Will Ted Wilson flinch on the creation issue?

[Nic Samojluk]

Introduction

In his address at the General Conference Session Ted Wilson indicated his determination to focus his efforts at strengthening the traditional Adventist understanding of the doctrine of creation. Among other statements, he said:

Quote:

“I want to see that all Seventh-day Adventist teachers, whether they are theologians or science teachers, believe and accept the biblical creation as the church has voted and understood it. That is our goal, and that is what we need to move toward.”

Some Adventists think that he is the man for such a task, but I believe that it won’t be easy for him to bring the church back to unity on the issue of creation. The church is definitely divided on this issue, and this is evident when we look at the two baptismal vows our church is using for the acceptance of new members into its communion. How can there be union on this issue if we have two divergent understanding of what constitutes the pillars of the church?

See my next posting!

[Nic Samojluk]

The Two Adventist Baptismal Vows

My suspicion is that the majority of Adventists are not even aware that we have two officially recognized set of beliefs which are used as baptismal vows for those who want to join the church. At first sight, they might be complementary, but a close inspection reveals that they are interpreted at two diametrically opposed ways which suits the divergent ways the creation doctrine is understood by our theologians. Let’s take a close a look at them. I will start with the traditional one which has been used before the creation vs evolution controversy made its presence felt among the liberally minded members of the church.

See my next posting!

[Nic Samojluk]

The Traditional Baptismal Vow

Quote:

1. Do you believe in God the Father, in His Son Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Spirit?

2. Do you accept the death of Jesus Christ on Calvary as the atoning sacrifice for the sins of men, and believe that through faith in His shed blood men are saved from sin and its penalty?

3. Renouncing the world and its sinful ways, have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Savior, and do you believe that God, for Christ's sake, has forgiven your sins and given you a new heart?

4: Do you accept by faith the righteousness of Christ, recognizing Him as your Intercessor in the heavenly sanctuary, and do you claim His promise to strengthen you by His indwelling Spirit, so that you may receive power to do His will?

5. Do you believe that the Bible is God's inspired word, and that it constitutes the only rule of faith and practice for the Christian?

6. Do you accept the Ten Commandments as still binding upon Christians; and is it your purpose, by the power of the indwelling Christ, to keep this law, including the fourth commandment, which requires the observance of the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath of the Lord?

7. Is the soon coming of Jesus the blessed hope in your heart, and are you determined to be personally ready to meet the Lord, and to do all in your power to witness to His loving salvation, and by life and word to help others to be ready for His glorious appearing?

8. Do you accept the Biblical teaching of spiritual gifts, and do you believe that the gift of prophecy in the remnant church is one of the identifying marks of that church?

9. Do you believe in church organization, and is it your purpose to support the church by your tithes and offerings, your personal effort, and influence?

10. Do you believe that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit and that you are to honor God by caring for your body, avoiding the use of that which is harmful, abstaining from all unclean foods, from the use, manufacture, or sale of alcoholic beverages, the use, manufacture, or sale of tobacco in any of its forms for human consumption, and from the misuse of, or trafficking in, narcotics or other drugs?

11. Knowing and understanding the fundamental Bible principles as taught by the Seventh-day Adventist Church, is it your purpose, by the grace of God, to order your life in harmony with these principles?

12. Do you accept the New Testament teaching of baptism by immersion, and do you desire to be so baptized as a public expression of your faith in Christ and in the forgiveness of your sins?

13. Do you believe that the Seventh-day Adventist Church is the remnant church of Bible prophecy, and that people of every nation, race, and language are invited and accepted into its fellowship? Do you desire membership in this local congregation of the world church?"

Source: http://www.tripatlas.com/Adventist_baptismal_vow

See my next posting!

