Questions frequently come-- "What does the church say about...?" These enquiries come from the Seventh-day Adventist believers themselves, church pastors and also from the general public or media. Reflecting on the development of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in the 1980s and 90s, we recognize an active interest in many church circles to develop and publicize the church's position statements on specific topics or issues. Often, these are a reaction to a prominent public agenda issue. It goes without saying that the church as a moral force in the society is expected to clarify or express its stance, or even develop a particular concern. Adventists, as members of the society at large, often mirror the challenges and needs of those around them. Some of the issues are not new, but they are more pressing today, perhaps. The documents available here represent a whole spectrum of these issues and concerns.


The denomination's history dates back to the 1860s when the church organization was formally established. From the early years, and through its history, Seventh-day Adventists have been recognized as a group of conscientious Christians who are vocal about and prominent in taking up a stand for a number of causes and issues. The list of these is quite impressive -- civil rights and anti-slavery stance, religious liberty, health and temperance reform, leadership in prevention of alcoholism and drug dependency, anti-tobbacco lobby, education, welfare, aid and development, and so on.


Though the past heritage sees Adventists as reform-minded, it also shows the church leadership as sometimes reluctant to take public position. Exceptions include such issues as religious freedom and temperance. It was typical for Adventists to emphasize that changes in the society are best effected through the changing of personal lives of the individuals. Public pronouncements or action were not the preferred approaches in influencing the social agenda. 

So, though Adventists successfully used the church pulpit and the classroom to speak against social ills or promote Christian values, they have not, until recently, formalized their official position through public statements. It was a non-creedal approach at the outset, with the "fundamental beliefs" being formulated into a "doctrinal statement" only in the 1930s.

This web site presents statements and guidelines discussed, approved and voted by the church leadership since 1980. These were written with a different public in mind, some reflecting a particular internal interest of the church. Here you will find documents issued by the General Conference in session, by the General Conference Executive Committee, by the Administrative Committee of the General Conference, or by the Office of the General Conference president. The documents accessible here fall into three categories:

1. Position statements, including the Mission Statement of the
2. Seventh-day Adventist Church;Guidelines; and
3. Other documents, such as a study paper on AIDS, or a document explaining the church's view on inter-church relations and the so-called ecumenical movement.


As the church continues to grow and make an influence, its role in the society will require that its views and what it holds true becomes known. Such will continue be the demands of the society, and such will be the need to define Adventism's relevance, or present truth, to those who are asking questions and seeking answers to their dilemmas and problems.

The documents presented here are not an end in themselves, but a reflection of a movement sensitive to its calling and the people who "know how to answer everyone" (Col 4:6 NIV).

The importance of these documents can be thus summarized -- actions speak louder than the words.

[Ray Dabrowski, Director, Communication Department, World Church Headquarters]

Just to make this very clear, these are not mine... as said on the intro they are from

http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/statements/index.html

Stan, I do not think we need 28 beliefs for our church. I have figured it out to a Perfect 7!
Pearly

I'm not sure why they keep growing ... but it does make me worry for all those that died before they grew.

And personally ... I think 7 is too many.

Pearly & Redwood, which ones would you eliminate?

Gerry

I would reduce it to one.

We believe in the Bible as our sole guide.

I remember reading a while ago where you said you agree with the 28. What happened?!

Having the Bible as our guide doesn't mean we can't believe in the 28 fundamental doctrines of the church. There's no conflict. Those are simply seen as fundamental, not that they are all that the Bible says. The 28 are doctrines that we are united on and that we give emphasis to. Well, at least we should be united on them.

Since you and I believe in the 28 ... and there is "no conflict" ... then why not just have one ...

"We believe in the Bible as our sole guide."

That would cover all 28 and even more. And you would never need to constantly update your fundamentals ... for this one is everlasting.

For the simple reason that some who claim to go only by the Bible believe that when you die you go immediately to heaven. Others who believe in the Bible worship on Sunday and believe that at any minute Christ may come invisibly and quietly for his church. Those of us who are in the Seventh-day Adventist movement don't believe the Bible teaches as they do, so we have decided to let the world know how our beliefs differ from many other Christians. It's a way of saying, "Hey, over here-- if you believe the Bible teaches thus and so, come meet with us."

So I see the the 28 Fundamental beliefs serving as a sign or a marker. That is really what the three angels messages are too. The 28, and the Third Angels Message, makes a distinction. They really should draw a distinction, or separate from the world (in the Biblical sense).

Not sure there needs to be a seperation between Christian believers. I would say that all should be welcome if they want to worship with us ... no matter how they viewed the State of the Dead.

The important thing is that we believe in the Bible. We as SDAs have a wide difference of thought in regards to Righteousness by Faith for example. The doctrine of being Saved by Grace is as important as it gets ... yet many in our church do not accept this.

I hold the door open to all those Christians ... even those who don't believe as I do in Salvation by Grace. I would not want to create a barrier to those people. I've found that those who believe in Salvation by works are most sincere. And I welcome them in church because ...

The Wheat and Tares will grow together till the harvest. And they are to have the full advantage of the sun. We are to be close to them and witness of the Son to each one.

That should go without saying. By "separation" I don't mean that we have nothing to do with those who think differently or that they are not invited to worship with us.



Who in our church do not accept this? Perhaps some individuals have a view of it as different from yours or from mine, but that doesn't mean they don't believe in being saved by grace. You may be talking about some of the details in the doctrine, about which it is not necessary for everyone to have perfect agreement.



Of course we welcome everyone to worship with us. That is not the question, is it? I thought the question is why have the 28. We have the 28 to draw a distinction, so people will know we believe in certain distinctive doctrines. If we didn't say so, how would anyone know to join us in our beliefs?

