28 Fundamental Beliefs, or a Papal Creed?

[Stan]

That would be like someone asking what a person should eat to be health and pointing them to a shopping centre.

[Windsor]

Grab a hold of reality...

They were looking for our understanding of the bible, ie what adventist believe. They already had Bibles.

That would be like someone asking what a person should eat to be health and pointing them to a shopping centre.

LOL

[BattleAxe]

You totally missed my point Stan, but more power to you.

[Stan]

The answer to point them to the Bible is a technically correct, but totally useless and insulting to their intelligence.

[debbym]

Battleaxe,

i am glad you are here, your sincerity and honesty are refreshing.

don't give up on the community here.

it is a great place learn how your communication is coming across, and to clarify and re clarify your thinking in communication.

there is nothing wrong with putting out the fundamental beliefs, and God can use them as written, God can use anything and anyone anywhere to bring about His purposes. God is also working through everything the enemy of God does to bring about the end of sin in the universe forever.

"Every conflict has it's place in the great controversy." from GC somewhere.

[Gibs]

Yes, I am sure it is the right thing to point any and all to the Bible. Then the next step must be given.

That is introduce to them the Master of teachers, the Spirit of Truth the Comforter, Jesus Christ and He and He alone is able to guide into ALL truth and besides that, it is His promise.

We must always have of the Same Spirit as the Word was given to rightly get exactly what He wants one to know and understand from it.

And here is the true and faithful promise,(spoken by the Master Himself.)

Joh 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

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]

Stan...

I don't want to tell you that I'm right and you are wrong by this comment, but here is what I would do.

I would clarify with them by asking, "Do you want to know what our 'only creed' is, or do you want to know what we, as a people in general believe?"

If they wanted to know what our "only creed" was, I would point them to the Bible. If they wanted to know what beliefs that Adventists held in general, then I would point them to the Fundamental Beliefs, with the clarification that though they are what the people believe in general, they are not necessarily all correct or without an error, but that only the Bible was without a flaw.

This was the position of Ellen White, this was the position of the pioneers, this is the position of authentic, original, and undefiled Adventism, both past, and present. Yes, the pioneers did want to tell people what they believed in general for the "only" purpose of clearing up rumors, but they specifically said that those beliefs were not to have "any authority" with their people, and that those beliefs were not to make them all uniform. The quotes are all above if you want to see them.

And I would like to say that the original position of Adventistism on the subject of creeds is not to be taken as a creed either. The Bible is plan enough on the issue.

[Stan]

Do you remember what the Bible School students and seminarians asked me?

[BattleAxe]

Debbym

Agreed..., however, the issue with the creed is that it hinders true reformation in the church because sola scriptura is ousted as soon as one is threatened with disfellowshipment for not agreeing with the interpretations of the fathers of the church. It was the same with the Jewish Church, the same with Catholicism, the same with Protestantism, and now, sad though it is, it is the same with Adventism. May God forgive us.

[debbym]

i think pointing the world to a book,

....the Bible in specific, is not useful. through many thinkers and writers, the bible is trashed, and riddled with errors, and contradictions, and archaeologically incorrect, and used as a foundation for religions like snake handlers, and various real cults that are dangerous.

it has been used as permission for wars, and endless murders, and horrible persecutions, including attempts to destroy the influence and person of jesus Christ, and others.

Yes Scripture is a divinely appointed medium for Communication from Heaven to earth, but without the Holy Spirit and used by the enemy it is a dark playfield.

encouraging believers to turn to scripture with faith and love and in worship, recognizing God's love on every page is a great thing.

the world sees Christ on a cross, a fanatic, crazy suicidal person, a condemned man, hated and worthless, much as the world potentially could see the Bible.

through the Spirit we see there on the Cross, the ultimate sacrifice, expressing the divine and pure love of God in Christ, for unworthy and fallen humanity.

[BattleAxe]

Debbym

I know that you are not saying that I am, but I am not responsible for other people's abuse of the Bible. May I ask what was the purpose of your above statement in relation to creeds? Or did you have a different purpose? If so, that is fine. I'm just wondering.

[Stan]

to call the 28 believes a papal creed, is just so crass...

[Dr. Waite]

Do the current 28 fundamental beliefs support or do they count as error the understanding of the pioneers in regard to "Christ, His mission, and His Priesthood"?

