The Three Forms of Unity and the Fundamental Beliefs
by Reinder Bruinsma, August 18, 2015: At the time when our son was enrolled in the Christian elementary school in the Dutch town where we lived, now over 40 years ago, my wife offered to assist as volunteer to help the students in acquiring good reading skills. Her offer was appreciated, but there was a small problem. The school had an explicit Calvinist basis and demanded of teachers and volunteers the signing of a statement that they agreed with the Three Forms of Unity. My wife had never even heard of the “Three Forms.” She did not want to sign anything and, as a result, offered her volunteer services to the adjacent public school.
What are these Three Forms of Unity? They concern documents the Dutch Calvinists of the sixteenth and seventeenth century accepted as authoritative. These were the Belgic Confession (1561) and the Heidelberger Catechism (1563), which defined in great detail what was considered “the truth.” Some fifty years later the Canons of Dort were added. They owe their name to the fact that they were agreed upon by the famous Synod of Dordrecht (1618-19), where proponents of predestination won their bitter conflict with the followers of a certain Arminius. These Arminians argued that people have a free will. This group was usually referred to as the “remonstrants” and the Canons of Dordtare (therefore, often also called the Five Articles Against the Remonstrants).
Even though the school administrators indicated that signing the statement was a mere formality, my wife did not like the fact that she was obliged to formally indicate agreement with these ancient documents. Until today, they belong to the so-called confessional documents of the Protestant Church in the Netherlands (PKN). Does this mean that most of the members of this denomination (and most other denominations in the Calvinist tradition in and outside the Netherlands) know what these documents contain? Certainly not. My guess is that the vast majority have never even read one letter of them. But many discussions about certain articles (in particular in the Belgic Confession) have demonstrated that it is extremely difficult to change anything. And from time to time these confessional documents are used to assure that people stay in line (or to refuse a volunteer who wants to assist in a reading program in an elementary school).
This is precisely what the early leaders of the Adventist Church had in mind when they stated that they were against adopting any formal confession of faith. They had seen how these documents had received, in the denomination in the US that they were acquainted with, almost the same level of authority as the Bible, and how difficult it had become to start an open discussion about some biblical theme. Everything had been defined once and for all, and one had to stick with what the wise men in the past had decided. The Adventist pioneers knew for sure: “We have no creed but the Bible!”
Gradually the conviction that it was wrong to develop a “creed” was pushed aside. And now we have a document that is known as the (28) Fundamental Beliefs. It has become much more than a simple enumeration of the most important Adventist beliefs. Just as the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberger Catechism in Dutch Protestantism, the Adventist Fundamental Beliefs have become a test of orthodoxy. This is what you must believe, if you really want to be part of it.
Does this mean that all Seventh-day Adventists know more or less what the 28 “fundamentals” are all about? Far from it. I have at times done a little research and concluded that most Dutch Adventists at best are able to list 10-12 of their “fundamentals.” And, let’s be honest: most newly baptized members only have a vague idea of the content of these 28 Beliefs. In far-away countries the situation is probably not any better. I do not think that most of the 30.000 members that were recently baptized in Zimbabwe, after an evangelistic campaign of some weeks (just to mention one example), will be able to enumerate more than ten “fundamental” Adventist beliefs. Yet, at the same time, church leaders have at various occasions said that you cannot be a good Adventist if you do not fully subscribe to all 28 Fundamental Beliefs.
Without any doubt, the Three Forms of Unity are important historical documents. They have helped to safeguard many of the basic Calvinist convictions in Dutch Protestantism. But the details in these documents hardly play any significant role in the daily life of today’s church members. Likewise, the Adventist document with the Fundamental Beliefs is an important document. Nevertheless, we must not make it more important than it is. We must conclude that most Adventists share a number of important general Christian and more specifically Adventist convictions, without continuously referring back in their daily life to the text of the document with the Fundamental Beliefs. And the 28 Fundamental Beliefs may never acquire the sterile status of a “confession of faith” that can be used as a checklist to determine someone’s orthodoxy (or the lack thereof). That simply is totally at odds with a precious Adventist tradition.
