28 Fundamental Beliefs, or a Papal Creed?

[Gerr]

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.

Sorry, but that's a copout, imho. What you are saying to me is that either the Biblle says nothing that is clearly understood or that ALL interpretations are equally valid.

Quote:

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.

Are you saying that God has invested no authority to His church whatsoever?

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

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}

There are those who disagree with your understanding of the fundamental beliefs as they related to baptism. They would understand that in this context the fundamental beliefs to refer to the 13.

In any case, the individual chapters of the 28 are NOT a portion of the fundamental beliefs.

[Stan]

BattleAXE you quote like EGW is your creed.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

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!

Wrong. One does not have to believe in the shared common beliefs of the 28 in order to become a member of the SDA Church.

That requirement lies in the 13 Baptisimal Vows, not the 28.

[Gerr]

BattleAXE you quote like EGW is your creed.

Excellent observation!!!

[Gregory Matthews]

Battle Axe: It does not do you well to cite yourself (your books) as an authority.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

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.

Being disruptive and divisive is an important aspect.

[Gibs]

A problem I see with the 28 fundamentals of not just being put forth of the SDA's churches under standing is that men wrote them and men can interpret them as they want them interpreted. The one with the greatest authority or rank then has precedence.

I would like to see a 29'th added that always would be at the bottom if more were added that states,

However, the Bible alone is the rule of our faith that we solidly must hold to.

Not so with the Bible, the one there is the Holy Spirit that holds precedence as to exactly what God is saying to us, you or me. Now here is where my interest lies.

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.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

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.

I agree as to the greater issue. The 28 should not be used as such.

[Stan]

Originally Posted By: 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.

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.

Sorry to hear that. Membership is approved/rejected by the local Church.

The question comes up then, at what point would a person not want to be a member? How many of the 28 would a person view as non acceptable and still fellowship? I think the baptism stuff is about a dozen teachings, ie Sabbath, state of the dead, hellfire etc.

I do know a couple recently, who were removed from membership over the 2520 days or what ever it is, BUT it was not really that, it was THEY TURNED EVERY CONVERSATION IN SABBATH SCHOOL AND CHURCH in to that. Crass, in my opinion.

I know people that are feast day folks, and they fellowship well, yet others again TURN EVERY CONVERSATION INTO THAT, man that gets old after 5 minutes, they corner new members and visitors...

[BattleAxe]

Gerry

What I am saying is that the church gets its authority from God, and so long as the church decides and acts in harmony with God, their actions and decisions are to be taken as carrying God's authority. But when the church decides or acts out of harmony with the God who gave it, then their actions and decisions no longer carry with them His Divine authority. Do you think differently?

Here is a quote from Ellen White regarding the subject it covers:

“Preaching Contrary to Established Doctrines.

“‘The angel of the Lord by night opened the prison doors, and brought them forth, and said, Go, stand and speak in the temple to the people all the words of this life.’ We see here that the men in authority are not always to be obeyed, even though they may profess to be teachers of Bible doctrine. There are many today who feel indignant and aggrieved that any voice should be raised presenting ideas that differ from their own in regard to points of religious belief. Have they not long advocated their ideas as truth? So the priests and rabbis reasoned in apostolic days: What mean these men who are unlearned, some of them mere fishermen, who are presenting ideas contrary to the doctrines which the learned priests and rulers are teaching the people? They have no right to meddle with the fundamental principles of our faith. But we see that the God of heaven sometimes commissions men to teach that which is regarded as contrary to the established doctrines. Because those who were once the depositaries of truth became unfaithful to their sacred trust, the Lord chose others who would receive the bright beams of the Sun of Righteousness, and would advocate truths that were not in accordance with the ideas of the religious leaders. And then these leaders, in the blindness of their minds, give full sway to what is supposed to be righteous indignation against the ones who have set aside cherished fables. They act like men who have lost their reason. They do not consider the possibility that they themselves have not rightly understood the word. They will not open their eyes to discern the fact that they have misinterpreted and misapplied the Scriptures, and have built up false theories, calling them fundamental doctrines of the faith.

