28 Fundamental Beliefs, or a Papal Creed?

[Green Cochoa]

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.

Indeed. I only disagree with you on your first point, because I agree with Mrs. White who was decidedly against having any creed but the Bible. Now, if we can call the Bible a "creed," then, and only then, can I agree with you (and perhaps this is what you had in mind).

I also have concerns about the furtherance of our Adventists "creed." It is a faulty creed, incomplete, and misleading. It makes majors out of some minor doctrines (this is not to say that they should not be included), and minors out of some others which should be more prominent. One of those "minors" in my opinion, is that of the Third Angel's message, which Mrs. White tells us nothing should be allowed to eclipse.

I realize this thread is not about the accuracy of the fundamentals, but the fact is, their errors only serve to confirm the fact that the first error was to create such a creed to ourselves in the first place. When we accept the Bible itself as our creed, we can have no fear of omitting such an important doctrine as that of forgiving each other! We are fallible. We can never hope to make a fully comprehensive listing of the doctrines which we should believe.

I must say that I am glad I joined the church as a child when I was still ignorant of some of these things. Today, I could not affirm all of the baptismal vows in order to become an Adventist.

The Bible gives us no example of baptismal vows other than that of repentance and commitment to God. Period.

If I were to be judged by the 28 FB, I could no longer be an Adventist. Thankfully, Mrs. White and the Bible never set out a creed that should be a criterion for membership more than the truths of God's Word.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Green Cochoa]

Originally Posted By: 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.

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?

Ron,

Well said, and I soundly agree.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

Indeed. I only disagree with you on your first point, because I agree with Mrs. White who was decidedly against having any creed but the Bible. Now, if we can call the Bible a "creed," then, and only then, can I agree with you (and perhaps this is what you had in mind).

Just what I expected from you and that is O.K.

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

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.

I do not disagree with the above statement. There is a proper place to do so. I have not stated that Battle Axe should never do so.

However, to refer to one's writing is not the best evidence. It is better to reference others, assuming that they make a good argument.

[BattleAxe]

This is a note for everyone. I just wanted to set some things in their proper place.

First, the Adventist church does accept the Bible "as their only creed." The problem is, they do it in the same way that the Roman Church does. They believe the Bible as their only creed, as interpreted by the church clergy. So in this way it is not really the Bible and the Bible only by a long shot. Their creed is their interpretations of the Bible (not the Bible itself), and their interpreters then, with their finite and fallible understanding, become the rulers and judges of all things, even of God Himself.

For instance. Should God do as He has done time and time again in the past, and have people like the apostles preach a message that is not in harmony with the fundamental church beliefs, then the message of the Holy Spirit will be judged by the church clergy. In fact, the church clergy has already passed judgment on the message of the Holy Spirit, in that the creed is already constructed.

In other words, these people have put themselves in the place to pass judgment on the Holy Spirit himself, on God Himself, and that before God even speaks. And who will dare to sit in the seat of God and pass judgment on the Most Holy?

Yes, everyone is to search out and determine 'whether or not these things are so.' No one will argue that. But who will so construe their human interpretations of God's word in such a way as to pass judgment on God, so much so, that anyone who ends up believing the message of the Holy Spirit from God, gets excommunicated from God's church? I'm sorry, but this is exalting man, not merely to the throne of God, but above God Himself. When will man be humbled?

Imagine one is brought before the church to answer for his faith that is contrary to the church creed. Unless the judges in the room are willing to let go of the church creed, then the one on trial for his beliefs, no matter how much Bible he quotes, will not be heard in the court room. For this reason, it is plain to see that not only is the phraseology of man’s words held on equal grounds with God’s word, but it is even placed above God’s word. The final verdict then will be decided, not by the word of God and the word of God only, but by the word of man, and the word of man only. This is apostasy. Satan wanted to be "like" the Most High. But this is even more daring. Man has placed Himself above God.

[Green Cochoa]

Are you addressing BRI? I find it somewhat concerning, even arrogant on the part of certain of the leaders of our church, to presume to judge the Bible by a small committee of leaders, and to set that committee's judgment as the standard for all of the church.

It is rather papal, really, when one thinks about it. Our church was set up differently. Each local congregation was to be the highest authority with respect to many things in the church, and we did not have such a focus on authoritative leadership as upon servant leadership in which that latter category was set up to minister to the needs of the church, not to merely control the church. God's word to the church has been that in matters of conscience, no man has a right to exert authority over another. "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Gerr]

Would you please provide the reference that the local church is to be the highest authority?

[Green Cochoa]

Would you please provide the reference that the local church is to be the highest authority?

I don't have a church manual with me, but it has always been the case that only a local church, for example, can disfellowship someone. The local church has a large amount of governing power regarding its membership: who is transferred in or out, who is accepted into fellowship, and who is disfellowshiped. Furthermore, the local church often has a say regarding the pastor they choose to accept, in cooperation with the local conference. The local church decides who is eligible for what positions in the church, and if a local church wishes to tolerate a particular viewpoint, style of worship, etc., it has a great amount of freedom to do so in most cases.

Obviously, if a local church all decides that Sunday is the correct day of worship--well, the Conference would break ties with that church congregation. But short of an apostasy of this nature, the local church is an independent entity that is able to function largely on its own.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

[Gibs]

True, as my first Church was out in the hills in a township building and we had 30 to 60 each Sabbath.

The conference would send out pastors and most were met at the door going out to not come back and they did not.

Finally we had a couple that we would allow. The last one even got up on the roof and helped us put on a new roof.

If they did not, - Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

They not only were not invited back but told, do not come back!

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.

[Stan]

True, as my first Church was out in the hills in a township building and we had 30 to 60 each Sabbath.

The conference would send out pastors and most were met at the door going out to not come back and they did not.

Finally we had a couple that we would allow. The last one even got up on the roof and helped us put on a new roof.

If they did not, - Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

They not only were not invited back but told, do not come back!

How tacky.... and crude... no wonder you are full of venom, been practicing for years, and seem proud of it.

[CoAspen]

[Stan]

Originally Posted By: Gibs

True, as my first Church was out in the hills in a township building and we had 30 to 60 each Sabbath.

The conference would send out pastors and most were met at the door going out to not come back and they did not.

Finally we had a couple that we would allow. The last one even got up on the roof and helped us put on a new roof.

If they did not, - Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

They not only were not invited back but told, do not come back!

How tacky.... and crude... no wonder you are full of venom, been practicing for years, and seem proud of it.

SOUNDS LIKE A CULT

There are those groups in many conference, they shut themselves off, tell each other holy and knowledgable they are, take no part in the world mission to evangelize, critical of everything out there, and how they would do it better.

[Gibs]

Originally Posted By: Gibs

True, as my first Church was out in the hills in a township building and we had 30 to 60 each Sabbath.

The conference would send out pastors and most were met at the door going out to not come back and they did not.

Finally we had a couple that we would allow. The last one even got up on the roof and helped us put on a new roof.

If they did not, - Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

They not only were not invited back but told, do not come back!

How tacky.... and crude... no wonder you are full of venom, been practicing for years, and seem proud of it.

No Bro. Stan, Gibs is not full of venom, I am one of those who will not accept anything but the Truth as I love the truth and His Word is Truth and shows us the way to eternal life.

Where any find my posts are not supported by scripture I invite to show me where I am not with the context of that Holy Word.

I want my posts to be irrefutable by His Holy Word to us and I try to only post truth as the Word portrays, makes clear.

I will not and have never come back to any with any vengeance.

I am striving for the truth as I love it, the love of truth is instilled in me, my Father taught me to search for it, as it is a treasure, and it sure is.

All are invited to refute any message I post as long as it is not heated. That is not needed!

Bro. Gibs.

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.

[Stan]

TRUTH? you just want people to reinforce your delusions, and take as many as you can down with you.

Best to go back to http://theadventistforum.yourlivecommunity.com.

Enjoy your time there.

[Naomi]

[OzarkWoman]

TRUTH? you just want people to reinforce your delusions, and take as many as you can down with you.

How about the delusions of the ones within the SDA denomination? This is what drove me crazy while I was a member for the short time, believe the way I say you should or get out.

[pierrepaul]

"If you cannot see that the dictionary says that "science" is something that can be tested, studied, and observed, then there is nothing more I can do for you." They changed the dictionary within the past 10 or 15 years as I understand. But before that the word "science" meant something that could be tested, studied, and observed. Now it means something along the lines of 'a state of knowing.'

There is much debate in the halls of lexicography as to whether the dictionary ought to reflect usage, or whether the dictionary ought to seek to establish norms - even in the face of contrary usage.

Language is continually changing - continually being modified. Curiously the English word "science" comes from the Latin "scientia" which simply means "knowledge" - it has nothing to do with the "scientific method" of hypothesis, experiment, observation, etc. "Science" in the Latin sense can refer to knowledge in the field of history, literature, poetry, theology or art as well as mathematics, physics and chemistry.

In languages with direct Latin roots, like French, Spanish or Portuguese, "science","ciencia", "ciência" retain the broader Latin meaning of "knowledge".

English of course often borrows foreign words and then ascribes to the foreign word either a far more restrictive meaning, or even a meaning at odds with the word's meaning in its tongue of origin. But with "science" we see the meaning being expanded back into its original sense. Naturally this is not out of some desire for linguistic harmony with Latin, rather the term "science" has been applied to disparate fields of knowledge in an attempt to crown them with the prestige that the "hard" sciences have enjoyed over the last two centuries.

[pierrepaul]

I must say that I am glad I joined the church as a child when I was still ignorant of some of these things. Today, I could not affirm all of the baptismal vows in order to become an Adventist.

The Bible gives us no example of baptismal vows other than that of repentance and commitment to God. Period.

If I were to be judged by the 28 FB, I could no longer be an Adventist.

I find myself in a similar place as well. For me it's not so much that I hold views opposing the 28, rather I simply have doubts, such that I could not today "affirm" personal belief in all 28. I could probably affirm the Nicene or Apostles Creed (with or without the filioque - I don't really care), except that I don't see unequivocal scriptural support for the orthodox view of the Trinity.

[Gregory Matthews]

pierrepaul I am perplexed as to your quote which seems to come from Green and appears to quote me.

The only truthful comment in that quote is that I did join the SDA Church at young age.

I could not have said anything else as to do so would be stating a false hood.

Please help me to get to the bottom of this by giving me a source where I can check it out.

Thanks,

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

pierrepaul was quoting Green Cochoa from post #682019, which had been a response you, Gregory. When pp hit the quote button, he tried to delete your comments in order to quote GC, but didn't delete the "

"

[Gregory Matthews]

Thanks. I just wanted to establish that I did not and could not, have said what appeared to be a quote from me.

[pierrepaul]

Yes I was sloppy with the quotation function. I don't see either an "edit" or "delete" feature, otherwise I would correct the error.

[Tom Wetmore]

Fixed...

[Ron Amnsn]

Ron

I am sorry to hear that. Sadly, it does happen. Creeds have done this sort of thing for 1000's of years.

At the time I was sorry too. I was also angry. However, I think in the end the incident was beneficial because it made me reconsider my relationship to denominational religion. About a year later I asked for my membership to be dropped, as I should have done a few years before the incident.