How The Adventist Church Changed its Fundamental Beliefs in San Antonio

Work on the Fundamental Beliefs zeroed in on the nuances of specific words Monday at the Alamodome where General Conference delegates gathered for their fourth day of business sessions.

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

Hope, it appears, is all there is now that it was indeed God’s.


The leaders’ emphasis, supported by most delegates’ desire, on moving quickly through decisions leave one wondering why we gather to vote at all.


i support the tightened language of fb#6…i think angel’s motive was correct: we can’t allow for evolutionary thinking such as concepts of deep time, or that life on our planet preceded genesis 1…and i agree with cliff’s explanation that the backdrop to tinkering with fb#6 in the first place was not to craft a way for evolution to coexist with fiat creation, but to exclude evolution…


Surprising statement after a marathon of unnecessary, politically motivated changes. I wonder who the “we” actually means - and how Arthur Stele knows.


When TW says “I personally” is this suppose to give more credence to his opinion than others? Very revealing of the man.

This comes across more as a “political” message we frequently hear during election in the U.S.


It was expected.
There was a time when the SDA geoscience institute supported the notion of the “gap theory” (recent creation of life on an old planet). This fixes some of the dating problems with rocks and is an idea still accepted by many ardent non-evolutionist in the church. The new wording of FB6 seems to be pushing even this view out. It would seem that the church leaders are just accepting the views of the Ken Ham crowd without thinking it through for themselves. This is dangerous as anyone who has looked into the creation science version of origin should be aware that it is no more comparable with Adventist theology than evolution as they promote among other things the creation of angels and satan during creation week.


The prologue is clear that the Bible is the Church’s only Creed. Then why not use Scriptue to high light the essential points rather than merely using textual references. I would suggest that Jesus interview recorded in the Third chapter of John head the list, followed by Romans 3-8, and concluded with Hebrews 11 and 12. These are essential Gospel based passages that include the work of the Spirit., These represent the pure Gospel of the Apostles. One might also make reference to Paul’s letter to the churches in Galacia to forestall legalism that was worried the Church from its beginning. What has happened is a forthright move into cultism without a glimmer of Gospel. S.A. Will mark the last gasp of the Cross in Adventism. Tom Z


EVERYONE will now have to burn the Current “Seventh day Adventists believe…” and purchase a NEW ONE.
THIS should save the Adventist printing press.


We say that the Bible is the Church’s only Creed.
But, if anything that the Bible says is questioned, EVERYONE looks to see what Ellen says about it, and THAT becomes the understanding.
I am not trying to be controversial, just illustrating what happens in most SDA Bible Study groups.
It makes for lazy thinking among most SDAs when it comes to “Bible Study” and “Bible Thinking”.

A lot of times it is refreshing to be among Christians who have no Spirit of Prophecy. True discussion takes place, and many times new thoughts, new nuances, new pictures pop up among the group that were not visible before, and those Scripture verses become NEW while reading the friendly OLD words.


Ted Wilson is certainly a powerful force for change.

With the above described actions, the SdA denomination now has a set of FB that are out of touch with reality, voted for by a majority of people who lack a knowledge of reality. Clearly this is what the majority of the delegates wanted.

They have established a creed containing things that many people will find repugnant.

Now comes the big showdown. What happens when an SdA member does not believe everything that is on this list.

Will the SdA local congregation, the SdA local conference, or the SdA union conference decide not to require members to believe the things on this list? Will they refuse fellowship to the constituent that does not enforce belief?

I resigned circa 2001 because I could see the train wreck happening. With this GC, the head of the train has crashed full-tilt into the wall. Now I get to see whether the rest of the denomination rejects these leaders and does something sensible, or becomes a social club for people who like to believe nonsense.


In thinking about this recent voting action on our fundamental beliefs, I wonder what James White would think?
In 1870 he gave a list one could count on one hand, and then said “GENERALLY BELIEVED”.
It was ALSO said, We have NO CREED.

The Nicene Creed, as short as it is, STILL embodies ALL of our SDA beliefs in it. And, is much easier to understand.
[and memorize]


I am going to wait for the 2020 edition…


In fact, the only real SDA creed is “the boox.” If the Bible is always interpreted by “the boox” then it’s obvious which one is the higher authority.

Now go and order the most recent production added to the “boox collection.”


Were these changes simply “proposed” or were they voted “in” at San Antonio? DId the delegates vote to make all those changes without discussion? Or, did I miss something?

1 Like

You DID NOT miss anything.
Perhaps ALL you missed was the quiet raising of a fist with a voting card attached.
And, YES, All Things ARE New!

1 Like

When I was about 12 I was on a hike and looked at the sun shining through the leaves of a plant and thought of the process of photosynthesis. At that point I decided that such a complex system and all the complex systems of nature didn’t seem to be chance to me, but the design by an incredible God and not a random accident.

From then on, I have never worried about what I don’t know. I don’t know the age of the earth. Or how God made it, or over what period of time. I have also never made any of those questions a determinant of my faith in Jesus.

As my youngest child says when she asks a question I don’t know the answer to “That’s a question for Jesus”. I’ll learn all about the age of the earth at the great resurrection and that’s just fine with me.


President Wilson is most uncomfortable with ambiguity; like a lawyer who goes through everything with a fine tooth comb looking for any stray wording that will not be clearly definitively.

It’s an old but very appropo cliche slightly paraphrased: Never look to closely at how sausages and church doctrines are formed What a farce and waste of time and money when everything was pre-planned and when Wilson rebuffed any but majority voting seeking the consensus he had planned to cap the church’s overwhelming approval of his re-election.

What a way to do “God’s Work”! Casting lots, even throwing dice would be more honorable. :confounded:

1 Like

But Ken Ham says his view is biblical, and surely no real Adventist would say that Ham was lying when speaking on this topic?

1 Like

The majority of delegates come from cultures where authority is almost revered and when Wilson has publicly stated his preference, like sheep they follow. Note his preference for majority or “consensus” voting that would solidify his standing with the majority. As a devout leader he is a born politician. :wink: