Against an Adventist Creed?

[HeavenOnEarthNow]

[FONT=verdana,helvetica,sans-serif] Here is a quote from Wikipedia on 28 Fundamentals:

The preamble to the 28 Fundamentals states that Adventists accept the Bible as their only creed, and that revision of the statements may be expected:
"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." [2]
Adventists have historically been reluctant to formalize a creed. J. N. Loughborough made the historic statement in the October 8, 1861 Review and Herald article (now the Adventist Review):
"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."[3]

This quote by Loughborough I find fascinating, as it seems totally against what the church does now. I attended a baptism service this Sabbath and was again astonished at how many statements those seeking to be baptised have to repeat.

Does anyone have any more background to why the church was originally against a creed? Were they ok with members holding to different beliefs?

Thanks for any comments or suggestions.

[/FONT]

 

[Joe67]

[FONT=verdana,helvetica,sans-serif] Here is a quote from Wikipedia on 28 Fundamentals:
This quote by Loughborough I find fascinating, as it seems totally against what the church does now. I attended a baptism service this Sabbath and was again astonished at how many statements those seeking to be baptised have to repeat.
Does anyone have any more background to why the church was originally against a creed? Were they ok with members holding to different beliefs?

Thanks for any comments or suggestions.
[/FONT]

I was baptized in 1954 and the things asked of me while the minister was holding me up in the baptistry was very few and the thing I remember most was the words, "In the name of..." Things were different that far back.

Joe

 

[Man-ofGod]

[FONT=verdana,helvetica,sans-serif] Here is a quote from Wikipedia on 28 Fundamentals:




This quote by Loughborough I find fascinating, as it seems totally against what the church does now. I attended a baptism service this Sabbath and was again astonished at how many statements those seeking to be baptised have to repeat.

Does anyone have any more background to why the church was originally against a creed? Were they ok with members holding to different beliefs?

Thanks for any comments or suggestions.

[/FONT]

I was baptized with the 3 fundamental questions. However, there are 13 in the original, and has been debated on weather those 13 are more like a creed. But its basically up to the Pastor if he wants to use the 13 or just 3.

 

[AzA]

The liberty to use 3 vs 13 questions was only formalized during the 2005 General Conference session. Until then the Manual required the full thirteen, which themselves represented the then-27 FBs. (The 28th FB was also added in 2005).

Heaven -- several of the Millerite Adventists came out of credal denominations, and they resisted formal organization for a long time. My sense is that two of their biggest fears were [1] appearing too attached to the mundane in view of a soon-coming, and [2] appearing centralized, authoritative, and RC-ish in view of the expected beast takeover. I read Loughborough's statement in that context. James White and others wrote similarly at the time.

As to your second question, about how well they received diversity of conviction -- it seems to have varied widely. That's as kindly as I can put it. Most of all, though, the fears gave way to their need to interface with others who wanted to know what "the group" believed. So they began to coalesce around certain ideas and that's rumbled on as the organization itself has become more complex.

There have been punctuated phases when the church has done a good job at openly discussing complex issues (like Biblical interpretation and inspiration and law/grace), but that's counterbalanced by much longer phases of equilibrium where frank discussion is limited.

There is precedent for diversity from the very beginning of the church, but today, and especially given the FBs and authorized media like the SS Lessons -- I would not say there's a culture of comfortable heterodoxy. The heterodoxy that exists is not comfortable.

There's a good historical summary in this presentation. (At Issue are quite good at hosting comparable documents on many subjects. The writers are usually sympathetic and moderate. They do research quite well.)

 

[Joe67]

[FONT=verdana,helvetica,sans-serif]

Does anyone have any more background to why the church was originally against a creed? Were they ok with members holding to different beliefs?

Thanks for any comments or suggestions.

[/FONT]

HOEN,

It seems that the early leaders had very little contact with the history of Christianity in regards to foreknowledge and its components of predestination and election. I understand that these parts were dismissed as error, though other parts of Luther and Calvin were given the stamp of approval.

It would be like the 12 tribes once they were divided. The contact between the two worship systems was veiled from the people so that the history and significance was lost.

But with the feeling that the other was an abomination before the Lord, I would have done the same; whichever side I was born. You grow up feeling that the other side is the devil; not knowing that it is the devil to feel that way.

So with the strength of emotion in the early leaders, I believe they were not very tolerant of difference of ideas and I do not fault them for this. Their job was to defeat the Philistine of modern times.

Once you are on top and have peace and prosperity; where can you go? Gravity must do it work. And thus to Israel and thus to SdAism, and all institutional religion. They have been lifted up to heaven(1/3 of the earth), now humanism will cast institutional Christianity to the ground and stomp on her for her sins, just like Nebuchadnezzar did to Jerusalem. But God will restore a tithe, as he told through Isaiah.

Joe

 

[Pythons]

The SDA Church has formally stated that if Ellen White and the Pioneers were required to swear fealty to the FB's of the SDA Church today, they couldn't. That should say a great deal about the distance between where they were AND where they are today.

 

[JonMiller]

I don't really like creeds or the FB. But then I am very independent minded.

JM

 

[Pythons]

I don't really like creeds or the FB. But then I am very independent minded.

JM

Do you believe the SDA Church will renounce the current creed and go back to the one prior to the death of Ellen White? Does any Seventh-day Adventist feel that might be in the works right now?

 

[JonMiller]

Nope, not really.

Doesn't really bother me significantly though.

JM

 

[Avonia]

Do you believe the SDA Church will renounce the current creed and go back to the one prior to the death of Ellen White? Does any Seventh-day Adventist feel that might be in the works right now?

The 28 fundamental beliefs are only a part of Adventism - most Adventists don't even know all of them. And they certainly don't completely agree on interpretation.

You can't write down the essence of the SDA community any more than you can write down the essence of the relationship someone has with their child. Most of what matters transcends words.

We are placing over-significance on our beliefs. Our beliefs are there to help us bridge from what we don't know to what we know. And the 28, as is, are just fine for that purpose. But they are neither exclusively fine nor inerrant.

 

[AzA]

The 28 fundamental beliefs are only a part of Adventism - most Adventists don't even know all of them. And they certainly don't completely agree on interpretation.

You can't write down the essence of the SDA community any more than you can write down the essence of the relationship someone has with their child. Most of what matters transcends words.

We are placing over-significance on our beliefs. Our beliefs are there to help us bridge from what we don't know to what we know. And the 28, as is, are just fine for that purpose. But they are neither exclusively fine nor inerrant.

Well said. And furthermore, organizational policy documents -- Manuals, Statements of Belief, Official Positions -- are not designed to capture essence. They're designed to structure function.

The office end of the system understands this because the language and processes it uses to develop these documents gives readers the ability to read their convictions, or cover over controversies completely (usually by omission). The field end of the system understands this because if there were no manual or fundamentals the work of the church would continue unhampered, day-to-day, person-to-person, and often does continue without reference to either source.

But they serve an organizational, institutional, structuring function, and this is 100% normal.

 

[Avonia]

Excellent points AzA.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Well said. And furthermore, organizational policy documents -- Manuals, Statements of Belief, Official Positions -- are not designed to capture essence. They're designed to structure function.

The office end of the system understands this because the language and processes it uses to develop these documents gives readers the ability to read their convictions, or cover over controversies completely (usually by omission). The field end of the system understands this because if there were no manual or fundamentals the work of the church would continue unhampered, day-to-day, person-to-person, and often does continue without reference to either source.

But they serve an organizational, institutional, structuring function, and this is 100% normal.

Philosophically, do you personally believe it would be better to have a long list of fundamental beliefs that provide much detail, or a short list of fundamental beliefs that highlight only those beliefs that directly impact important subjects such as salvation? In your mind, what does "fundamental" mean?

BFA

 

[Pythons]

Nope, not really.

Doesn't really bother me significantly though.

JM

Kind of an 'every man for himself' where the person determines what the Word of God really means to them at the particular time they read it.

 

[JonMiller]

Mostly that relationships are personal, and proceed at different levels/etc. While I think that my beleifs are right, I acknowledge that you think that your beleifs are right. I might try to convince you, but I can't say that you don't beleive what you do.

Additionall, since it is a personal relationship, I can't say that you aren't doing what God desires you to do. Unless God impresses me to. I view a Christian's main goal should be to encourage people to seek God.

Also, I think that some of these things are stuff that the answers aren't provable yet. I think the way I do, but I know that other ways of thinking are reasonable. Just because I think they are wrong doesn't mean they aren't reasonable, and if they are reasonable then all I can do is present why I beleive the way I do.

Finally, I am in favor of churh organization. It is a good thing in the Adventist church, although it has caused some evil. I think that the catholic church the organization has caused a lot more evil (throughout history), but I still think that it causes good too.

Having fundamental beleifs does provide structure for such an organization. I think I might change my mind and think that we should keep them, to form a basis for discussion and divergence.

Jon Miller

 

[AzA]

Philosophically, do you personally believe it would be better to have a long list of fundamental beliefs that provide much detail, or a short list of fundamental beliefs that highlight only those beliefs that directly impact important subjects such as salvation? In your mind, what does "fundamental" mean?

Philosophically/personally, I believe the length or brevity of such documents rarely correlates to their communal value or the uses to which they're put. And so I tend not to pursue length as a way of understanding them.

When I build these documents in various groups, we may begin with values and purpose and let content and form emerge, or begin with specific cases and build case-informed language back into the existing structures. Sometimes we do both at the same time; the approaches are tailored to the needs, type, and composition of the group, and shift as the group shifts.

To my mind, a fundamental is an organizational "Baz was here," a temporal marker, an Ebenezer, a point of reference, and a snapshot of one's developmental phase when the document passed.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Philosophically/personally, I believe the length or brevity of such documents rarely correlates to their communal value or the uses to which they're put. And so I tend not to pursue length as a way of understanding them.

When I build these documents in various groups, we may begin with values and purpose and let content and form emerge, or begin with specific cases and build case-informed language back into the existing structures. Sometimes we do both at the same time; the approaches are tailored to the needs, type, and composition of the group, and shift as the group shifts.

To my mind, a fundamental is an organizational "Baz was here," a temporal marker, an Ebenezer, a point of reference, and a snapshot of one's developmental phase when the document passed.

Clearly, our understanding of "fundamental" is quite different.

BFA

 

[AzA]

I know.

It's common to view a fundamental as a foundational core of belief that cannot or should not be adjusted unless one wants the building on top of it to fall. That construction or core metaphor focused on belief or conclusion conveys some aspects of the thing but omits other aspects of it that I've seen in review. I respect it for what it offers, however.

 

[AzA]

(By the way BFA, am not saying you hold that particular view; there are a ton of other possible configurations. Fundamental-as-core-cluster is the status quo within much of Christianity, however. From our past conversations I also understand that there are some religious beliefs that you are strongly committed to. )

 

[Byfaithalone1]

(By the way BFA, am not saying you hold that particular view; there are a ton of other possible configurations. Fundamental-as-core-cluster is the status quo within much of Christianity, however. From our past conversations I also understand that there are some religious beliefs that you are strongly committed to. )

Indeed there are. However, they are very few in number.

BFA