[Nic Samojluk]

Believe it or not, but this baptismal formula is the favored one by our liberal minded Adventists. Can you guess why? It makes no specific reference to our doctrine of creation. Someone may wonder why. My personal theory is that, when this baptismal formula was created, the doctrine of a literal creation was so fundamental that nobody thought that there was a need to include it among the 13 itemized beliefs. This is probably the reason Adventists decided to create the 27 set of fundamental beliefs, which later on was augmented by one for a total of 28. For the same reason, some influential members of the church felt the need to modify our baptismal vows, but because there was a lack of consensus, an alternative baptismal vow was created which included the FB # 6 dealing with the doctrine of creation. This alternative baptismal vow was adopted in 2005.

See my next posting!

[Nic Samojluk]

Quote:

Delegates Debate Baptismal Vows

Baptism is an important "rite of passage" for the Seventh-day Adventist Church, so perhaps it is not surprising the proposal of the Church Manual Committee for an alternative set of baptismal vows engendered some hot debate.

While the 13 vows will remain as standard in the Manual, a much shorter version was also presented to the delegates.

1. Do you accept Jesus Christ as your personal Savior and Lord, and do you desire to live your life in a saving relationship with Him?

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?

3. Do you desire to be baptized as a public expression of your belief in Jesus Christ, to be accepted into the fellowship of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, and to support the Church and its mission as a faithful steward by your personal influence, tithes and offering, and a life of service?

This raised concerns among a number of the delegates. J. Gallimore from the church in North America worried that the new vows were too diluted and did not express some of the churches most central beliefs, including the Sabbath. Debate circled around whether the wording gave a sufficient representation of what Adventists believe. George Baxen from the church's Southern Africa Indian Ocean region felt it "did not allow a full expression of belief to new believers."

The argument was countered by those who, like Stephen Guptill from South Asia Pacific pointed out that the operative word is "alternative." Roscoe Howard from North America emphasized that "those who don't like it don't have to use it." He said, "The onus is on those of us who are preparing candidates for baptism."

A theological note of caution was expressed by Dr, Brian Bull, who worried that placing the wording "as expressed in the Statement of Fundamental Beliefs" led to the danger of the church turning the fundamentals into a creed.

But those working with youth supported the "alternative" vows. Darnen Croft stated that we "need to keep relevant in the wording. The youth will understand this and be supportive of the church."

The motion was carried. The church now has a choice of two sets of vows.

Source: http://news.adventist.org/2005/07/elegates-ebate-baptismal-vows.html

See my next posting!

[Nic Samojluk]

Two sets of baptismal vows creates confusion and it is behind the controversy taking place right now among Adventist, but it may be the only way to avoid a split between liberals and conservatives. The problem is that a certain element of liberal Adventists have pushed the limits of tolerance and it has caused a reaction by conservatives who see the acceptance of evolution as factual to be a serious threat to the most fundamental of these beliefs: our doctrinal belief in creation.

See my next posting!

[Nic Samojluk]

Ted Wilson’s Undaunted Task

Ted Wilson, our new president, has quite a task for him. How do you reconcile two diametrically opposed understanding of creation? The creation event is the backbone which supports all the other Adventist doctrinal beliefs. The moment you mess with this foundational belief, the rest of our teachings loose their true meanings. If we did evolve thanks to Natural Selection and Genetic Mutation, what need do we have for a Creator or divine Designer.

We have done quite well without Him; we have made a huge progress since the first ameba came to life in a pond, and we will continue to progress towards a higher form of existence. There was never a moral fall, so what do we need for repentance, forgiveness, and a Savior. There is also no need for a Second Coming. We might as well close our churches and devote our financial resources to the task of feeding the hungry and clothing the naked.

Here is what Ted Wilson will need to do in order to fulfill the mission he set for himself. Since he is sold on the theory that there was in fact a moral fall, that we do need to repent of our sins, that we need a Savior, and that we need to preach a Second Coming; then he will need to convince the liberal minded teachers, pastors, and theologians that they have doctrinally erred from the narrow path and that they need to renounce their allegiance to the doctrine espoused by Darwin and his faithful disciples.

