious matters, rather to seek it in the Bible, and from the leading of the Spirit of God, which would tend to their hindrance in genuine religious experience and in knowledge of the mind of the Spirit. It was in taking in similar steps that other bodies of Christians first began to lose their simplicity and became formal and spiritually lifeless. Why should we imitate them! The committee feels, in short, that our tendency should be in the direction of the policy and close conformity of the Bible, rather than to elaborate, defining every point in the church management and church ordinances.”
PLEASE NOTE in the above statement that they UNANIMOUSLY rejected a man-made book because it would bring in “difficulties” and people might start to use it as a form of governance other than the Bible. And this surely today is in full force.
A week later General Conference President, Elder George Butler (President 1873-1874 and 1880-1888) comments in opposition to a Church Manual:
Review and Herald, November 27, 1883
“When brethren who have favored a manual have even contended that such a work was not to be anything like a creed or a discipline, or to have any authority to settle disputed points, but was only to be considered as a book containing hints for the help of those of little experience, yet it must be evident that such a work, issued under the auspices of the General Conference, would at once carry with it much weight of authority, and would be consulted by most of our young ministers. It would gradually shape and mould the entire body; and those who did not follow it would be considered out of harmony with established principles of church order. And really, is this not the object of a manual? What would be the use of one if not to accomplish such a result? But would this result, on a whole, be a benefit? Would our ministers be broader, more original, more self-reliant men? Would they be better depended on in great emergencies? Would their spiritual experiences likely be deeper and their judgment be more reliable? We think the tendency all the other way…We have preserved simplicity, and have prospered in so doing. It is best to let well enough alone. For these and other reasons, the church manual was rejected. It is probable that it will never be brought forward again.”
PLEASE NOTE that those who did not agree with a man-made book (if adapted) would be considered “out of harmony”
Would this be an official act from God because as you stated by supplying a SOP quote that “the General Conference in session is the voice of God”? Well many times when I present a SOP quote that condemns error I get accused of taking her writings out of context. I never get corrected just accused. But in essence this Bob, is what you are doing (and you may be doing it unawares). Here is a progression of statements made in the SOP about the GC as the voice of God:
Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 3, pg, 492 (1875)
I have been shown that no man’s judgment should be surrendered to the judgment of any one man. But when the judgment of the General Conference, which is the highest authority that God has upon the earth, is exercised, private independence and private judgment must not be maintained, but be surrendered.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please take these into consider
David R.

---