"Many of our people do not realize how firmly the foundation of our faith has been laid. My husband, Elder Joseph Bates, Father Pierce, [OLDER BRETHREN AMONG THE PIONEERS ARE HERE THUS REMINISCENTLY REFERRED TO. "FATHER PIERCE" WAS STEPHEN PIERCE, WHO SERVED IN MINISTERIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE WORK IN THE EARLY DAYS. "FATHER ANDREWS" WAS EDWARD ANDREWS, THE FATHER OF J. N. ANDREWS.--COMPILERS.] Elder {Hiram} Edson, and others who were keen, noble, and true, were among those who, after the passing of the time in 1844, searched for the truth as for hidden treasure. I met with them, and we studied and prayed earnestly. Often we remained together until late at night, and sometimes through the entire night, praying for light and studying the Word. Again and again these brethren came together to study the Bible, in order that they might know its meaning, and be prepared to teach it with power. When they came to the point in their study where they said, "We can do nothing more," the Spirit of the Lord would come upon me, I would be taken off in vision, and a clear explanation of the passages we had been studying would be given me, with instruction as to how we were to labor and teach effectively. Thus light was given that helped us to understand the scriptures in regard to Christ, His mission, and His priesthood. A line of truth extending from that time to the time when we shall enter the city of God, was made plain to me, and I gave to others the instruction that the Lord had given me." {1SM 206.4}

[BattleAxe]

Fascinatingly enough brother Waite, this statement does not make null and void Ellen White when she says:

"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."{Review and Herald, December 15, 1885 par. 16}

Nor does that statement justify the Adventist church for violating the plain counsel of God.

I repeat:

"The Bible, and the Bible alone, is to be our creed, the sole bond of union."

Alone means alone, and sole means sole. There is no way around it. Sure... the Adventist Fundamentals may be very accurate, and very right. Nobody is arguing that. But it is not our ground of union, it is not to be our ground of union, and it is not infallible. Not to mention that to have them as our creed is a violation of Inspiration, and to enforce them as the creed that they are is another violation of 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}

God means what He says, He has reasons for His counsel, and to disobey Him is always disasterous:

"It is always disastrous to disobey God. We must set our hearts to know what is truth. All the lessons which God has caused to be placed on record in His word are for our warning and instruction. They are given to save us from deception. Their neglect will result in ruin to ourselves. Whatever contradicts God's word, we may be sure proceeds from Satan." {Patriarchs and Prophets, 55.2}

For those with objections, I have answers to them in the book "When Man Becomes God." I have two whole chapters dedicated to answering objections.

[Ron Amnsn]

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.

Stan,

It may not have been the intent of the writers of the Fundamental Beliefs of SDA's for those beliefs to be used as a creed, but they have at times been misused as a creed. In 1993 in the BC Conference I was brought before the elders of the local SDA church and told that I had one month to choose whether I would affirm all 27 Fundamental Beliefs or be disfellowshipped. At that time I could easily affirm 25.5 of the 27 Fundamental Belief statements. The Fundamental Beliefs were being used as a creed, and I was being judged by that creed. As far as I know, none of the elders even considered the possibility that they might look in the Bible to see what it says about the 1.5 Fundamental Belief statements that I could not affirm. They declined my request to study the issues from the Bible. At the meeting the leading elder (a retired pastor) told me that the Church's beliefs were not based on the Bible alone, but were based on tradition in addition to the Bible.

If the church is serious about the Fundamental Beliefs document not being used as a "Papal creed" then they need to do a lot more educating among the local churches, and they need to put safeguards in place to ensure that the Fundamental Beliefs of SDA's cannot be used as a creed. The absence of those safeguards in 1993 made it rather evident the Fundamental Beliefs were a de facto creed, regardless of the carefully worded declarations to the contrary.

It is true that the SDA Church still maintains a facade of not having the kind of creed that the founders of the SDA movement abhorred. But in real life, those within the church who do not share the founders' revulsion for Papal creeds have taken that which may not have been intended as a creed and have indeed used it as such. At the same time, those who say the Church has no creed have turned a blind eye and have allowed the Fundamental Beliefs to be used as a creed.

Battlaxe's postings are addressing an issue that is understandably "sensitive" in a church that has veered away from its roots-- a church where responsible leaders are now labeling as "spamish" the very sentiments spoken freely by the founders of the church. If the Fundamental Beliefs are still merely "descriptive" of the church's beliefs, and they are not in reality "a creed" that discourages further Bible study, then show us the effective safeguards that are now in place to prevent the Fundamental Beliefs from being abused in remote local churches on every continent by those who prefer the comfort of a creed.

[Dr. Waite]

Battle Axe:

So, then the real questions are: (1) Does this "line of truth regarding Christ, His Mission and His Priesthood" established by the pioneers agree with the teaching of the Bible? If the answer to the first question is "yes" then (2) Do the current 28 fundamental beliefs teach the exact same line of truth regarding Christ, His Mission and His Priesthood?

[Gerr]

I personally don't find so much problem with having an official creed (set of beliefs) itself. Its against inspiration, yes, but I think the greater issue is ENFORCING those beliefs via threat of discipline and disfellowshipment. That is where it becomes as papal as all get out.

There is no one from the local church or the conference who has yet come to me to ask what I believe or don't believe. How would you feel about an SDA who starts teaching that it really doesn't matter what day one worships on? Or holds to eternal hellfire roasting people ad infinitum? Not only believes them but starts teaching them in church?

