Affirming Belief in God the Creator - An Appeal to GC Delegates

“Not because I believe too little, but because I believe too much in the Creator God, the One of whom it is written “In the beginning was the Word,” I cannot consent to the proposed editorializing of the Holy Scriptures in the Fundamental Belief #6.  If the motion passes, I will remain a believer, but sadly I will no longer be considered an Adventist. Have mercy and do not sacrifice your fellow believers at the altar of interpretation. Do not exile Christ and His Little Ones from the Church!”

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at
1 Like

There is a tune from Oklahoma, “Everything’s up to date in Kansas City, They have gone about as far as they can go–” Now its SA’s turn. with God everything is recent when it comes to plant earth. The issue has no relevance. Dogma cannot improve on canon. This tinkering is merely a sign of backfilling, to no avail unless the plan is to hold another purge. If so, it would spell the doom of the entire enterprise. Our time is in His hands, His time is not in ours. Tom Z


It is ironic that Spectrum is now regularly running articles opposed to the proposed change of wording to Fundamental Belief # 6. It was previous Spectrum articles arguing that that statement of belief, as presently worded, allowed for long-ages views that made the proposed change necessary. But Tom is right: tightening up the wording of the statement of belief makes no practical difference unless the church is willing to implement meaningful discipline against the Seventh-day Darwinians. So far, there is no indication of any such impending spinal formation.

1 Like

The problem is, many of them don’t affirm any such thing. They can’t accept the idea of a 6-day creation, so they allegorize it away so as to allow for millions of years. That destroys the very passage of Scripture the author quoted by making it nonsensical.

1 Like

Why is it ironic David? Shouldn’t it be this way, that opposite opinions are presented and opposite comments are allowed?

May be spending too much time on the Advindicate site ends up making people unaccustomed to it, and finding it “ironic” when they see it… :wink:


I will refrain from getting into the specifics of how destructive the proposed wording is to this passage of Scripture, because that would entirely miss the point. However, I am going to go out on a limb here and say that I believe God’s Word can stand in the face of any interpretation, allegorical, literal or otherwise, without us needing to prop it up with any late revisions.


Thank you Monique for a wonderful testimony. I’m inspired by your life as briefly summarized by the editor.

No doubt the rewriting of Fundamental Belief #6 is rewriting scripture. Then, again, each of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs is rewriting scripture, is it not?

And the process continues, once undertaken.

I am mindful of the question the young new GYC president Justin McNeilus posed for General Conference Vice Presidents in the San Jose 2008 GYC assembly: “We understand that the Church exists to protect our fundamental beliefs. Some not all of our colleges and universities continue to hire and protect professors who do not believe in our core beliefs, such as creation. Many youth have lost their faith under such teachers. How can this be stopped?”

It is disappointing that none of the General Conference Vice Presidents were prepared to let Justin McNeilus know that it is not the General Conference responsibility to protect beliefs. Rather it is the responsibility of the youth as well as the General Conference leadership to search for the Holy Spirit’s influence among members with a commitment to learn and, where necessary, unlearn, as Ellen White so eloquently explained in her 1892 Review and Herald article.

“Would-be Guardians of the Doctrine.–The rebuke of the Lord will be upon those who would be guardians of the doctrine, who would bar the way that greater light shall not come to the people. A great work is to be done, and God sees that our leading men have need of greater light, that they may unite harmoniously, with the messengers whom He shall send to accomplish the work that He designs they should. The Lord has raised up messengers and endued them with His Spirit, and has said, “Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and show My people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins.”

Let no one run the risk of interposing himself be-between the people and the message of heaven. The message of God will come to the people; and if there were no voice among men to give it, the very stones would cry out. I call upon every minister to seek the Lord, to put away pride, to put away strife after supremacy, and humble the heart before God. It is the coldness of heart, the unbelief of those who ought to have faith, that keeps the churches in feebleness.-- Review and Herald, July 26, 1892.”

There is simply no evidence that there is any heart for such searching with Seventh-day Adventist leadership today. They seem utterly fearful and largely of their own members, including those who believe special revelation and natural revelation are not intended by the Revelator to require blind faith.

Church leaders are looking to young people who want to use the church to change the world, rather than looking to the Holy Spirit to discover present truth that reveals to us each that our ambitions are like the wardrobe of the rich young ruler.