Wilson will need to tighten up our Fundamental Belief # 6 in such a way that the story of Genesis is understood by all that the days of creation were literal days of 24 hours each similar to what we today experience on a daily basis. Otherwise, our liberal minded brethren will continue to interpret the days of creation in a symbolic manner, since the Bible does state that for the Lord one day is like a thousand years.

Do you think that such a task will be easy? Do you believe that this is feasible? Do you believe that the liberal minded Adventist teachers, pastors, and theologians will readily accept this type of fundamental reformation without a fight?

Wilson will also need to do away with two divergently understood baptismal vows. This may not be easy to accomplish either, since the one favored by liberal Adventists is the traditional one which had been in existence for many decades. They like it because it contains no specific reference to the doctrine of creation.

What do you think? Have I missed something which would make my thinking fallacious? Cal you help me understand this in a better way?

[Dr. Shane]

he will need to convince the liberal minded teachers, pastors, and theologians that they have doctrinally erred from the narrow path and that they need to renounce their allegiance to the doctrine espoused by Darwin and his faithful disciples.

Their pride will never let them go there. Evolutionists tend to be drunk with intellectual pride. The whole reason they doubt the Biblical record is because they trust in their own reasoning more than the Word of God. They have, in essence, made themselves god.

[John317]

Their pride will never let them go there. Evolutionists tend to be drunk with intellectual pride. The whole reason they doubt the Biblical record is because they trust in their own reasoning more than the Word of God. They have, in essence, made themselves god.

I agree with you Shane. It's all about what and who is our source of authority-- whether God and the Bible or evolutionary theory. There is evolution in the sense of changes within kinds, but I believe the theory that accounts for all life as the result of evolutionary processes from simple forms is false.

I've seen convincing evidence that belief in the evolutionary theory keeps people from having firm faith in the Bible as God's word and is also destructive to a personal, trusting relationship with Christ.

[SivartM]

What about people who believe in evolution because of scientific evidence and not because they think the Bible is stupid?

What about Christians who believe in evolution and in the Bible? In what ways does believing that organisms change to adapt to their environments negatively affect people's faith?

[Dr. Shane]

The evidence is itself neutral. Conclusions are the results of assumptions. The scientist that approaches the evidence with the belief that no super-natural power has ever been involved will never see evidence of a super-natural power. The scientist that approaches the evidence believing that there is a Creator that made the universe, sees evidence of that Creator.

So you decide. You can trust your own mind to examine the evidence, or you can trust the Word of God.

[SivartM]

Of course it's not possible to have no preconceptions at all, but that doesn't mean that the theory of evolution was just made up to justify someone's disbelief in a Creator. Not to mention that creationists agree with pretty much everything but the time periods (which don't really come from biology...). It's fully possible to believe that God created the world through evolution. If he continues to create that way now, why couldn't that have been the way from the beginning?

But we need to use our minds to examine the Bible also. I think that God means for us to examine both.

[Dr. Shane]

that doesn't mean that the theory of evolution was just made up to justify someone's disbelief in a Creator.

[Dottie]

Do we need to "examine" the Bible? Do we have the authority to determine whether the Bible is Truth or not? Isn't it rather that we "study" the Bible, learn the Truth in it, and accept that Truth?

[SivartM]

This statement is not accurate.

[Dr. Shane]

We have to operate on an assumption. There is no getting away from that.

I compare it to jumping into a pool. Imagine standing on a bluff with five pools of water below. One must decide to jump into one of the five pools of water. Once in the water, one must swim in that water.

The pools in this analogy represent worldviews and/or religions. I studied comparative religions and the "pool" I decided was the best one was the Sola Scriptura pool. So there was some reasoning and "thinking" that went into my initial decision. However once I jumped into the pool, I must swim in this pool unless I am somehow convinced I am in the wrong pool. The problem I have with all the other pools is that they are based on man's intellect - which I do not trust.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

"what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?" (2 Corinthians 6:14, 15)

I think that verse applies as much to science as it would to interracial marriage...

