28 Fundamental Beliefs, or a Papal Creed?

[BattleAxe]

I believe that this is a matter of great importance to the church at large and that every Adventist should give careful consideration to it. Below is a chapter from a book titled, "When Man Becomes God - A Public Rebuke to the Seventh Day Adventist Church" All thoughts and comments are welcome.

The Point

The point of this book is to publicly rebuke the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, as a world organization, for placing itself on the throne of God. This will result in calling worldwide attention to issues of grave importance. Lastly, we pray that these issues, studied, will result in further opening the way for the final reformation that must take place before the second coming of Christ.

The Claim

We here claim that the church on an official, General Conference level, has made fallible, human interpretations of God’s word the standard of acceptance into His church, thus taking a position against the plain words of inspiration. Failure on the part of others to accept this man-made standard, results in church rejection, whether it is because the individual is not accepted into church membership, or because they are stripped of the same.

The Issue

The reason that this is so dangerous is because it virtually places man on God’s throne. Here is how man becomes God:

Man:

1) Interprets the Bible

2) Makes that interpretation a list of beliefs

3) Makes these beliefs the representatives of Bible truth

a.If anyone rejects these beliefs, the “representatives” of Bible truth, he is considered to have rejected Bible truth itself.

Thus:

1) Reject man’s words, and it is equally considered as having rejected God’s words

2) Reject man = Reject God

3) Man = God

The Evidence

#1: Says Inspiration:

"Many claim that a position of trust in the church gives them authority to dictate what other men shall believe and what they shall do. This claim God does not sanction.” {Desire of Ages, Ellen White, 414.3}

“No prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.” 2 Peter 1:20.

Says the Church:

“Baptismal candidates and those being received into fellowship by profession of faith shall affirm their acceptance of the fundamental beliefsin the presence of the local congregation or other properly appointed body.” {Seventh-Day Adventist Church Manual, 2010 Edition, 46.1}

Baptismal Vow Point # 11: “Do you know and understand the fundamental Bible principles as taught by the Seventh-day Adventist Church? Do you purpose, by the grace of God, to fulfill His will by ordering your life in harmony with these principles?” {Seventh-Day Adventist Church Manual, 2010 Edition, 47.4}

Alternate Vow Point #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?” {Seventh-Day Adventist Church Manual, 2010 Edition, 47.8}

“After the candidates have, in the presence of the church membership or other properly appointed body, answered the questions of the vow in the affirmative, or assurance has been given to the church that they have already done so, the church should vote on their acceptance into membership subject to baptism, which should not be unduly delayed.” {Seventh-Day Adventist Church Manual, 2010 Edition, 49.4}

“The reasons for which members shall be subject to discipline are: 1. Denial of faith in the fundamentals of the gospel and in the fundamental beliefs of the Church or teaching doctrines contrary to the same. 2. … {Seventh-Day Adventist Church Manual, 2010 Edition, 61, 62}

#2: Says the Dictionary:

CREED: 1. A brief summary of the articles of Christian faith; a symbol; as the Apostolic creed. 2. That which is believed; any system of principles which are believed or professed; as a political creed.

Says Inspiration:

“God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms. The opinions of learned men, the deductions of science, the creeds or decisions of ecclesiastical councils, as numerous and discordant as are the churches which they represent, the voice of the majority--not one nor all of these should be regarded as evidence for or against any point of religious faith. Before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain ‘Thus saith the Lord’ in its support.” {The Great Controversy, 1911 Edition, Ellen White, 595.1}

“The Bible, and the Bible alone, is to be our creed, the sole bond of union; all who bow to this holy word will be in harmony. Our own views and ideas must not control our efforts. Man is fallible, but God's word is infallible. Instead of wrangling with one another, let men exalt the Lord. Let us meet all opposition as did our Master, saying, ‘It is written.’ Let us lift up the banner on which is inscribed, The Bible our rule of faith and discipline.” {The Review and Herald, December 15, 1885, Ellen White, par. 16}

Says the Church:

“Seventh-day Adventists accept the Bible as their only creed and hold certain fundamental beliefs to be the teaching of the Holy Scriptures. These beliefs, as set forth here, constitute the church’s understanding and expression of the teaching of Scripture. Revision of these statements may be expected at a General Conference session when the church is led by the Holy Spirit to a fuller understanding of Bible truth or finds better language in which to express the teachings of God’s Holy Word.” {Seventh-Day Adventist Church Manual, 2010 Edition, 156.1}

#3:Says Inspiration:

“Precious light is to shine forth from the Word of God, and let no one presume to dictate what shall or what shall not be brought before the people in the messages of enlightenment that He shall send, and so quench the Spirit of God. Whatever may be his position of authority, no one has a right to shut away the light from the people. When a message comes in the name of the Lord to His people, no one may excuse himself from an investigation of its claims. No one can afford to stand back in an attitude of indifference and self-confidence, and say: ‘I know what is truth. I am satisfied with my position. I have set my stakes, and I will not be moved away from my position, whatever may come. I will not listen to the message of this messenger; for I know that it can not be truth.’ It was from pursuing this very course that the popular churches were left in partial darkness, and that is why the messages of heaven have not reached them.” {Testimonies on Sabbath School Work, 65.1}

Says the Church:

“Although all members have equal rights within the church, no individual member or group should start a movement or form an organization or seek to encourage a following for the attainment of any objective or for the teaching of any doctrine or message not in harmony with the fundamental religious objectives and teachings of the Church. Such a course would result in the fostering of a divisive spirit, the fragmenting of the witness of the Church, and thus in hindering of the Church’s discharge of its obligations to the Lord and the world.” {Seventh-Day Adventist Church Manual, 2010 Edition, 59.3}

“The reasons for which members shall be subject to discipline are: 1. Denial of faith in the fundamentals of the gospel and in the fundamental beliefs of the Church or teaching doctrines contrary to the same. 2. … {Seventh-Day Adventist Church Manual, 2010 Edition, 61, 62}

Does it Matter?

When the words of man are placed on equal grounds with the words of God, the church is in grave peril. This is how it was with the Roman Catholic Church. This is why the pope became a man literally viewed as “God on earth.” So long as the pope’s word was given supreme place, reformation was impossible. It was because men like Martin Luther and others held the word of God as supreme, and risked their lives to break free from the crippling interpretations of the church clergy, that the great reformation of the Dark Ages took place. God then had, and “will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms.” (GC 595.1) But so long as man’s interpretations of God’s word are held supreme, reformation is impossible. Thus were regarded the interpretations of Roman Catholicism, and thus are regarded the interpretations of Adventism.

The Historical Evidence

The Advent of Christ:

During the time of Jesus, the interpretations and opinions of the church clergy were held supreme. To go contrary to these was to be “put out of the synagogue,” thus excommunicating from the church the reformers, and thus the reformation.

“In every gentle and submissive way, Jesus tried to please those with whom He came in contact. Because He was so gentle and unobtrusive, the scribes and elders supposed that He would be easily influenced by their teaching. They urged Him to receive the maxims and traditions that had been handed down from the ancient rabbis, but He asked for their authority in Holy Writ. He would hear every word that proceeds from the mouth of God; but He could not obey the inventions of men. Jesus seemed to know the Scriptures from beginning to end, and He presented them in their true import. The rabbis were ashamed to be instructed by a child. They claimed that it was their office to explain the Scriptures, and that it was His place to accept their interpretation. They were indignant that He should stand in opposition to their word.” {Desire of Ages, Ellen White, 85.1}

“These words spake his parents, because they feared the Jews: for the Jews had agreed already, that if any man did confess that he was Christ, he should be put out of the synagogue.” John 9:22.

The Reformation:

During the time of the great reformation of the Dark Ages, the interpretations and opinions of the church clergy were held supreme. To go contrary to these was to be excommunicated from the church, and finally, to die a martyr’s death.

“The Roman Church reserves to the clergy the right to interpret the Scriptures. On the ground that ecclesiastics alone are competent to explain God's word, it is withheld from the common people. Though the Reformation gave the Scriptures to all, yet the selfsame principle which was maintained by Rome prevents multitudes in Protestant churches from searching the Bible for themselves. They are taught to accept its teachings as interpreted by the church; and there are thousands who dare receive nothing, however plainly revealed in Scripture, that is contrary to their creed or the established teaching of their church.” {Great Controversy, Ellen White, 596.3}

The Advent Movement:

During the time of the great Advent Movement of the 1800’s, the interpretations and opinions of the church clergy were held supreme. To go contrary to these was to be excommunicated from the church.

“I thought that those who loved Jesus would love His coming, so went to the class meeting and told them what Jesus had done for me and what a fullness I enjoyed through believing that the Lord was coming. The class leader interrupted me, saying, "Through Methodism"; but I could not give the glory to Methodism when it was Christ and the hope of His soon coming that had made me free.

“Most of my father's family were full believers in the advent, and for bearing testimony to this glorious doctrine seven of us were at one time cast out of the Methodist Church. At this time the words of the prophet were exceedingly precious to us: "Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for My name's sake, said, Let the Lord be glorified: but He shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed." Isaiah 66:5. {Early Writings, Ellen White, 12, 13}

Here and Now:

Darkness was in the church. Jesus took the Scriptures alone and ignored the creeds of the Scribes and Pharisees. This pressed back the darkness. The light of truth shone bright, and Jesus was crucified.