This is a false parallel because we have always stated any confession of faith is subject to correction by way of the bible.
In the front of the book of our beliefs, it is stated that the book is not an “official” declaration of the church corporately, but a compilation of doctrines held by the SDA church.
So, your parallel is faulty.
My spiritual Calvinist heirs who produced those three documents, would assiduously attest to sola scriptura, as do Ted Wilson and most other Adventists. Still what we say does not always match what we do.
At the same time that my Calvinist uncles were criticizing my father for Adventist teaching regarding the authority of Ellen White, one of my mother’s cousins (one of the so-called Sacred Seven dissenting students at Calvin College) traveled to Geneva to research what John Calvin taught regarding certain subjects where he and his colleagues differed from their theology professors.
How ironic! The more we claim to be different from “backslidden” protestant denominations, the more we ourselves are falling into some of their practices.
And how ironic that the same NT verses and arguments that my Calvinist uncles used then to criticize the role of Ellen White, are the same very verses and arguments being advanced today within the Adventist church against ordaining women.
As Yogi Berra once said, for me this is like deja vous all over again 8-).
Yet the Church Manual says a new convert must before baptism or profession of faith publicly affirm before the whole congregation that they understand and agree with the SDA understanding of scripture as set out in the 28 FBs.
Is the GC in Session (which affirms the Church Manual) asking new members to lie? Is it asking new members to treat the FBs as a creed, which is to say a test of membership?
The Baptismal Vow does not require a new member to “agree.” The requirement is to know and understand and live your life in harmony with the Fundamental Beliefs. There is no requirement to believe the “state of the dead.” This was the case before 2010. There are now two ways to join the church. The old one did not require belief, but the new alternate one does. On page 46 and 47 of the 2010 Church Manual this is explained. The vow number 11 states: Do you know and understand the fundamental 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? The Alternate Vow requires the new member to “accept” which is a stronger statement than “ordering you life in harmony. There is a movement to limit our freedom by changing the membership rules.
Yes! This happened to me recently at Sabbath class by leader when I tried going back to church, though still no one taught me Jesus yet and don’t know bible yet.
“the 28 Fundamental Beliefs may never acquire the sterile status of a “confession of faith” that can be used as a checklist to determine someone’s orthodoxy (or the lack thereof). That simply is totally at odds with a precious Adventist tradition.”
No one should doubt that in the future that is how it will be used. Even today, can anyone be certain that it has not been a reason to disfellowship a member?
Approximately 40+ years ago my father-in-law was baptized as an SdA, several years after his wife. One Sabbath he was urgently needed for a job that only he could do and it had to be done that day (moving an airman’s family) and the Air Force would not wait. In order to help this family, he worked that day. The very next week the pastor and church elder called on him and said that because he had not observed the Sabbath he had been disfellowshipped. He did not argue, but accepted and continued just as before, attending church each week. Eventually, he chose to be rebaptized.
It all depends on how a local church and congregation uses those FB’s, doesn’t it?
Yes, indeed, Elaine.
Exactly Elaine. In most SDA Churches I know (mostly the more progressive kind) that scenario you describe would hortify most, and be frankly unthinkable.
Yet I don’t doubt for a second in other local SDA Churches, there are some who indeed hold and enforce such extreme views.
My only saddness is that your father-in-law chose not to, or practically couldn’t beccause of geography, or because it would have made no practical difference, attended a different and more loving Adventist Church.
The congregation was loving; the pastor acted as an autocrat. Pastors do have the opportunity to wield power if they so choose. But they come and go; congregations remain.
Elaine,
Orthodoxy is man’s imperfect way of measuring while God measures the heart. Your story illustrates well the peril of orthodoxy because it measures only what is visible on the outside instead of the heart. If you list the miracles of Jesus recorded in the four Gospels you will find that he performed most of them on the Sabbath. If you read Isaiah, chapter 58, verse 13 is not some random, last-minute thought but a discussion of the good things God wants His people doing on the Sabbath.