The context of the verse is addressing the mixing of belief systems. It doesn't apply to operational science but than evolution isn't a product of operational science. It applies to pseudo-science which is what the study of origins is. Evolution, as a worldview, is not confined to biology. It is not compatible with Sola Sciptura. Thus, the context of 2 Cor. 6:14, 15 is telling Sola-Sciptura Christians not to marry evolution-believing people (Christians or others). Light hath no communion with darkeness. Christ has no concord with Belial.

[Overaged]

Believe it or not, but this baptismal formula is the favored one by our liberal minded Adventists. Can you guess why? It makes no specific reference to our doctrine of creation. Someone may wonder why. My personal theory is that, when this baptismal formula was created, the doctrine of a literal creation was so fundamental that nobody thought that there was a need to include it among the 13 itemized beliefs. This is probably the reason Adventists decided to create the 27 set of fundamental beliefs, which later on was augmented by one for a total of 28. For the same reason, some influential members of the church felt the need to modify our baptismal vows, but because there was a lack of consensus, an alternative baptismal vow was created which included the FB # 6 dealing with the doctrine of creation. This alternative baptismal vow was adopted in 2005.

See my next posting!

I have recently started a similar topic to this one ( see Fundamental Fundamental Beliefs ), so I thought I would jump in here.

First; when you say "this is probably the reason;" that does not prove one iota of what you are saying.

It appears that these 13 beliefs are taken from a book by Norval F Pease, called "THE GOOD NEWS. Thirteen Vital Points Of Faith."

Your whole conspiracy theory here Nic is very unrealistic. This is the book, and the 13 beliefs that I was asked to examine to prepare for my baptism, some 22 years ago now. To me, the doctrine of the "literal creation" was very well covered in the #6 belief, identified as follows:

VI/ GOOD NEWS FROM SINAI 54

“Do you accept the Ten Commandments as still binding upon Christians; and is it your purpose, by the power of the indwelling Christ, to keep this law, including the fourth commandment, which requires the observance of the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath of the Lord?”

The Sabbath doctrine, in this book by Pease, covers the doctrine of the literal creation. I think you are really wrong about The Church on this count.

[Nic Samojluk]

Their pride will never let them go there. Evolutionists tend to be drunk with intellectual pride. The whole reason they doubt the Biblical record is because they trust in their own reasoning more than the Word of God. They have, in essence, made themselves god.

If this is true about those Adventists who have embraced the theory of evolution as the most credible explanation for origins, does it follow then that Ted Wilsons’ dream of revival and reformation is doomed to fail? Some years ago Adventist Today conducted a survey and concluded that 43 percent of Adventist science teachers in North America did believe in the theory of evolution as factual.

If this is accurate today, then what can Wilson do to solve this serious problem? These Adventist science teachers are not operating in a vacuum; they are being supported by Adventist theologians and Adventist members. Will Wilson flinch then and compromise on the literal understanding of Genesis instead of reforming the Adventist Church? How can we help our new president succeed in his assigned mission?

[Nic Samojluk]

I agree with you Shane. It's all about what and who is our source of authority-- whether God and the Bible or evolutionary theory. There is evolution in the sense of changes within kinds, but I believe the theory that accounts for all life as the result of evolutionary processes from simple forms is false.

[Nic Samojluk]

What about people who believe in evolution because of scientific evidence and not because they think the Bible is stupid?

[Nic Samojluk]

The evidence is itself neutral. Conclusions are the results of assumptions.

[Nic Samojluk]

It's fully possible to believe that God created the world through evolution. If he continues to create that way now, why couldn't that have been the way from the beginning?

[SivartM]

Why should I believe that millions of years of breeding will transform some of these dogs into elephants or giraffes? Where is the evidence favoring Mega evolution?

I don't know. I don't think anyone believes that. They would just adapt to their environments (or die), and in the process they could eventually become different species. But not elephants or giraffes.

[SivartM]

If God created us through a protracted evolutionary process. It means that there was never a moral fall.

Why?