Darkness was in the church. The reformers took the Bible alone and ignored the creeds of the Roman Catholic Church. This pressed back the darkness. The light of truth shone brighter, and the reformers were burned at the stake.

Darkness was in the church. The early Adventists took the Bible alone and ignored the creeds of the Protestant churches. This pressed back the darkness. The light of truth shone still brighter, and the early Adventists were disfellowshipped.

Darkness is in the church. We are to take the Bible alone and ignore the creed of the Adventist church. This will press back the darkness. The light of truth will shine at its brightest, and the faithful of final reformation, what will happen to them? We read once again from the official, Seventh-Day Adventist Church Manual:

“Although all members have equal rights within the church, no individual member or group should start a movement or form an organization or seek to encourage a following for the attainment of any objective or for the teaching of any doctrine or message not in harmony with the fundamental religious objectives and teachings of the Church. Such a course would result in the fostering of a divisive spirit, the fragmenting of the witness of the Church, and thus in hindering of the Church’s discharge of its obligations to the Lord and the world.” {Seventh-Day Adventist Church Manual, 2010 Edition, 59.3}

Thus, as God is raising up this people who make “the Bible, and the Bible only” “the standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms,” and uses this people to start a reformation in the church, whose teachings are not in harmony with the fallible interpretations of the Seventh-Day Adventist clergy, they are threatened with disfellowshipment, just as those of old were in Jesus’ time, the reformers time, and the time of the great Advent movement. We quote again:

“The reasons for which members shall be subject to discipline are: 1. Denial of faith in the fundamentals of the gospel and in the fundamental beliefs of the Church or teaching doctrines contrary to the same. 2. … {Seventh-Day Adventist Church Manual, 2010 Edition, 61, 62}

Words from the Prophetess:

“We have nothing to fear for the future, except as we shall forget the way the Lord has led us, and his teaching in our past history.” {Review and Herald, October 12, 1905, Ellen White, par. 22}

The Grand Objection – “What you are saying is great, but every point of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church are all true, so it really doesn’t matter.”

Because this appears to be the grandest of all objections given against the removal of the 28 creedal points of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, we will address it here, unlike many others that will be addressed later.

“There is no excuse for any one in taking the position that there is no more truth to be revealed, and that all our expositions of Scripture are without an error. The fact that certain doctrines have been held as truth for many years by our people, is not a proof that our ideas are infallible. Age will not make error into truth, and truth can afford to be fair. No true doctrine will lose anything by close investigation. We are living in perilous times, and it does not become us to accept everything claimed to be truth without examining it thoroughly; neither can we afford to reject anything that bears the fruits of the Spirit of God; but we should be teachable, meek and lowly of heart. There are those who oppose everything that is not in accordance with their own ideas, and by so doing they endanger their eternal interest as verily as did the Jewish nation in their rejection of Christ. The Lord designs that our opinions shall be put to the test, that we may see the necessity of closely examining the living oracles to see whether or not we are in the faith. Many who claim to believe the truth have settled down at their ease, saying, "I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing." But Jesus says to these self-complacent ones, Thou "knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked." Let us individually inquire, Do these words describe my case? If so, the True Witness counsels us, saying, "Buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eye-salve, that thou mayest see." {Review and Herald, December 20, 1892, Ellen White, par. 1}

Thus it is evident that such objection has no grounds for its claims. God has been seeking to remove error and darkness out of the church for many years, every time removing a little more error than before, and there is no excuse to say that there is no error remaining in the Adventist church of today. To validate this point even further, we quote the words of Jesus:

“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free? Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.” John 8:32-34.

Jesus here says that when we know the truth that it will set us free. Free from what? Free, from sinning. If the church is still living in sin, if we haven’t gone home yet (See COL 69.1), it is evident that there is some truth that we are not knowing, some truth we are not understanding, for if this truth were known, we would have ceased to sin.

Since there is no excuse for anyone in taking the position that all Seventh-Day Adventist expositions of Scripture are without an error, then so long as the Adventist clergy’s interpretation of God’s word is made the standard, threatening disfellowshipment against those who understand the Scriptures differently, there can be no final reformation in the church, for the church will excommunicate the reformation.

Summary

Thus the principles of God’s word, and examples in history, testify that this is indeed a solemn issue of great importance. It matters.

The rest of the book may be viewed online through http://answersforadventists.wordpress.com/resources/books-by-james-prest/

[ClubV12]

I just recently had such a oonversation with a "feast keeper" that also happens to have his name on the Church books, but does not honor, respect or uphold the authority of the Church.

The reasons are primarily two fold:

1. He says our fundamental beliefs are a "creed".

2. He says because the Church does not accept keeping the feasts as a requirement of salvation.

As to a "creed", he uses pretty much the same "lame" argument you do. Our pioneers were clear on this and that hasn't changed. The Church has no "creed" except the bible itself. Theres a reason we are called the "people of the book".