That would be fine if people knew what that only one entailed. There are people who think that loving their neighbor includes going to bed with their spouse. That loving their neighbor means telling them how or who to worship because they think their neighbor doesn't know any better.

Gerry

Why would it be necessary for them to join 'us' ?

What is important is for people to join Christ. For example ... when one is baptized by an Adventist minister ... you are baptized into Christ. At some point .... people are accepted into the SDA denomination by a popular vote. But the important thing is that people join the Body of Christ. Joining a denomination by a vote ... is just saying that you happen to share some common interpretations of scripture.

Not sure what significance there is in that. People will be saved from ALL different kinds of denominations. We are saved by the blood of Christ ... not which denomination we associate with.

Do you believe in the great commission? i.e. of teaching not only the gospel but everything He commanded to be taught?

Gerry

At the time of baptism a covnant is made with God. It is a public declaration that he has died to the world. His life is dedicated to God, Christ and the Holy Spirit. From then on you have the assurance that if you claim Their help, these powers will help in every emergency,

The main purpose of the church is to represent God to the world. Although each individual has the responsibility to do this, working together is the most successful way. There has to be organization in order to do this.

Is not "joining Christ" making a public declaration that you beleive His teachings?
If this is true, joining the Body of Christ is the natural result.

The way you join the Body of Christ is through baptism.

The way you join the church is through a vote. And that would be anything greater than 50% of those present at a particualar time .

What is the Body of Christ if not the church? This is not a "popularity" vote.

Ours is a reforming movement, bearing the burden of God's final message. It is the Elijah message, containing both rebuke and exhortation.


oG

The Body is represented by ALL those who are HIS. A denomination is just a subspecies of the Body. In order to belong to the subspecies ... you have to have a popularity vote. If you have 50% of your friends stacked into church at a moment in time ... you are in.

What is the purpose of the existence of the Seventh-day Advendist Church? Why are you a member? Is it of any importance at all? Why aren't you a member of, say, the Seventh-day Baptist church-- or of any other denomination?

I believe that God is the One who called the Seventh-day Adventist movement into existence. I assume you do as well. If you believe this, what purpose does He have for the SDA church? Why is it in the world today?

>>...their neighbor...<<

...and there are those who believe everyone is their neighbour: and there are those who believe 'neighbour' is Jesus Christ-defined in the NT...

Holy Writ leads many directions. Perhaps, that is

as it should be.

Take practically any dogma and it, seemingly, blows in the wind. Say, isn't the HS referred to, euphemistically,

as 'wind'?

Quote:

The way you join the Body of Christ is through baptism.

The way you join the church is through a vote. And that would be anything greater than 50% of those present at a particualar time .

I think you are simplifying that too much, Redwood.

God accepts those who fully follow Him to the extent of their understanding of the truth. There are very sincere Christians who love the Lord, and to their best knowledge follow Him. The purpose of the Seventh-day Adventist Church is to bring to their knowledge a fuller understanding of the full truth -- as far as God has given it to us. Those who have died loving Jesus, but not having had the full truth pointed out to them, will be saved -- but "he that knoweth to do good and doeth it not" to him it is sin.

God's purpose in raising the Seventh-day Adventist Church was to bring to the world (including other Christians) a fuller knowledge of His truth -- including the Sabbath, the Health message, and the nearness of the Second Coming. This is our task, and this is why we have the 28 fundamentals spelt out clearly, so that we know all that we believe.

Beryl

I believe Adventist pastors should be able to bapatize someone into the greater body of Christ. That is simply that the baptized person becomes a baptized Christian.

Why should someone put off baptism until he/she has studied out the 28 fundamental Adventist beliefs. If a person knows that he/she loves God and wants to follow Him, shouldn't he/she be allowed to be baptized then, as the Ethiopian was in Acts 8? He hadn't accepted all 28 when Philip baptized him.

Then after further study a person could be accepted into the Adventist church, just as many other Christians join our church by "confession of faith".

I do know of SDA pastors who baptize people into the body of Christ and not as members of the SDA church. They don't advertise the fact, but nevertheless, it IS done.

IMHO, that's the way it should be done. Baptism is a public acknowledgment of one's commitment to Christ.

Membership in a church comes later, by the new member's petition and the church's acceptance of that member by vote.

Well said. And in fact technically ... this IS the only way that it is done with all baptisms. It is just that some SDA pastors combine it rather closely. Biblically ... if you have faith in Jesus that He died for your sins and accept Him as your saviour then you should be baptized. You would later discover all the Bible truths including the 28 Fundamentals.

But usually we put the cart before the horse and require them to have knowledge and acceptance of all the 28 before baptism is authorized. But either way ... when one is baptized ... he is baptized into the body of Christ at large. He is not baptized into any church. No Pastor is allowed to baptize anyone INTO a CHURCH. The only way you can be a member of any church ... is by the 50% vote of the members present. This happens subject to or after baptism.

But you are right ... membership can or should be able to just happen anytime after you are baptized . It could be years later through profession of faith. And I would go one step further .... I would say you could just have ANYONE baptize you. The Bible does not specify that it has to be a Pastor. Then that way ... you would not be pressured to accept the 28 Fundamentals until you had time to fully study and were ready.

I personally don't believe we should be withholding baptism from anyone who has accepted Christ as their Saviour. We withhold it from those who smoke or drink coffee etc. But those are issues of growth that we all have issues with. They will come with time. The Holy Spirit's time not ours. And they should not be reason to withhold the water.

I would add homosexuality to the above list also ... but that might envoke controversy. And I shy away from controversy.