When we realize that no one eternally lives or perishes because of anything any of us are capable of saying or doing or knowing, it will revolutionize our evangelism and eliminate our dependency on a list of 28 fundamental beliefs not 1 in 20 Seventh-day Adventists can list from memory.

Meanwhile the most fundamental achievement of the past five years since Atlanta, is this:

Not much by way of accomplishment for five years of labor. Or so it seems. Perhaps there is more.


Do you Believe–Trust in the Nicene Creed?
If so, ALL the 28 Doctrines of the SDA church are represented in that Creed.
If you, in all honesty, can recite to yourself that Creed every Sabbath–Saturday, then you are a Seventh day Adventist. That can be your Baptismal Vow that can be reaffirmed each week.
There is No Need to worship any place else, unless you decide to worship like Adam and Eve did, out among Nature in your own personal Garden somewhere in this wide world, with animals and birds as part of your worshiping community.


I’ll say. If nothing we say or do affects whether people are saved or eternally lost, why bother with evangelism at all?


I recently printed and read the 28 fundamental beliefs, and was rather surprised by their contents. I found things to object to in about 26 of them. The other two are OK. I guess I’m not a very good SDA.


That’s a great question, David…what do you think??


Yes, some of us have chosen this option- it being the most honest and sincere way to live.

Thank-you for your article and I agree with your summation in your final paragraph. It reminds me of the lyrics: “There’s a wideness in God’s mercy…” and it appears that Adventism is busy shoring up and tightening up so that there can no longer be any “wideness”. I would say that “simpler” isn’t within the Adventist lexicon as well, so your statement:

is completely correct…but the question is whether or not Adventism will survive itself.


An elementary lesson in hermeneutics may be helpful to the author of this interesting essay. The biblical text does not possess semantic autonomy. Therefore, the meaning of the biblical text is not what the words say but what the author intends to say.

FB 6 should be worded to reflect as accurately as possible what the relevant biblical texts mean, irrespective of what the words of those biblical texts say.


An elementary lesson in hermeneutics would lead one to quickly abandon the endeavour of establishing author intent. Since this is not available to us, all we can do is elevate a particular interpretation and declare it to be the intention of the author, but “wishing does not make it so.” Hermeneutics occurs in the absence of the author and the author is aware of this, and therefore relies on the words of the text to convey meaning.


Thanks for quoting one of my favorite hymns! That is exactly the point - the space God has for each of us to learn, discover and grow and the grace that assures us that our salvation isn’t contingent on “getting it right”.

In the face of an assault on our freedom in Christ it is imperative that we a) know the One in whom we have believed, and understand that He is the sole foundation of our faith b) are able to identify the difference between what it means to belong to the Body of Christ and the attempts of others to “define us in or out of the Church”. Therefore a change to the Fundamental Beliefs may impact on how others perceive me, but in the end that is of little significance.

I think Adventism has the potential to survive to the extent that it recaptures the spirit of early (historic) Adventism that was able to accommodate an extremely wide variety of beliefs, even on core issues. Even when we see little evidence that this is the direction in which we are trying to move, we can still pray and call for it.


Tellement bien dit! Merci!

1 Like

Yep! Can’t see 'cause it’s all black. Er … Can’t see 'cause it’s all white!

Trust The BEing.


As with the author, give me something to discuss rather than accusations of simplicity or judgement. What are the alternatives to Creationism and Darwinism? Tell me the one to which you assent.

And just as soon as we forget the “Great Disappointment” of 1844, we are driven to repeat the past. Back then, a date was cast in stone. Now words are being inserted. When will we ever learn?

Actually, this is frequently seen in mental health clinics, where individuals are compelled to repeat the past over and over and over. The differential diagnoses range from Obsessive Compulsive disorder, Post-traumatic Stress disorder, Major Depressive disorders and some Personality disorders. Guess what diagnosis comes closest to the SDA heritage?


Why? So you have something to argue about? How manly!

This Cartesian split has really got you caught, hasn’t it? IOW, somebody has to be wrong so you can be right?

You got me, bud! One is a belief about divine creation, the other is a theory developed by Darwin. They are not epistemologically related. And thus not mutually exclusive. So, I can assent to both. Or not! You offer a false dichotomy.

Trust The Process.