A creed is difficult to change or modify, typically it is written in stone. This is where a statement of fundamental beliefs dramatically differ. One needs to give a "reason for his faith". One needs to state, clearly, what they believe. This is precisely what the fundamental beliefs statement does. The Adventist Church has ALWAYS been open and willing to change and accept "new light" as it is revealed. When someone comes up with "new light" the Church does NOT dismiss them out of hand. Indeed, our prophet, Ellen White, agreed that we should be careful we are not rejecting new, revealed light. This to was a "fundamental" belief, indeed a pillar, of our faith since the beginning.

As a result the fundamental beliefs have been added to and modified as the need arises since the beginning of the Church. While we maintain certain unmovable foundation points and pillars of our faith, the Church will and has adapted. The most recent addition to the fundamental beliefs is, in it's essence, "righteouss by faith", belief #11. Something we have held to be true since the Church began, but only recently incorporated as a "reason for our faith".

Does one have to believe in these shared, common, standard beliefs of the Church to be baptized INTO the Church? Certainly. In the same way you cannot join ANY reasonable group without (Masons, Professional Race Driver, Boy Scouts, etc.) without accepting certain minimum standards and agreeing to a certain system of beliefs. Quite reasonable, quite logical. Without structure and organization you have anarchy and confusion. If you don't accept the beliefs, that is fine, you are free to worship with us. But you cannot be a member with voting rights, you have no say in the organization, you are under no obligations to submit to the Church authority. Of course there are civil and societal rules that must be followed. You can't get a drivers license without agreeing to the "creed" of the State, if you want to call it a "creed". It's the "law", it is what it is, don't want to sign up, fine, don't drive! No problem!

No scripture is of private interpretation indeed! THIS is one of the pillars of our faith! Those who refuse to counsel with and consider these issues independantly are in fact making their own interpretation! The only question is, who will you counsel with to arrive at a correct interpretation?

I wouldn't counsel with YOU BattleAxe for a correct interpretation on ANY bible verse! It would be a waste of time because it's obvious we see things to differently from each other. Your name and your post suggests that you would prefer to "argue" a verse. I'm not interested in "arguing". One should set aside his preconceived ideas when coming to the word for light. Set aside any pride and ego, come with a humble, teachable spirit. With a heart willing to find and follow truth where ever it may lead, what ever it may cost. Only then will the Holy Spirit be able to enlighten you to truth.

Now I could be wrong, perhaps, you are sincerely, humbly looking for truth. That being the case, there might be some common ground to explore the word.

By the way, that "feast keeper" I was talking to? He would be disfellowshipped if he attended a regular Church where his membership was located. He knows that, so he "floats" from Church to Church to avoid being removed. WHY would he be removed from membership? Because he believes if you don't keep the feasts you will be lost, he is making "feast keeping" a "test of faith". This is a direct violation of the Church rules/laws. I would certainly vote to dissfellowship him and many HAVE been disfellowshiped for this very behaviour.

[BattleAxe]

Since you mentioned the pioneers in relation to creeds, I figured I'd quote one here. Follow closely his line of reasoning.

James White said:

“On the subject of creeds, I agree with Brother Loughborough. I never weighed the points which he has presented, as I have since I began to examine the subject myself. In Ephesians 4:11-13, we read, ‘And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets,’ et cetera. Here we have the gifts of the church presented.

“Now I take the ground that creeds stand in a direct opposition to the gifts. Let us suppose a case: We get up a creed, stating just what we shall believe on this point and the other, and just what we shall do in reference to this thing and that, and say that we will believe the gifts, too.

“But suppose the Lord, through the gifts, should give us some new light that did not harmonize with our creed; then, if we remain true to the gifts, it knocks our creed all over at once. Making a creed is setting the stakes, and barring up the way to all future advancement. God put the gifts into the church for a good and great object; but men who have got up their churches, have shut up the way or have marked out a course for the Almighty. They say virtually that the Lord must not do anything further than what has been marked out in the creed.

“A creed and the gifts thus stand in direct opposition to each other. Now what is our position as a people? The Bible is our creed. We reject everything in the form of a human creed. We take the Bible and the gifts of the Spirit; embracing the faith that thus the Lord will teach us from time to time. And in this we take a position against the formation of a creed. We are not taking one step, in what we are doing, toward becoming Babylon.” {The Early Years, Volume I, 453.6-454.3}

The introductory paragraph to the first statement of beliefs of the SDA church in 1872:

“In presenting to the public this synopsis of our faith, we wish to have it distinctly understood that we have no articles of faith, creed, or discipline, aside from the Bible. We do not put forth this as having any authority with our people, nor is it designed to secure uniformity among them, as a system of faith, but is a brief statement of what is, and has been, with great unanimity, held by them. We often find it necessary to meet inquiries on this subject, and sometimes to correct false statements circulated against us, and to remove erroneous impressions which have obtained with those who have not had an opportunity to become acquainted with our faith and practice. Our only object is to meet this necessity.” {Fundamental Principles, 1872, 3.1}

I'm not sure I know anything of this feast keeper guy that you mention. I don't believe in keeping feast days.

[ClubV12]

I am in complete agreement with the quotes you posted above. And in agreement with James White. These fundamental beliefs are not considered a "test of faith" worthy of being disfellowshipped if you don't hold to them. They carry no authority of themselves and will NOT be used by the Church to condem. In the same way that belief in the gift of prophecy, as seen in Ellen White, is not a test of faith!

And yet,,, people HAVE been disfellowshipped for not believe in the gift of prophecy. Say what? If you don't believe, fine, not a problem, the Church will accept you as is. But what if you don't believe and openly FIGHT AGAINST the gift of prophecy? Causing dissension, confusion, arguing, denigrating the Church over the issue, bad mouthing, etc., etc. Thats a different problem, that is "open sin". The early church, the bible, condems open sin and says the Church MUST take action. It CANNOT be tolerated. Apply Matthew 18 first, then a Church Board meeting for review, then to the members and finally disfellowship if all else fails. Order must be maintained at some point.

Feast keeping is just ONE example of a member coming up with his own, private interpretation, of a test of faith. Placing themselves above the authority of the Church and declaring who can and who cannot be saved. This is very serious, it WILL lead to disfellowship, whatever "private doctrine" it may be.

[Stan]

Battleaxe, please don't just copy format and paste. Have a conversation about one thing at a time

[BattleAxe]

I mean sure... if someone is sinning, that is a sufficient reason for church discipline and disfellowshipment. Jesus is clear on that. But I'm talking about beliefs being a test of fellowship. They are entirely different things. The SDA 2010 Church Manual specifically says that if you don't agree with the way the SDA church interprets the Bible, then you are subject to discipline. This is out of harmony with Bible light, and its causing a lot of problems in the church. The book of public rebuke to the church addresses some of these problems, though not all. I just want to see a true reformation take place in the church, but this will be hindered so long as the Adventist clergy is enforcing their interpretations on the people via threat of disfellowshipment.

[BattleAxe]

Hmmm... I'm a little confused. This is all related to the original thought. I am copying and pasting because I'm quoting the pioneers. All the rest is mine. I don't understand. Do you mind explaining exactly what you are looking for?

[ClubV12]

Church discipline comes in many flavors, each case needs careful review as to if action is required or best left alone to "mature". So the people can be without doubt there is a violation. I'm sure people don't always get it right, but thats another issue.

Lets talk "official policies" of the Church. You may be denied baptism or membership if you don't agree with a substantial "rule" or "law" of the Church. I think this is reasonable. You may face Church discipline based on how you respond to your dislike of a rule or law.

One reason for disfellowship, and there are only about a dozen by the way it's short list, is if you fight against the Elders of the Church. I THINK this may include the Church Board. If you insist on having your way and make sufficient waves over that, you could actually be disfellowshipped! I've never heard of that happening, but it's in the book. And I support it.

Discipline may be removal from office for a period of time, for instance. Anyone under "censure" cannot officially change their membership to another Church. You can't run from your trouble in other words.

I know of no case where the fundamental beliefs would cause censure, discipline or disfellowship UNLESS you are specifically "fighting against" the authority of the Church. That would be open sin. Paul had to deal with that as well. Church authority must be maintained to some reasonable degree. It's OK to disagree, you need to do that in the proper format and way.

[ClubV12]

I think Stan is referring to your original really LONG post which appears to be mostly "copy/paste". Not good netiquette.

[BattleAxe]

My initial post was a copy and paste, but it was only a copy and paste from my book. So everything that I have said or quoted was either me or one of the pioneers.

Church authority is a fascinating topic. The reality is, as I understand, that the church has no real authority. God has the authority, and as long as the church is acting in harmony with God, then what they say and do is sanctioned by His authority. Problems arise when the church "authority" thinks that they have real authority, and having such, can require others to do all of these things that the Lord hasn't required of them. The Jewish Church is a great example. They made all of their little rules and regulations. They were the "authority." But their rules and regulations were out of harmony with God, and thus didn't have the sanction of His authority. This is how Jesus could disregard their rules and regulations and yet be without sin. He disobeyed man's authority, but not God's.