Mr. Sorensen misses the point of this excellent blog–the parallel is very relevant. What the bible says is, in fact, what a particular group interprets the bible to say. Our good friends in the Catholic tradition have the Holy Mother Church and a supreme pontiff to provide the interpretation when there is a problem. Protestants rejected that and, as a result, we have literally hundreds of interpretations of what the Bible says by hundreds of different Protestant groups. Conventional Adventism is just one among many Protestant group who has evolved a set of “Fundamental Beliefs” which is supposed to be based on the bible–or so official statements published by the leadership insist is the case.
We might ask on what basis does official Adventism say that their doctrines are based on the bible. Throughout much of its history, traditional Adventism claimed it had a special authority–the Spirit of Prophecy–otherwise known as Ellen White–that would tell the church what the bible says when there is a difference of opinion inside the denomination.
I regret to tell Mr. Sorensen that this idea in the 21st Century no longer works anymore for many Adventists. We thus are in the same situation as any other Protestant Church. Sorry about that.
Dr. Taylor, you like many others who attack the formal church, deny that any church has a right to define its teaching and require members to agree.
The very reason the SDA church has and is losing its identity is because of the fear of declaring a position that may be false, and then be forced to correct it in the future.
This is why modern Adventism has opted for Pluralism and can say of any doctrine, we didn’t endorse it, if it is found to be wrong. So no “official” statement is forth coming either now or in the near future.
It was James While who stated that Rome claims infallibility while Protestantism will state they many be wrong, but never have been. This is in fact, more dangerous and would probably fit the SDA situation today.
None the less, the church must define itself and demand accountability of its members. You and others can oppose it all you want, but common sense tells us of its necessity.
What the church doesn’t realize is accountability goes both ways. In many ways and in many places, the people are demanding accountability from the church, but the church fails to deliver. More empty seats.
“None the less, the church must define itself and demand accountability of its members. You and others can oppose it all you want, but common sense tells us of its necessity.”
I need say no more than that Bill has stated the issue succinctly as it should be and as it is correctly understood.
I had to smile after reading your mention about how few of the FBs that Dutch Adventists could list because of something that happened to me when I enrolled at what was then known as Southern Missionary College. I had to take a class called “Adventist Beliefs” and our teacher gave us a pop-quiz on the first day asking us to list ten doctrines and then list one Bible verse that could be used to support each one. Until then, the last time I had attended an Adventist school was second grade, though I had recently returned from a year as a student missionary in Korea. Our teacher returned to the next class with the news that no one in the class had scored higher than a 50 and that person had scored a 95. That student was me and the only reason I didn’t score a 100 was because I had the book and chapter but not the verse for one of the doctrines. Everyone else in the class had recently graduated from an Adventist academy and most had been in church schools for their entire education.
I don’t find anything in the Bible where God measures how much we know on particular doctrines, but I do find where He wants us to be so connected to Him that we draw people to Him, who is the source of all truth and the Teacher above all other Teachers. So the unity we should be seeking is not our unity in doctrine, but our unity with God.
Give a newly baptized member, who has gone through the 28 FBs at least three times in ‘studying’ to qualify as a member, you it is unlikely that they will be able to pass that pop quiz you describe, William.
And we should consider that a relief. It is perhaps the one solid truth to quell the demand that people believe the 28 FBs to become a member.
The FBs are a form of Godliness that is utterly without power.
The reason for the continuous clamor for revival and reformation by leadership may well be the distraction that is the FBs sucking the spirit out of minister’s lives, and in turn the lives of members.
Counter arguments encouraged, as this is a pretty dismal situation in which we find ourselves, if true.
“The FBs are a form of Godliness that is utterly without power.”
Well said! Unfortunately we have a number of very vocal people who think they have to believe correctly before they can find the power of God. So far, I haven’t met one of them who’s found the power yet because the only place I’ve found it is in the Holy Spirit. Recently I’ve been reading John’s account of what Jesus told the Disciples at the Last Supper (John 12-15) and what I find there is his urgent emphasis on connection that would bring power.
