Comment on Notice of constituency meeting of the NCC by Ron.
Denver, I agree whole hartedly with you. The process of coming up with our beliefs that Mrs. White referred to was messy, and it was never dogmatic or coersive. A major theme in The Great Controversy is the destructiveness of coersion of belief and teaching.
Bob, I am amazed and mystified at the way you can take statements from Mrs. White that explicity state her belief in the illegitimacy of central church authority and turn them into statements of support.
To argue “The Bible and the Bible only”, and then appeal to Mrs. White for support is irrational. Those are mutually exclusive positions. (Mrs. White agrees with that by the way.)
I cannot remember of any instance where Mrs. White tried to expell anyone from the church. It seems to me that she always used logic and persuasion. I can’t imagine her ever threatening anyone. She didn’t advocate firing Dr. Kellogg who advocated pantheism and she didn’t do it with Elder Butler when he rejected Righteousness by Faith.
Kevin Paulson, every creed is a statement of belief as understood by the majority at the time, and at the time it seems right. Every change in every creed over history represents progression in the minority’s understanding of truth. Our’s is no different.
The genius of Adventism was supposed to be openess to the Holy Spirit in the progression of Present Truth. Mrs. White specifically counselled against establishing a creed because we were supposed to be open to truth from any and every source of truth with the understanding that all truth comes from Christ.
Ron Henderson, Mrs. White said there would be a split in the church. Maybe this is the time? Only it seems to me that Mrs. White indicated that the majority would fall away and join Babylon. I wonder which part of the church that would be? Is it going to be the majority that follows Babylon in creating a creed and enforcing it against the minority who don’t agree?
or is it going to be the minority who are studying their Bibles with an open and inquireing mind and are forced out of the church because they no longer believe according to the creed?
Who is it that Christ will lead? Those that are certain in thier belief, or those who are wondering and confused?
Who truely has faith? Those who stick to what they know is right though the heavens fall, or those who, like Abraham and Isaac follow Christ even when is seems everthing he is teaching them contradicts everything he has ever told them in the past, and seems completely contradictory to his character?
I guess you can kick me out of the church if you want to, but I am not terribly threatened. Assuming Mrs. White’s escatology is still applicable, I have never been able to figure out how the organized church could survive a universal Sunday law anyway, so I guess I have always thought I would eventually have to leave anyway.
Finally, If you really want to follow the Bible and the Bible only, then I suggest you follow the advice of Acts 5:33-39.
Table of Contents
Recent Comments by Ron
Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
Sean Pitman: No one is demanding that they “get out of the church”. . . . . anti-Adventist views on such a fundamental level.
You don’t see how characterizing a dedicated believer’s understanding of truth as “fundamentally anti-Adventist” would drive them out of the church?
I guess that explains why you don’t see that what you are doing here is fundamentally wrong.
Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
Professor Kent: Nothing saddens me more than the droves who leave the Church when they learn that many of their cherished beliefs regarding this evidence don’t hold up so well to scrutiny.
I agree. I am sure that Sean and Bob don’t mean to undermine faith in God, but every time they say that it is impossible to believe in God and in science at the same time, I feel like they are telling me that any rational person must give up their belief in God, because belief in God and rationality can’t exist in the same space. Who would want to belong to that kind of a church?
Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
Sean Pitman: and have little if anything to do with the main point of their prophetic claims
And by analogy, this appears to be a weak point in the creation argument. Who is to decide what the main point is?
It seems entirely possible that in trying to make Gen. 1 too literal, that we are missing the whole point of the story.
Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
Regarding falsifying the existence of God through the miraculous:
While it is true that one can’t falsify the existance of God and the Biblical miracles at a philosophical level, it seems to me that it is possible to falsify it at a practical level. For instance prayer for healing. How many families who pray for a miracle for a loved one in the Intensive Care Unit receive a miracle?
While the answer to that question doesn’t answer the question of the existence of God at a philosophical level, it does answer the question at a practical level. After 36 years of medical practice I can say definitively that at a practical level when it comes to miracles in the ICU, God does not exist. Even if a miracle happens latter today, it wouldn’t be enough to establish an expectation for the future. So at a practicle level it seems it is possible level to falsify the existence od God, or at least prove His nonintervention which seems to me to be pretty much the same thing at a functional level.
Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
@Sean Pitman:
Sean, what is your definition of “Neo-darwinism” as opposed to “Darwinism” as opposed to “evolution”?