“But the Holy Spirit will, from time to time, reveal the truth through its own chosen agencies; and no man, not even a priest or ruler, has a right to say, You shall not give publicity to your opinions, because I do not believe them. That wonderful ‘I’ may attempt to put down the Holy Spirit’s teaching. Men may for a time attempt to smother it and kill it; but that will not make error truth, or truth error. The inventive minds of men have advanced speculative opinions in various lines, and when the Holy Spirit lets light shine into human minds, it does not respect every point of man’s application of the word. God impressed his servants to speak the truth, irrespective of what men had taken for granted as truth.

“Present Dangers.

“Even Seventh-day Adventists are in danger of closing their eyes to truth as it is in Jesus, because if contradicts something which they have taken for granted as truth, but which the Holy Spirit teaches is not truth. Let all be very modest, and seek most earnestly to put self out of the question, and to exalt Jesus. In most of the religious controversies, the foundation of the trouble is, that self is striving for the supremacy. About what?–About matters which are not vital points at all, and which are regarded as such only because men have given importance to them. (See Matthew 12:31-37; Mark 14:56; Luke 5:21; Matthew 9:3.)” {Pamphlets #154, 10.1-11.2}

[BattleAxe]

Matthews

If you can quote to me where I cited myself as an authority, I will gladly retract it.

[BattleAxe]

Gibs

So true. You mentioned that the one with the greatest authority or rank would have precedence. And that is just the thing, because no one in the church has that authority. No man or group of men have that authority.

"The church is built upon Christ as its foundation; it is to obey Christ as its head. It is not to depend upon man, or be controlled by man. 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. The Saviour declares, 'All ye are brethren.' All are exposed to temptation, and are liable to error. Upon no finite being can we depend for guidance. The Rock of faith is the living presence of Christ in the church. Upon this the weakest may depend, and those who think themselves the strongest will prove to be the weakest, unless they make Christ their efficiency." {Desire of Ages, 414.3}

[Ron Amnsn]

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.

In the larger centers of Adventism, and where there are several local SDA churches to choose from, people are usually free to quietly hold divergent beliefs within the SDA church. However, there are many situations where that is not the case.

Expressing any doubt about any of the Fundamental Beliefs, even privately to the pastor, is likely to get you relegated to "second-class" membership status in small-town churches. If you happen to be an employee of the SDA church, you could lose your job.

In my case, although my beliefs were not a secret I was not teaching divergent beliefs in the church nor causing schism. My beliefs became an issue only because I took a stand for normal operating procedures when a pastor used unethical tactics and violated denominational policies to get an SDA school employee dismissed. My divergent beliefs had nothing to do with the real issue, yet those biblical beliefs put me at risk for church discipline under the creed of the Fundamental Beliefs. There were no safeguards in place to prevent the Fundamental Beliefs from being abused in the wrangling of small-church politics. Although the church elders had not realized at first what the pastor had put them up to, the church board soon asked for the pastor to be moved elsewhere and the church elders never got around to asking me for my answer to their ultimatum.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

If you can quote to me where I cited myself as an authority, I will gladly retract it.

Quote:

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.

Perhaps your did not author the book: When man Becomes God. If not, I have read other posts of yours in which your refer to chapters in books that you say you wrote.

No you do not make an out and out statement that your book is authorative. But, that would be a common understanding--that you refer people to your book because you believe it to be authorative. A better way would be to cite someone else on the subject.

But, I suppose that one might rather consider your such statements to simply be an attempt for people to obtain a copy and to read it. I Do not know what you might or might not charge them for that.

[BattleAxe]

Matthews

I did indeed author the book "When Man Becomes God," but like you said, I never cited it as a source of authority. It is however loaded with sources of authority (which I am trying to point people to), such as the words of Jesus, the words of Paul, and the Spirit of God through Ellen White.

And just for further clarification as to me quoting myself as a source of authority, here is what I have said regarding my "authority" in the very book that you seem to think I am referring to as an authoritative source.