I once applied for a teaching job at a small Bible school. I was required to sign a doctrinal statement which included Biblical inerrancy. I wanted the job, the hiring person wanted me to have the job so I said, “Look, I’ll sign this but I don’t believe it, is that clear?” “Sure, no problem,” she replied. I signed and had a good experience.
Bill Garber: “It is perhaps the one solid truth to quell the demand that people believe the 28 FBs to become a member.”
I agree it should be so but my understanding a new convert MUST affirm belief in all 28 FBs. And by solemn oath!
Either the canidate must give a vow which includes (if you want the shorter version) at point #2:
“Baptismal Vow—Baptismal candidates and those being received into fellowship by profession of faith shall affirm their acceptance of the fundamental beliefs in the presence of the local congregation or other properly appointed body.
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?”
Thus, it seems in practice the Church Manual treats the FBs as a creed, even if the FBs themselves explicitly say they are not a creed!
You are right, Steve.
In the little congregation I regularly visit (<100 attending out of 250+ members the Conference counts on its website), new members are publically on the platform interrogated by the pastor and required to commit to the beliefs as they are itemized before they are baptized.
What this does is dilute the Gospel , and the personal integrity of the new member, and the corporate integrity of the congregation, and in turn the personal integrity of Conference officers.
This is exactly what leads to whited sepulcher syndrome, which is promulgated from the top, as Jesus describes in Matthew 23. Make no mistake, the walking sepulchers singled out were the scribes and Pharisees who were, indeed, able to list the fundamental beliefs in excruciating detail.
How the church leaders continue to fail to see their collaborative error in this regard is a measure of their fear. And fear it is that Babylon leverages in the Three Angels’ Message. And it is the end of fear the First Angel achieves by clarifying (‘loud voice’) the Gospel. The immediate result is the collapse of fear-dependent Babylon as the Second Angel chronicles. Making the contrast more vivid, the Third Angel describes the plight of those still struggling to escape their fears on their own, while the mortal Saints patiently wait, with the faith of Jesus in the assurances of God, for their liberation from mortality.
Come now, you are all insane. Why have any question at all? Why ask them if the believe in Christ? Why ask if they believe the bible?
Just ask one question. “Do you want to join our church?” If they say “yes”, fine. Maybe you could ask them “Why”?
And of course, no minister should preach any doctrine, since it is not relevant to the church community. Maybe we should just claim we are a social club with the desire to be helpful to humanity….
Like I said, you are all insane.
Bill I am not again teaching doctrine or new converts expressing beliefs. My problem is making them take a vow that they supposedly agree with ALL 28 FBs.
The problem I have with that is:
1. I doubt they’d really know or understand all 28 FBs.
2. I don’t think we should deny baptism to someone who accepts say the Sabbath and State of the Dead but doesn’t believe in Ellen White’s prophetic gift.
3. In practice there are really two or more tiers of FBs. Everyone would expect new converts to publicaly commit to: Sabbath, Trinity, State of the Dead, Second Coming, Salvation by Grace, Bible, Adult Baptism by Immersion. I don’t think in practice most congregations expect new converts to know (and in reality they don’t know) many of our other doctrines.
4. We indeed are using the FBs as a creed by this vow – something our Pioneers explicitly said we were never to do!
What it boils down to Steve, is you will decide what people should affirm and believe, but not the church. So everyone will decide for themselves what the confession of faith should be but not the corporate church?
In the end, your position doesn’t “solve the problem” anymore than those who think there should be no stated belief system.
I might add, I would tend to agree with what you have stated, but your view is not what the people on this thread are advocating. They deny the church has any right to define any doctrine those joining must confess to be members.
Bill,
Your rebuttal above is absurd.
First you write things that those you oppose have not written:
“Why have any question at all? Why ask them if the believe in Christ? Why ask if they believe the bible?
Just ask one question. “Do you want to join our church?” If they say “yes”, fine. Maybe you could ask them “Why”?