[Gerr]

Fascinatingly enough brother Waite, this statement does not make null and void Ellen White when she says:

"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."{Review and Herald, December 15, 1885 par. 16}

Nor does that statement justify the Adventist church for violating the plain counsel of God.

I repeat:

"The Bible, and the Bible alone, is to be our creed, the sole bond of union."

Alone means alone, and sole means sole. There is no way around it. Sure... the Adventist Fundamentals may be very accurate, and very right. Nobody is arguing that. But it is not our ground of union, it is not to be our ground of union, and it is not infallible. Not to mention that to have them as our creed is a violation of Inspiration, and to enforce them as the creed that they are is another violation of 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}

God means what He says, He has reasons for His counsel, and to disobey Him is always disasterous:

"It is always disastrous to disobey God. We must set our hearts to know what is truth. All the lessons which God has caused to be placed on record in His word are for our warning and instruction. They are given to save us from deception. Their neglect will result in ruin to ourselves. Whatever contradicts God's word, we may be sure proceeds from Satan." {Patriarchs and Prophets, 55.2}

For those with objections, I have answers to them in the book "When Man Becomes God." I have two whole chapters dedicated to answering objections.

Would you be united, using the Bible alone "as the bond of union", to someone who believes the Sabbath doesn't matter? Or believes that God will torture people in hell forever and ever and ever?

Do you think EGW had any uncertainties about the Sabbath, the Second Coming being visible, tactile & audibe, soul sleep, and the Bible as God's infallible revelation of His will so as to hesitate putting them down as "fundamental beliefs?"

[Gerr]

Ron, I'm not Stan, but my experience and observation is that one can be an Adventist holding views that differ from the 28 or even heretical views and no one gives a hoot until one starts teaching it in church causing schism.

[BattleAxe]

Ron

[BattleAxe]

Waite

That is where I disagree with you. You are totally changing the subject. We are not here talking about the accuracy of the Fundamental Beliefs, but the right of the church to violate God-given counsel and enforce human interpretations upon others as though they were equal to the only real standard of the Word of God. If you can find someone that wants to talk with you about the accuracy of the Fundamentals, then you are of course free to do that and I am not interested in stopping you, but that is not something that I (personally) am interested in talking about here.

[Gibs]

They might have been better set forth as high points of the SDA denominations understanding. And then go on to state, the Bible alone is the rule of our faith that we solidly must hold to.

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]

Stan...

Are you for real when you say that pointing them to the Bible was the stupidest thing you thought that you could do? That is really sad. That is the only infallible source we have on this planet. Ellen White is plain in saying that our beliefs may have error in them, and "error is never harmless." {5T 292.2}

"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."{Review and Herald, December 20, 1892 par. 1}

Has the Adventist Church taken a position that there is no more truth to be found in Scripture by setting down 27 fundamental beliefs? Didn't we just add a 28th? As I see it, this is one of the genius of the SDAC - it's a dynamic movement. We are not afraid to subtract (Arian view of Christ), or add, (28th).

[BattleAxe]

Gerry

The Bible, and the Bible alone, is my only creed, and sole (that means only by the way) bond of union. That is the ground on which I unite with others. I do not unite with anyone on the ground of human interpretations. I unite with people on the only infallible ground, the Word of God. Should I unite with them on a foundation that isn't infallible, then the testing time will only prove such as to separate us from our union, or confirm us in unity against those standing on the infallible word.

And again, don't get stuck on whether or not the beliefs are true. I am talking about the right of the church to violate counsel and enforce human interpretations on others. It does happen, and even if it didn't, the official church manual specifically says that the church is supposed to enforce them via discipline. Go read the original post. Its all documented. And... you can view it online through the official SDA website.

[Gregory Matthews]

The requirements for membership in the SDA Church are stated in the Baptisimal Vows, which number thirteen (13) in their most common form. [NOTE: There is a less common form which has a different number, which may include all of the 13.] Those 13 constitute the requirements for admission to membership in the SDA Church. [NOTE: I am not saying that they constitute the requirements to maintain membership in the SDA Church. They are the requirements to be admitted to membership.

The so-called 28 consist of two basic parts. The first part is the short paragraphs, printed in bold type at the beginning of each chapter. These statements are voted by the General Conference and are considered to be statements of belief commonly held by the SDA membership at large. They can only be changed by a vote of the General Conference. The 2015 General Conference is expected to vote on some changes.

The individual chapters explain the statements of belief. They do not have the standing and authority of the voted statements. They are simply the work a person (writing in concert with a committee) to explain some of the variations in belief that exist within the SDA Church.

Never were these 28 expected to be a creed that would require assent to maintain membership in the SDA Church. They were, however, intended to inform we pastors as to areas of instruction that we should cover in working with baptisimal candidates.

No person should have membership judged on the basis of the 28.

I am aware of some who seem to want to make the 28 a creed. This was never the intention of the 28.