"When Man Becomes God," page 2:

"While the author speaks with a matter-of-fact tone, as he is confident that his views are correct, and is ready and willing to support them with history and inspired Scripture should the need arise, he does not hold himself as infallible, nor does he hold up his interpretations of the Bible and Ellen White’s writings as a standard to which others must agree, for this would result in setting himself up as God."

I hope that clarifies all matters concerning my "authority." God is the only authority. I have pointed all to His words. If people will not hear Him, then there is no more that I can do for them.

[BattleAxe]

Ron

I am sorry to hear that. Sadly, it does happen. Creeds have done this sort of thing for 1000's of years. Jesus was crucified on the grounds of the Jewish creed. The reformers burned alive on the grounds of the Catholic creed. The early adventists disfellowshipped on the grounds of the protestant creeds. And now, Adventists are disfellowshipped from their own church on the grounds of the Adventist creed. I say, "Down with the bloody red creeds!"

[Gerr]

Ron, I am truly sorry to see that that happened to you. Yes, unfortunately we do have some people in positions of authority who misuse their authority. I would have been extremely upset if I had seen that happen.

[Gerr]

I said it before and I'll say it again. SDAs hold divergent views on many minor issues and even some major ones. There are some that hold even frankly heretical views, but until they start causing disruptions and divisions, I doubt that anyone will take them to task. And as I have mentioned before, there is an approved process, I believe, whereby anyone with new light or have questions about doctrine could have their issues addressed.

[Ron Amnsn]

The question comes up then, at what point would a person not want to be a member? How many of the 28 would a person view as non acceptable and still fellowship? I think the baptism stuff is about a dozen teachings, ie Sabbath, state of the dead, hellfire etc.

Good questions, Stan. It depends.

If the church actually holds the Bible alone as its only creed, then we can be in unity as believers on the things that are basic and clearly stated in the Bible, while allowing diversity of beliefs on the things that are merely interpretations of Scripture or speculations about Scripture. The differences of belief and opinion would encourage a lot of healthy Bible study just as it did when the founders of the SDA church came together from various backgrounds.

However, if the church holds other writings outside of Scripture to be essential, whether that be a creed or a list of Fundamental Beliefs or any other writings -- things that cannot be questioned and tested regularly by Scripture -- then you've got a totally different situation.

Jesus never gave his followers authority to set up barriers among themselves to differentiate between denominations.

[Gregory Matthews]

I will still say that you will do better if you do not refer to works that you have written in the manner that you do.

[Gregory Matthews]

A post directed to all:

I am not personally against a creed.

I do not argue with those who say that the so-called 28 is a creed. I believe that they raise some very valid issues, without my saying that they are either correct or wrong.

What I am solidly against is this: Those who use the so-called 28 in an attempt to determine who should and should not be a SDA. That is wrong, in my opinion. Some do use it in that way.

It is for that reason that I have some concerns about the present push to amend the 28 at the 2015 GC Session. I agree with many of the proposed changes, but not all. But, my major objection is that I believe the potential is for the 2015 GC Session to further the agenda of those who would make the so-called 28 a criteria for membership.

[Ron Amnsn]

I will still say that you will do better if you do not refer to works that you have written in the manner that you do.

I think there is a proper place for someone writing on the forum to refer people to a book or article that they have written themselves on the same topic, if that book or article contains a more complete explanation, carefully laid out, with evidence for the point the person is trying to make.

A forum like this often does not allow a person to present a concept that takes more than a few paragraphs of connected reasoning. If a person has presented their case fully in a book or article, why not just touch the highlights here and refer people to the longer presentation elsewhere if they are interested?

[Green Cochoa]

BattleAXE you quote like EGW is your creed.

Stan,

Do you not accept Mrs. White? If her words were inspired by God, are we free to ignore them?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[LifeHiscost]

Originally Posted By: Stan

BattleAXE you quote like EGW is your creed.

Excellent observation!!!