traditional/nontraditional Adventist

[Adventist Dissident]

i would like to know who is a 27/28 complete supporter and who is not. thank-you

 

[NightEternal]

I believe all of the 28 fundamentals, but with several qualifiers:

1.) Agree. However, I am a strict thought inspirationist and I do not at all agree with the course men like Samuele Korangten Pippim are wanting to take this church, which is borderline verbal inspiration and inerrancy. I believe the Bible is limited in many areas and there are mistakes. I believe that totally avoiding the historical-critical method is next to impossible. I believe that culture and a range of other outside influences affected the Bible writers and I believe that they struggled to put into words grand spiritual themes. I also believe the Bible is infallible in matters of faith and salvation and its guidance for Christians.

2.) Agree.

3.) Agree.

4.) Agree. Some ultra-conservatives and offshoot organizations have altered the wording of this one to support the heresy that Christ had a fallen, sinful nature in thier own personal list of fundamentals. If the church ever officially accepts this antichrist concept, I will be gone so fast you will not see my dust. I also don't believe in a literal sanctuary in Heaven, so the wording here does not sit well with me.

5.) Agree. However, when it says 'those who respond He renews and transforms into the image of God' I have to ask, what does this mean? If it is referring to glorification, whereby we recieve a sinless nature and a new body, then I wholeheartedly agree. If it is referring to process theology whereby through sanctification process a person works towards a state of sinlessness before glorification, then I categorically reject this as heresy.

6.) Agree. However, I believe that the earth is much older than the 6000 years EGW claims. Archelogical and geological evidence has borne this out unequivocally.

7.) Agree. Again, however, if the statement 'restores in penitent mortals the image of thier maker' refers to glorification, I agree. If it is referring to process theology, I reject that as heresy.

8.) Agree.

9.) Agree.

10.) Agree. However, where it says 'we are given the power to live a holy life' I have serious reservations. This smacks too much of sinless perfectionism. No one will reach a state of exalted sinlessness until Christ transforms our bodies and nature at glorification and corruptible puts on incorruptible and mortal puts on immortality. The Word says flesh and blood will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven, refering not only to our physical bodies, but our sinful, corrupted, fallen nature inherited from Adam as well.

11.) Agree.

12.) Agree.

13.) Agree, although I always hesitate to use the term 'keep' the commandments of God. We cannot 'keep' anything as sinful, fallen human beings. Our attempts at following the moral law are pretty mediocre compared to the ancient Jews who were meticulous at all of thier law keeping, much less the perfection with which Christ kept the law in letter and spirit. Much better to say we attempt to follow the commandments of God as closely as possible, but still totally rely on Christ's perfect law keeping to stand in place of our own feeble efforts.

14.) Agree. However, I do not believe there will ever be true unity between purely evangelical Adventists and the cultic, historic ultra-conservative Adventists. Truth cannot co-exist with error. The Adventism of Larry Kirkpatrick and Kevin Paulson is light years from my Adventism. I have nothing in common with thier tyrannical brand of fundamentalism. Therefore, I believe in unity as far as can realistically be expected.

15.) Agree.

16.) Agree.

18.) Agree, however, I qualify the statement 'authouritative source of truth.' I do not believe Ellen White has doctrinal authourity. I do not even believe she has the authourity of the apostles-indeed, she is subject to them. I also believe to use the word 'truth' in such a generalized manner with respect to her writings is deceptive, for there are many discrepencies, inaccuracies and outright wrong premises in her materials.

19.) Agree.

20.) Agree.

21.) Agree, although I do not believe that tithing is a moral imperitive.

22.) Agree. However, I have some very serious issues with the church attempting to outline behavioural standards in too much detail. Jewelry, for example, I have no problems with. I love rock music and movies. I am not vegetarian. If in practical application the church has not respected individuality and differing convictions on these matters, at least it is written here in theory as wisely leaving things up to the discretion of the individual. I do not want a nanny or a big brother church looking over my shoulder and dictating what my entertainment choices or diet should be. I am a big boy, thanks.

23.) Agree.

24.) Agree. However, I do not believe there is a literal building in Heaven. I believe that Christ Himself fulfills every symbolic application of the earthly sanctuary. I do not believe in a literal Holy and Most Holy apartment in Heaven that Christ literally moved into in 1844. I believe that the Holy and the Most Holy are representative of the phases of His ministry, intercession and judgment respectively. I believe that in 1844 Christ began his judgment phase. I categorically reject the traditional interpretation of the IJ as wrong and detrimental to one's assurance of salvation. I hate the term 'investigative' and use the term 'pre-advent'. The saints do not come under condemnation of the judgment and are pronounced innocent by virtue of Christ thier Savior. Our sins are cast into the deepest depths of the ocean, taken as far as the East is from the West, to be remembered no more. Most certainly they will not be retrieved for inspection in the judgment. The process is simply to reveal to the onlooking universe the goodness of God and a vindication of His right to take us to Heaven.

25.) Agree.

26.) Agree

27.) Agree.

28.) Agree.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

The above is a good example of why the poll is pretty well stated. The church had their choice in how to write up their fundamental beliefs. The two basic methods are the vague method where a statement is open to several possible ways of looking at it or they can be very specific. They chose the much more specific method, e.g. the earth was made in 6 literal days, even though some of those days were made prior to the sun and therefore their literal nature as 24 hour days is questionable. Using the vague method you could say that we believe that God created the earth, this leaves it open to many possibilities as to how or when or how long it took to make the world, more people could hold to that fundamental belief.

To say I agree with the 28 "but" is not really an agreement. I don't know about most Adventists but I suspect that that "but" is pretty common.

 

[NightEternal]

Okay, fine, I agree with the 28 fundamentals for the most part, there are just areas where there needs to be clarification.

How's that?

Anyone who claims to believe all 28 absolutely, totally, completely in all respects without any qualifiers whatsoever is either not thinking for themselves (or too frightened to) and has no discernment, easily manipulated by the status quo and fears authourity, doesn't really understand what the fundamentals are saying, brainwashed by EGW or an employee of the church trying to protect thier job.

There is no way anyone other than a slavish denominational lackey or mindless SDA apologist can submit to all 28 in total without question.

I don't buy it.

 

[Sophia7]

Anyone who claims to believe all 28 absolutely, totally, completely in all respects without any qualifiers whatsoever is either not thinking for themselves (or too frightened to) and has no discernment, easily manipulated by the status quo and fears authourity, doesn't really understand what the fundamentals are saying, brainwashed by EGW or an employee of the church trying to protect thier job.

There is no way anyone other than a slavish denominational lackey or mindless SDA apologist can submit to all 28 in total without question.

I don't buy it.

Then what's the point of having the 28 fundamentals? They have become, for all practical purposes, a creed, and a person can't honestly join the SDA Church by baptism without agreeing with all of them.

For the record, I disagree with several of them and would make major revisions to others.

 

[NightEternal]

If you read what I wrote closely you will notice I said I am suspicious of anyone who says they believe all 28 without any qualifiers. I purposefully did not address those who outright disbelieve any of them for a reason. An Adventist who outright disbelieves any of the 28 was baptized under false pretenses and basically lied to God in thier vows, unless at that time they did in fact believe all of them. If they have now abandoned all belief in any of the 28 they need to reconsider if they should remain a baptized member on the books.

My list shows I have assented to all of the 28 with certain qualifiers within the open realm of interpretation allowed and I have not contradicted any of the specific statements. The fundamentals are specifically worded for a wide range of interpretation and it is possible to say one believes the 28 with qualifiers, even though RC_NewProtestants seems to think otherwise.

What I am saying is that everyone has to have some area in the 28 where they need to clarify or qualify. It's just a given if everyone is thinking for themselves, because we all interprets things differently.

As for creeds, it is a shame we have adopted one. The pioneers were opposed to such a thing. However, this is where we are as a church and we have to make the best of it.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

My list shows I have assented to all of the 28 with certain qualifiers within the open realm of interpretation allowed and I have not contradicted any of the specific statements.

It reminds me of the Emo Phillips quote:

" I'm very religious. Now, if by religious you mean that I read the
Bible every day and go to church faithfully and listen to Debbie Boone
-- no, I'm not religious in that way.

"But if you mean that I love others and try to help them whenever I
can -- again, no.

"But if by religious you mean that I like to eat Cole slaw -- yeah, okay."
[Emo Phillips]

 

[NightEternal]

How is that even remotely similar to what I am saying?

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

How is that even remotely similar to what I am saying?

It is similar because you have placed yourself in the position of defining what agree means, though quite differently then what agree really means.

18.) Agree, however, I reject the statement 'authouritative source of truth.'

You agree with the statement yet you reject the statement. So either you have reinterpreted "agree" or "reject" to mean something different then their common definition.

This common method or redefining things is why Emo's quote is funny. They way people rationalize words to suit their desires.

 

[NightEternal]

I can agree with the general fundamentals while redefining some of the specifics. It is done all of the time, by even our own scholars and theologians.

I can agree that EGW is a scource of authourity in a pastoral sense, but not in a theological, scholarly or doctrinal sense, because this is not explicitly stated in fundamental #18. That sort of authourity is reserved for the Bible alone.

Graeme Bradford takes the same position in his book More Than A Prophet and he is a member in good standing.

 

[Princessdi]

I don't think it should be an all or no kind of thing, in relationship to the church. I am alot like EN, in that I believe in them but there are qualifiers. I won't outline them here, and they also differe quite a bit form NE reasons.

Question NE, isn't Present Truth Stephen Lewis' ministry?

 

[NightEternal]

Princessdi, you sound like you have a lot of common sense.

Yes, Present Truth is Stephen Lewis' ministry, but that is not the one I am referring to.

Sweet mercy, to even be mistakenly associated with that tyrannical, fundamentalist, Adventist tyrant makes my skin crawl. He is a disgrace to the Adventist movement and a total enemy of the Reformation Gospel.

Lewis is a man who needs some serious

Present Truth Magazine is what I am talking about. There is a lot of good information on the website:

www.presenttruthmag.com

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

I can agree with the general fundamentals while redefining some of the specifics. It is done all of the time, by even our own scholars and theologians.

The point is that the 28 are not really written as general fundamentals. They are far to specific. What I don't understand is why people feel cowed into saying they agree with them when they in actuality don't. If they feel that they can't even come right out and say they disagree with some of the 28 they cede their rights as the people of the church to those who claim to be leaders of the church.

We start to play games with words such as a woman is commissioned as a Pastor instead of ordained so that we in this country don't upset the powerful third world side of the SDA church.

Or as Nighteternal said:

I can agree that EGW is a scource of authourity in a pastoral sense, but not in a theological, scholarly or doctrinal sense, because this is not explicitly stated in fundamental #18. That sort of authourity is reserved for the Bible alone.

Yet the context of the statement is all encompassing and says nothing about Pastorial authority.

18. The Gift of Prophecy:
One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. White . As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested.

You should note the use of terms they use since they are trying to copy 2 Tim 3:16 ...useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

 

[Princessdi]

Whew!!! You scared me there for a minute. Yes he has some serious issues. Ok, I will check out the webiste for the magazine.

Princessdi, you sound like you have a lot of common sense.

Yes, Present Truth is Stephen Lewis' ministry, but that is not the one I am referring to.

Sweet mercy, to even be mistakenly associated with that tyrannical, fundamentalist, Adventist Hitler makes my skin crawl. He is a disgrace to the Adventist movement and a total enemy of the Reformation Gospel.

Lewis is a man who needs some serious

Present Truth Magazine is what I am talking about. It is where the future of Adventism would be if the church had any sense.

www.presenttruthmag.com

 

[NightEternal]

I'm bumping this old thread Icedragon started because there is some discussion going on regarding the 28 fundamentals and who believes what, where they stand, etc. This may be a good oppourtunity for others to do what I have done here. That is, put where you stand in writing so that others can refer to it if they have any questions about your position on any of the 28.

This way we don't have to engage in grilling or interrogations of others. It will already be there, fully explained, for reference.

 

[JonMiller]

http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html

1. Inspired, yes.

2. Yes, but I think the semi-arians could be right. I admit that a complete understanding of God is beyond my mortal mind. (I am a trinitarrian, but admit I could be wrong)

3. Yes (see 2)

4. Yes (see 2)

5. Yes (see 2)

6. I am OK with this statement, but it could be wrong (and the start Genesis be symbolic). It is mostly that I beleive that God is powerful enough for it to be the case even if that isn't what we observe. The Bible is full of God doing the impossible, and so I have no problem with Him doing it here also. Evolution is definitely occuring (including macro) and is the proper scientific description of our world though.

7. Yes

8. Sure, although wouldn't be surprised if it was different.

9. Yes

10. Yes

11. Yes (although we still make mistakes after we have accepted Christ's gift)

12. Yes (the church isn't just the SDA church though)

13. I am OK with this, but think that we could be misunderstanding something.

14. Sure, but there is an unfortunate lack of unity in the Church. It should definitely be what we strive towards.

15. Yes

16. Yes

17. Yes

18. Sure, I think many of the church misunderstand what the gift of prophecy is though. It doesn't mean that every word is from God, or that all interpreations are from God.

19. Yes, but the law doesn't start or stop in the 10 commandments.

20. Yes

21. Yes

22. I agree that it is best to follow Christian behavior. Things being best to abstain from doesn't make them a sin though and doesn't mean that those who don't abstain from them aren't Christians. I do think that Christ drank wine though.

23. I think that physical abuse should be included, but maybe that should just allow seperation?

24. I really don't understand this. It doesn't seem to have a point. I guess I am fine with it being correct, but I expect that we have this at least partially wrong. I would say that this is what I question the most of any SDA official doctrines. NE's earlier description makes more sense to me, and I think is closer to how I understood things when I joined the church.

25. I agree

26. I agree

27. I agree, but as with many things that don't really have much to do with us, I expect that we have an incomplete understanding.

28. Yes.

JM

 

[Adventist Dissident]

thank's for waking the dead.

 

[happywiththelord]

i agree with the 28 beliefs!

 

[Mankin]

I am not even sure what all the 28 beliefs are. lol. I guess that tells ya something. Could someone post all of them?

 

[happywiththelord]

they are posted by pale horse at the top of the page by the wiki stuff.