And of course, no minister should preach any doctrine, since it is not relevant to the church community. Maybe we should just claim we are a social club with the desire to be helpful to humanity”
Then you accuse those who never wrote these things that you wrote of being insane:
“Come now, you are all insane.
Like I said, you are all insane.”
Be careful how you judge one another, for in the same manner that you judge you yourself will be judged.
It is all “hog wash” and anyone reading the comments knows it. It is a denial that a church has a right to define its doctrine and teaching and then require anyone who wants to join to confirm their faith in the doctrine.
As I already stated, the fundamentals are not “official” church declarations nor are they a non-negotiable creed.
At least technically, any one could be changed if “the church” decides it is not in harmony with its mission.
But it is equally clear that any radical change re-defines the church and its identity. Much of this liberal drivel is just what I stated, Insane.
And yes, I will “judge” and so will anyone else as to whether your position is viable or inane drivel. So, let’s see if this is published on the “open forum.”?
“And yes, I will “judge” and so will anyone else as to whether your position is viable or inane drivel.”
Have you even bothered to read my comments?
What do you think is my position on this question?
Where have I ever written that the church has no right to define its doctrines?
It appears to me that you are lashing-out in all directions without even bothering to consider what others are writing.
“Have you even bothered to read my comments?”
I read all the comments, Jim. The question is, “Do you understand what is being contended for in this thread?”
The basic view is the church has no right to define itself and demand accountability of any want to join, nor discipline any member who disagrees with the statement of faith.
Sure, there were some variable comments about a statement of faith. But in the end, it denies that the SDA church has a right to make one and discipline anyone who is now a member who disagrees.
I am not the one who is denying reality. Maybe you should read the whole thread for yourself.
Once again, Bill, where in this thread or elsewhere have I written any of the things you accuse me of writing?
Are you sure you are arguing with the right person?
Your blanket condemnation of everyone who differs with you is simply not credible. Those who differ with you on some questions do NOT hold identical opinions on all questions.
Your current contrast settings seem to resolve only two tones:
1) Those who totally agree with you on every question.
2) Everyone else.
If we all look the same to you, perhaps you need to adjust your contrast settings to resolve more tonal gradations 8-).
It is truly amazing how ell you know me!
But since I don’t seem to recall ever making your acquaintance, could you remind me when and where we have met?
Has anyone tracked membership growth in North America, Australia or the other countries where the membership growth rate has been slow or negative to see if the trend line has turned significantly upward since the 28FBs were adopted? I keep hearing a few people claiming that if we just preached them, and prophecy and “hard doctrines” more that we’d see the church growing and I was wondering if there were any results to show how that was working.
I know that you don’t want to hear this, even if/though it’s true, but Carlton Byrd, prior to coming to Huntsville, AL and the Oakwood University Church, had led the North American Division in baptisms for a number of years as senior pastor of the Berean SDA Church in Atlanta; and he preaches Jesus, and historic and conservative SDA doctrine and prophecy in his evangelistic efforts, live and on television.
The First SDA Church of Huntsville has averaged nearly three baptisms per week in the five years since D.K. Snell has been there as senior pastor; and had to have two full-house Sabbath services in its previous facility, which it outgrew; and has since moved into a much larger facility in the middle of the community to which it seeks to be of service. The preaching of the Gospel of Jesus and Biblical truth is the cornerstone of its growth, from about 1200 members to over 1800 members in five years.
The point again is that the ‘how to’ of church growth isn’t an either or, but a both and proposition. To your point, the 28 Fundamental Beliefs are not emphasized as a creed in the above-mentioned ministries’ evangelistic efforts, and service to others is emphasized as a church focus.
Let’s do what works. What works in one place or cultural group doesn’t work in another so assuming that what worked in one congregation will automatically work in another is nonsense because the Holy Spirit doesn’t empower everybody in the same way. Instead, He empowers a variety of gifts.
The problem we have with the 28FBs is people who are searching for spiritual relevance in them instead of the Holy Spirit and seeking the power of God in doctrinal purity instead of God Himself, where He invites us to find the power He offers to do great things for Him.