[ClubV12]

It is a tricky thing, how ever you see it, what ever you think, be very, very careful fighting against Church authority. Not out of fear, but because God IS in control. As defective, backward, in the dark and wrong though they may be, they remain men and women appointed because God put them there! So, you need to be sure just who your fighting, men or God.

The prophet chastised and corrected even those appointed to the G.C. sometimes. God is no respector of persons. On the other hand, when she was "pretty sure" they were making a mistake sending her to Australia, she packed her bags and followed their orders. Because she had no direct light to do otherwise, no plausible, logical reason to deny their authority. Five years later she would write a letter detailing just where they went wrong, five years LATER, in the fullness of Gods time, not hers. God was in control, she did the right thing listening, submitting, obeying those whom He had put in leadership. Even when they messed up!

As to the Jews, they had literally hundreds of man made laws, these Jesus just ignored. Which of course, angered the leadership, but one must obey God rather than man. In doing that, you better be VERY sure what your doing, you might need "direct divine light", if not, follow orders.

[BattleAxe]

I am not in the least meaning to attack church authority. I just want man to kindly remove himself from the Saviour's throne. The rules and regulations that have been enacted by those in position are wounding the church. The Bible teaches plainly to rebuke sin. Its part of God's law:

Lev 19:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

Lev 19:2 Speak unto all the congregation of the children of Israel, and say unto them, Ye shall be holy: for I the LORD your God am holy.

...

Lev 19:15 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.

Lev 19:16 Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour: I am the LORD.

Lev 19:17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.

And not only this, but Ellen White says:

"If one neglects the duty Christ has enjoined, of trying to restore those who are in error and sin, he becomes a partaker in the sin. For evils that we might have checked, we are just as responsible as if we were guilty of the acts ourselves." {Desire of Ages, 441.3}

I cannot be guilty of sitting in God's seat. Jesus alone is worthy. I have no place to say that the church clergy has done evil on purpose, but what I can say is that it is contrary to God's counsel and thus will always result in evil until the initial evil is removed.

If we have been in darkness, let us come to the light. If we have been ignorant, let us learn of God. If we have been disobedient, let us obey.

It doesn't matter to me who's fault it is or anything of the likes. I just want the evil to stop. That's all.

[ClubV12]

I understand your compassion BattleAx, which is why I, like you, am compelled to speak up! In this case, in SUPPORT of the very rules/laws you see as harmful I see as needful. For a well organized for service Church. For a Church that won't lower the standard to the very dust. A Church that is united on it's fundamental beliefs and mission, not afraid to give a reason for it's faith.

Without all of the above we are left with "Babylon", confusion, anarchy, every man for himself.

We cannot and the Church does not judge the heart. They can only judge what is seen as open sin. Other than that, the wheat and tares must grow together.

Is there some specific rule or law you oppose? If so, lets talk about that. Not a shot gun, use a sniper rifle.

Prayer meeting coming up fast, I'll be back....

[Gerr]

If you think the Church has no authority to determine doctrine, read Acts 15.

If every SDA is free to believe whatever AND to advocate what is contrary to church doctrine, we would be Babylon!!!

[Gibs]

But what Church, Gerry? For me I know the one and only one I can possibly choose,

Mt 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Since it has not been prevailed against by the gates of hell then it still stands solid and I am for being one of the living stones in that building.

1Pe 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

Heb 3:6 But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end.

Eph 2:21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

Eph 2:22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

1Co 3:16 ¶ Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[BattleAxe]

ClubV12

I would be glad to address things point by point, one at a time. First I would like to make sure that we are talking about the same thing though. Do you believe that the term “creed” means 'a set of beliefs' and that this has been the definition of the term for the past 200+ years?

[BattleAxe]

Garry Calabo

I have studied through Acts 15, as it always seems to come up when I talk about church creeds. Here is a quote from my book dealing with Acts 15:

“Objection #2 – ‘Acts 16:4 makes it evident that the apostolic church had Fundamental Beliefs.’

“Let us read the verse:

“‘And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem.’ Acts 16:4.

“In this verse, Paul and Timotheus delivered to the churches ‘decrees’ which those churches were to keep. These decrees ‘were ordained of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem.’

“Now, what were these decrees? The answer to this can be found in the previous chapter. In Acts 15 we find that certain men ‘taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.’ (Acts 15:1.) Because of the contention over the matter, Paul and Barnabas were sent to “go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.” (Acts 15:2.) The apostles and elders heard the matter and decided to write to the believers that they need not be circumcised in order to be saved, but rather that they did ‘necessary things’, which were, ‘Abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication.’ Acts 15:24-29.

“The statement to the believers that they need not be circumcised to be saved, is more of a destroying of Fundamental Beliefs and/or creeds than it is a setting up of them, for what was happening at that time is that certain men were trying to establish a fundamental belief, for a belief that effects one’s salvation is fairly fundamental. And as for the “necessary things” listed that they were to keep, they were only things that were part of the law, the transgression of which is sin.