You see the results of their ministry in the power of the Holy Spirit, so when are you going to discover the gifts God has already placed in you and start using them to grow the Kingdom of God? If God is using them to do great things, why shouldn’t you be doing great things for Him, too? As the body has many parts there are many ways for you to work for Him, so unless He has clearly told you to do the same thing as them, why would you imagine not doing something different?
“Come unto me all ye who labor and are heavy laden, and I’ll give you rest”. “My yoke is easy, and my burden is light”.
O’, but first, you must memorize these 28 traditional Fundamental Beliefs, so you understand and accept each and everyone of them, because th e Pastor is going to grill you,by having you recite each one, and you don’t want to slip up and be refused entry into the water, in front of the congregation!! O’, how many of these Beliefs do the congregation know, you ask??? Good question, we can find out real easy, Next Sabbath we will poll each member before we let them in the door of the church.
Frankly, Earl, you liberals are a real piece of cake. You constantly claim no one can “judge”, but all you do is “judge, judge, judge.”
Of course, you are qualified to judge, but no one else is. So no church has a right to define a set of doctrines they require anyone to accept to be a member of their church community.
If you don’t like the doctrines the church has defined, hit the road. But no, no, you must gripe, complain and bicker on and on how no church can define itself.
We don’t try to join the Catholic church so we can bicker on and on about our view of the spirituality of the Catholic church. We condemn it as outside the biblical norm in our judgment. But we don’t expect them to re-define their spirituality to suit us.
As a SDA, I will eventually move on if I think the church has substancially abandon the bible. And I won’t stay and bicker and complain about what they believe. I may point out why I left. And why I no longer agree with what they teach. But it is absurd to year after year bicker and complain that the church won’t teach like I think they should.
I don’t understand why Elaine and others hang around on and on. It just don’t make sense. Start your own church. Join one that agrees with you and evangelize to your hearts content. But after a reasonable time, it is futile to go on and on if you can’t change the church.
You wrote, “You constantly claim no one can “judge”, but all you do is “judge, judge, judge.””
I couldn’t have written a better description of the tone of your remarks if I had tried! Maybe we ought to change your screen name to “accuser of the brethren” because of all the charges you’ve been hurling.
I don’t hear as much comment in the twenty-first century about why people who have “joined” the Seventh-day Adventist organization eventually stop attending Sabbath services but decades ago, the comments were, “He lost his first love” or “He fount the world too attractive”.
It turns out that I have known some of those who have stopped attending services and, while I don’t deny that the above-mentioned comments may sometime have been accurate, other people who have stopped attending Sabbath services had done so because they have come to realize that a) creedalism is inappropriate and the so-called “Fundamental Beliefs” ARE being used as a creed, b) the appropriate role of pastors and conference officers is to serve the laity and many pastors and conference officers think the role of the laity is to serve the conference(s), c) there is an appropriate way of dealing with disagreements within a religious organization but too often dogmatism is employed instead.
Another factor is that some people “join” the organization thinking they know what the emphasis or emphases of the organization is/are and then learn that it is different than they thought.
When is whether people become Christians going to be considered more important than whether people are members of a specific organization? That one shift in focus would solve a host of problems.
Like you, I know a number of former members and in the times I’ve been able to ask why they left the church I’ve found a variety of cause factors listed that boil-down to basically one thing: focus on theology driving-out the power of the Holy Spirit.
In your constant rebuking and judging other Christians, please tell us how you possibly “woo just one soul” to Jesus Christ?? How & why have several of you become so rigidly sour, and cornered yourself in negativism as to become curmudgeons. Brothers, you have set up your own throne to rail against GOD’S children. Amazing to me is, that you people judge others for exactly the same things you are guilty of. Never thought Jim’s “total reality” is flawed??? Brothers a strong dose of introspection is good for all of us. Otherwise, will hear the decision to join the goats. I never knew you.
Earl,
The Christian faith is not a destination. It is a journey. How many of those steps can be considered evidence that a person has been wooed to Jesus Christ?
If a person who was accustomed to trying to earn or deserve God’s forgiveness begins, instead, to encourage others to trust in the merits of Jesus alone, is that evidence that he has been wooed to Jesus Christ?
If a person who has been accustomed to trying to use coercion to get everyone in his country to act like Christians begins, instead, to understand that God’s kingdom cannot be promoted using Satan’s methods, is that evidence that he has been wooed to Jesus Christ?
If a person who has been accustomed to following a religious organization or a modern prophet begins, instead, to read and study his Bible for himself, is that evidence that he has been wooed to Jesus Christ?
Point made was not to be contrary to the “LOVE MESSAGE” of Jesus. To “woo”, to Jesus, one presents a loving personality
and concerned for their welfare. Where there is interest you
find where your friend is in their approach to religion. Unless the one has been motivated by the Holy Spirit, your role is to be a friend, until such time questions are asked of you. This may take some time, and wooing, or can happen right away. Dale Carnegie said “if you want honey, don’t kick over the honey pot”.
The only unity that can be called such is unity in Christ. It is what the pioneers had and strove to maintain. But unfortunately, leadership over the years, especially during the eighties, have deliberately set out to destroy the pillars of the faith by not teaching them, scoffing at them [the SOP in particular] and embracing heresies and teaching them to others. Jesus said it would happen and I am watching it well. For He said: “See that ye be not deceived…”
The problem with Fundamental Beliefs is that they have the effect of putting God in a box.
“The problem with Fundamental Beliefs is that they have the effect of putting God in a box.”
God put Himself in a “box” (the bible) so we wouldn’t run helter skelter to try to find out for ourselves who He is and what His will is.
The church simply states how they understand what God has said about Himself and people join together in agreement on this understanding. Liberals want to create their own “box” by way of science, life experience or other avenues to define what is true and/or what is not.
“God put Himself in a “box” (the bible)”
So God is constrained by human language and expression and understanding? Do you really believe this?
I would agree that the Bible might constrain our understanding of God. But it does NOT constrain God. In the NT God did things that were not predicted in the OT.
“God’s voice thunders in marvelous ways; he does great things beyond our understanding.”
“Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.”
“What no eye has seen, what no ear has heard, and what no human mind has conceived — the things God has prepared for those who love him.”
How can an infinite God be constrained by a finite Book?
“How can an infinite God be constrained by a finite Book?”
It is what He willingly does for our benefit so we can have a solid foundation for our faith. Namely, the bible.
I disagree. My experience has been that what God reveals of Himself in the Bible is only a tiny glimpse of His totality. Yes, the Bible gives us a foundation on which to build. But as there is far more to a building than the just the foundation, God is waiting to reveal much more to us if we will connect with the Holy Spirit.
The problem with our box is that it is so much smaller than God’s “box” that it’s like a child’s lunchbox in a million square-foot warehouse and whenever we think we’ve got Him figured-out enough to know His limits, He quickly exceeds them.
In the midst of our traditions, beliefs, customs, there is lots of diversity. There is also a genuine unity. It is not a unity framed by a creed or even doctrines that are absolutely uniform, throughout the Adventist churches. We not only can experience differences in emphasis among our churches, we also ought to be able to recognize that the unity of all the SDA churches functions very much like a unity or needs, desires and ideals. In other words, once an idea or a concept is accepted as a doctrinal norm, it provides boundaries for theological and religious expression, but it also offers considerable latitude for the development of varied theological and religious expression within those boundaries. The idea that women in all forms ministry can do well in our churches and that the church is ready to receive this gift is something that the world church is NOT ready to accept at this time. Why not let the places where WO is needed put it in place and see what happens? Why not do as we have done before and take the local culture for what it is and work with the traditions that will foster real unity where cooperation can succeeed?
The church should have the same unity of a loving, supportive family that does not expect each member to follow the exact same path to their maturity. Good parents realize this: each child should be supported and love regardless of their decisions of work, marriage, place to live, and associates. Control should begin gradually removed early so the child will be able to make good life decisions.
The church should love and enable all its members to grow, but all should not be expected to have identical pathways. But one thing is certain: there should be no discrimination between one’s children’s: all should be respected according to their development stage: Those still immature in their growth and knowledge should not be the standard for those who are more mature in their knowledge and development.
The church has made a very grave mistake by allowing those who are not ready for equality of all, to decide for the entire church which believes that Christ declared us all equal before him.
It is especially surprising, coming from cultures who have long been enslaved, to wish to limit everyone in their freedom that Christ has given us.
Out of curiosity, exactly which FB do those who dislike them take issue? I do not see why an Adventist would have any problem with them. They line up with what we teach.
It has been my observation that they who oppose them most are either former Adventists or those who lean far left or have a disdain for many of the foundational beliefs.
What one(s) are the problem and why?
There is always the real danger that our set of Fundamental Beliefs can become our Adventist creed. For us the Bible is our only creed. In fact the Baptismal Vow, item nr. 5 reads, “Do you believe that the Bible is God’s inspired word, and that it constitutes the only rule of faith and practice for the Christian.” That seems to be a vow that most could accept. The problem comes when humans try in their frailty to spell out exactly what the Bible says on these issues.
That is why our pioneers were so afraid of a creed. They believed it could soon become a test of fellowship. If there is ever a move to use the Fundamental Beliefs as a test for workers or members, our pioneers would groan in their tombs if they suddenly awoke.
Take for example Fundamental Belief nr. 6 which now refers to creation as ‘recent’. Does this refer simply to the timing of this planet and life here or does it encompass the universe? I consider myself as an open minded conservative and have always accepted a six day creation of life on this planet, but I would be very uncomfortable in applying ‘recent’ to the entire universe. Even a literal reading of Genesis 1:1 simply reads, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” There is no clear evidence given as to when that beginning was or whether the “heavens and the earth” apply to only this planet or whether it encompasses the universe. I could not sign a human creed that defined the creation of the universe as…
I think it’s somewhat of a false parallel with the Dutch creeds and FBs. The preamble states the Bible is the church’s only creed and that these beliefs are what the church believes is the teaching of Scripture but that this can be changed. The author states, ” Everything had been defined once and for all…” when describing the creeds he is comparing the FBs to. That’s not the case with the FB. They are really the Church’s expression of its understanding of Scripture as things currently stand. On a side note, I saw on this author’s blog some years ago that he was advocating that SDA ministers should have the freedom to marry homosexuals. That makes me wonder if there are underlying motives than what’s being stated in the article.
When the Lord examines a church, or an individual in a church he is looking for the same thing. His criteria for excellence have little to do with a formal creed and a printed accepted list of beliefs. God wants to find persons in our churches who are consistently introducing non-Christians to Christ. They are learning and applying principles and truths of the Christian faith to their life. They are developing significant relationships with other believers, befriending, encouraging and holding each other accountable. They joyfully contribute their material possessions to ministries and individuals in need, for the glory of God. And they devote their time and energy to helping disadvantaged people. Cumulatively, these behaviors represent the Church in its fullest manifestation. Creeds, lists of “essentials”, can never substitute for a personal relationship with Christ.
If we do not search the Scripture humbly under the guidance of the Spirit no creed can feed life or prevent heresy; loyalty to a creed tends merely to dead orthodoxy where it is not simply the confirmation of a mind and heart informed by the Word through the Spirit. The proof of this is seen in the deadness and endemic heterodoxy that is many churches that rely on creeds or “fundamentals”.
It seems clear to me that the great object of faith and great statement of truth is Christ. It is a person. We are called to bow to a person and revere a person. Our only creed is ultimately ‘Jesus is Lord’.
Jesus Christ; who, though He was in the form of God, yet made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a man and of a servant for us, and was made like unto His brethren in all things. If, then, we should seek for another mediator who would be well affected towards us, whom could we find who loved us more than He who laid down His life for us, even when we were His enemies?