“If a person is living in sin, Jesus makes it plain that after a persistent refusal on the part of the violator to cease from sin, that they are to be to the church as a ‘heathen man,’ (Matthew 18:17) that being, no longer reckoned as part of God’s people. However, we see no place in Scripture where it is recorded that if a man has beliefs that are different from the body (or people in general), that he is to be refused acceptance into the church, or, already being a member in the church, that he is to be disfellowshiped from it.” {When Man Becomes God – A Public Rebuke to the Seventh Day Adventist Church, pgs. 78, 79.}

[BattleAxe]

Gibs

You mentioned the verse:

“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Matthew 16:18.

The subject of the sentence is “this rock,” and the phrase “I will build my church” is what is going to happen on that rock. The word “it” then, at the end of the sentence, is not referring to the “church,” nor to Peter (as the Catholic’s figure), but to the Rock Christ Jesus.

Ellen White makes this plain in Desire of Ages:

“Jesus continued: ‘I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ The word Peter signifies a stone,--a rolling stone. Peter was not the rock upon which the church was founded. The gates of hell did prevail against him when he denied his Lord with cursing and swearing. The church was built upon One against whom the gates of hell could not prevail.” {Desire of Ages, 412.4}

[Gerr]

But what Church, Gerry? For me I know the one and only one I can possibly choose,

For one who is so versed in EGW as you are, I am suprised that you ask that question!!!

God has a church upon the earth who are His chosen people, who keep His commandments. He is leading, not stray offshoots, not one here and one there, but a people. The truth is a sanctifying power; but the church militant is not the church triumphant. There are tares among the wheat. “Wilt thou then that we . . . gather them up?” was the question of the servant; but the master answered, “Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.” The gospel net draws not only good fish, but bad ones as well, and the Lord only knows who are His. {CCh 240.1}

It is our individual duty to walk humbly with God. We are not to seek any strange, new message. We are not to think that the chosen ones of God who are trying to walk in the light compose Babylon. 427 {CCh 240.2}

Although there are evils existing in the church, and will be until the end of the world, the church in these last days is to be the light of the world that is polluted and demoralized by sin. The church, enfeebled and defective, needing to be reproved, warned, and counseled, is the only object upon earth upon which Christ bestows His supreme regard. The world is a workshop in which, through the cooperation of human and divine agencies, Jesus is making experiments by His grace and divine mercy upon human hearts. 428 {CCh 240.3}

God has a distinct people, a church on earth, second to none, but superior to all in their facilities to teach the truth, to vindicate the law of God. God has divinely appointed agencies—men whom He is leading, who have borne the heat and burden of the day, who are cooperating with heavenly instrumentalities to advance the kingdom of Christ in our world. Let all unite with these chosen agents, and be found at last among those who have the patience of the saints, who keep the commandments of God, and have the faith of Jesus. 429 {CCh 240.4}

Whom do you suppose she is referring to? But then again, you ignore her clearest statements on the Holy Spirit.

[Gibs]

OK, Gerry but notice what Church she was in and invited her older sister to be a part of,

"God has a church. It is not the great cathedral, neither is it the national establishment, neither is it the various denominations; it is the people who love God and keep His commandments. "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matthew 18:20). Where Christ is even among the humble few, this is Christ's church, for the presence of the High and Holy One who inhabiteth eternity can alone constitute a church. {UL 315.5}

Where two or three are present who love and obey the commandments of God, Jesus there presides, let it be in the desolate place of the earth, in the wilderness, in the city enclosed in prison walls. The glory of God has penetrated the prison walls, flooding with glorious beams of heavenly light the darkest dungeon. His saints may suffer, but their sufferings will, like the apostles of old, spread their faith and win souls to Christ and glorify His holy name. The bitterest opposition expressed by those who hate God's great moral standard of righteousness should not and will not shake the steadfast soul who trusts fully in God. . . . {UL 315.6}

They that will be doers of the word are building securely, and the tempest and storm of persecution will not shake their foundation, because their souls are rooted to the eternal Rock.--Letter 108, Oct. 28, 1886, to her older sister and her husband who had not accepted the Sabbath truth. {UL 315.7}

You see He will not and cannot be in the midst where error is being put forth as He MUST be worshipped in Spirit and in TRUTH!, READ,

Joh 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

Joh 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

"Jewish nation was required to worship at Jerusalem. But Jesus said to the Samaritan woman: "Believe Me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father." "The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship Him. God is a Spirit: and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth." John 4:21, 23, 24. Truth is to be planted in every place to which we can possibly gain access. It is to be carried to regions that are barren of the knowledge of God. Men will be blessed in receiving the One in whom their hopes of eternal life are centered. The acceptance of the truth as it is in Jesus will fill their hearts with melody to God. {CH 216.4} Joh 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

THE WORSHIP MUST BE IN SPIRIT AND IN TRUTH!

1Jo 4:4 ¶ Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

[Gerr]

I don't want to derail Battleaxe's thread, but read what I quoted and tell me what church she was talking about.

[Green Cochoa]

I hope I'm not jumping ahead of where BattleAxe is going here, but I see one of the most poignant of statements made by our pioneers as still not having been put forward here.

The first step of apostasy is to get up a creed, telling us what we shall believe. The second is, to make that creed a test of fellowship. The third is to try members by that creed. The fourth to denounce as heretics those who do not believe that creed. And, fifth, to commence persecution against such. I plead that we are not patterning after the churches in any unwarrantable sense, in the step proposed. {October 8, 1861 UrSe, ARSH 149.7}

Let's look at that in list form:

Steps in Apostasy

1. Get up a creed

2. Make that creed a test of fellowship

3. Try members by that creed

4. Denounce as heretics those who do not believe that creed

5. Commence persecution against such

It is interesting to note at which step the church finds itself today.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[BattleAxe]

Green

While I don't think that the pioneers were right in every respect, I do believe that this quote that you put forward is quite relative. The book "When Man Becomes God" has a whole chapter dedicated to J.N. Loughborough's quote that you gave. Its chapter five of the book. It really helps to understand where exactly the pioneers were coming from. They had just came out from under the creeds of fallen protestantism, and they realized that these creeds were not only crippling to protestants in that they could not advance in the knowledge of truth so long as they held to them, but that they were contrary to Bible instruction. And Ellen White is about as plain as it gets when dealing with creeds. She says so plainly, and more than once, that our only creed ('set of beliefs') is to be the Bible and the Bible alone. If we have the Bible "and" something else, then it is not the Bible and the Bible alone anymore.

One of the reasons that this creed matter is so relevant, is because so long as people hold to human interpretations of God's word as though they were God's word itself, God cannot correct them if they are wrong. I've tried sharing the glorious gospel with many people, but they cannot hear it, because they are holding to their own personal creed. I don't blame them for believing their own beliefs, as that is what everyone does. But when our beliefs are allowed to override the Bible, then we have a serious problem. This is why I always tell everyone that all of my beliefs are tentative. If one is so right that they cannot be wrong, then they are basically God on account that they are infallible. But we know that there is One God.

[Stan]

To define the generally accepted teachings that are common to Adventist as a Papal Creed is just crass.

Not interested in you posting this kind of spamish material here, you have not earned that right to do that to this audience.

That is just how it is.

[Gerr]

of the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem.’

“Now, what were these decrees? The answer to this can be found in the previous chapter. In Acts 15 we find that certain men ‘taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.’ (Acts 15:1.) Because of the contention over the matter, Paul and Barnabas were sent to “go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.” (Acts 15:2.) The apostles and elders heard the matter and decided to write to the believers that they need not be circumcised in order to be saved, but rather that they did ‘necessary things’, which were, ‘Abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication.’ Acts 15:24-29.

So it seems clear to me that doctrine was set by the church in session led by the apostles.

Quote:

“The statement to the believers that they need not be circumcised to be saved, is more of a destroying of Fundamental Beliefs and/or creeds than it is a setting up of them, for what was happening at that time is that certain men were trying to establish a fundamental belief, for a belief that effects one’s salvation is fairly fundamental. And as for the “necessary things” listed that they were to keep, they were only things that were part of the law, the transgression of which is sin.

To destroy something and replace it with something else IS setting up something else. The established Jewish belief was that circumcision WAS necessary for one's salvation. Circumcision was THE sign of the everlasting covenant.Salvation by grace through faith alone was the new doctrine which the Jerusalem council affirmed.

Quote:

“If a person is living in sin, Jesus makes it plain that after a persistent refusal on the part of the violator to cease from sin, that they are to be to the church as a ‘heathen man,’ (Matthew 18:17) that being, no longer reckoned as part of God’s people. However, we see no place in Scripture where it is recorded that if a man has beliefs that are different from the body (or people in general), that he is to be refused acceptance into the church, or, already being a member in the church, that he is to be disfellowshiped from it.” {When Man Becomes God – A Public Rebuke to the Seventh Day Adventist Church, pgs. 78, 79.}

Adventists hold divergent views on many minor and even some major points. I am not aware of anyone being disfellowshiped until they start teaching against established church doctrine andbecome disruptive and divisive.

As Jesus said, a house divided against itself cannot stand. The message being trumpeted MUST have a clear and distinct sound, not a cacophony sounds. I believe there are specific procedures for one to follow if anyone has new light to share or objections to established doctrine.