Why is the Bible, and not God, our First Core Belief?


(Spectrumbot) #1

I’ve attested somewhere before that one of my most treasured Adventist “possessions” is my membership in the small Sabbath School (SS) class I attend at Andrews University. It is composed mainly of current and retired Andrews faculty, but that belies its clout and other perks of membership. For example, both primary writers of the previous and current quarter’s Adult SS Study Guide have visited and taught our class. In addition, we have an outstanding group of regular teachers who bring a varying wealth of Adventist backgrounds and general Christian experiences to each teaching assignment, making our weekly encounters delightfully enlightening.

Among our regular teachers is Dr Harold Weiss, former Andrews seminary professor and current professor emeritus of Saint Mary’s College. In response to a question during his turn at our SS lectern early this quarter, he casually asked why the Bible, and not God, is our first Fundamental Belief (FB). That question surprised me because I had neither observed nor considered it before. While I had read these 28 statements many times in the past, I determined to carefully do so again. My aim was to discover what else I might have missed from previous readings.

The official introduction to the 28 FBs states that they are “organized into six categories – the doctrines of God, man, salvation, the church, the Christian life and last day events." This organizational framework, however, is difficult to discern on a first reading, which is all most readers do. Rather, what one infers readily is that those who assembled the original document might have envisioned a hierarchical structure based on presumed doctrinal rank.

A hint of this attempted ordering is especially noticeable in the first five statements concerning the Bible, Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. But the attempt appears to dead-end with the statement on the Holy Spirit. The arrangers probably began with the present five statements because they are the only group within the 28 that seem to share some organic relationship. Even here the bond between the Bible, on the one hand, and the four statements that follow it, is tenuous at best. The linkage is stronger between the Trinity and its manifestations, which might explain why the Trinity declaration was positioned ahead of its parts – Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

After my first unhurried reading, what impressed me particularly, albeit negatively, was the document’s length. Whether we blame my negative assessment on our contemporary much maligned short attention span, or on our elders' penchant to explain with a paragraph where a sentence could do, we still need to address the length “problem” if we desire an enhanced overall readership. Luckily, as I see it, this could be done adequately without sacrificing what we stand for. Since what is under discussion here is principally editing, the theologians and church administrators should beg off this assignment in favor of language teachers and editors who do this sort of thing for a living.

Clearly, these 28 faith proclamations do not have equal standing. Their importance is relative: while some bask in the sunlight, others are in the shadows. If we were compelled (no one would do so, but let’s pretend) to trim the 28 by half, some of our positions would easily make the cut, others not so easily. After all, inherent in a group’s desire to rank its belief set is an implicit recognition that the beliefs are valued variably.

So when we declare these 28 beliefs as our most distinctive, we don’t presume that this list is exhaustive, nor forever. They are important for us today, but another generation could see more immediate concerns from their experiences that might supplant some of what we have on our current list. In that case they might simply add to ours or jettison some to make room for theirs. There is precedent for this. Our beliefs have not always totaled 28. Historians point to an original informal four. Then in one fell swoop it grew to 22, and later to 27. For a while we stood at 27 until the experiences of fellow Adventists from other world fields suggested we should add another, on demonic powers, currently listed as number 11.

Thus we don’t hesitate to add, we only seem reluctant to subtract. If the world continues longer and we still engage in practices that experts warn are jeopardizing world viability, I can envisage later-generation Adventists decoupling the imperative in FB 21to steward the earth and its resources from the presently-included tithing emphasis.

But we can’t continue adding to our list without creating an even more bewildering document that would struggle to serve its communication purpose. If the future church decides to trim our current list, they would have two options available. One is by delisting on theological grounds. A second is to shrink by ridding the list of repetition. If they tried to reduce the total to our hypothetical 14, which should be eliminated, and why?

The first belief I would offer for delisting is FB 19 (The law of God / The Ten Commandments). I contend that dropping this belief would not negatively impact our identity. On the contrary, by removing it, we gain clarity about Christ's saving grace. There was a time in our past when the Ten Commandments defined us. Then, we believed incorrectly, the commandments are salvific and we came close to projecting perfect law keeping, not Christ or Calvary, as our central focus. After the law debates of 1888, and later the 1957 publication of Questions on Doctrine, that view justifiably lost prominence. We shifted away from the law’s saving power, but we still equivocate and argue that obedience to the law is what proves that our salvation endures.

We now concede that the entire body of laws – moral and ceremonial – serves the metaphorical role of schoolmaster pointing us to Christ. If so, FB 9, which deals with the Life, Death, and Resurrection of Christ, should be enough to make Christ ascendant in every aspect of salvation. That is why, even though the Ten Commandments have always been in our theological arsenal, we could retire FB 19 without compromising our identity or salvation.

But whenever the Ten Commandments’ salvific role is questioned the perennial red herring – license to sin – is trotted out. “If the commandments are no longer required for salvation,” a friend once asked, “what’s the incentive to do good?” This is almost like arguing that we should do what’s right because a statute tells us to, and without that compulsion we lose our moral compass. But, if we never had the Ten Commandments, would humans be amoral? In other words, are the Ten Commandments what makes us do good?

We Adventists have always maintained that, when we become Christians, our lives come under Christ’s influence. And in the language of Ellen White, (Review & Herald, Aug 13, 1901) as we “behold him,” we become changed. His ethic becomes ours and we don’t go out of our way to misbehave. But we will misbehave even when we are Christians because, in our own strength, the good we strive to do constantly eludes us. Paul’s anguished lament, “Oh wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me out of this body of death?” bears witness to this state. Our focused attention to obeying the law, even when we convince ourselves we’re not doing so to gain salvation, is what burdens us. His promise to give us rest includes rest from linking our behaviors to salvation. “My yoke is easy,” he promises, “and my burden is light.”

This can’t be emphasized enough. From the Christian viewpoint, salvation is solely through Jesus, never through Jesus plus – i.e. a little obedience to the law. God first rescued the Israelites out of Egypt and only then gave them the law. Similarly, he first saves us, unconditionally, before anything else. Whatever form that “anything else” takes, it should never compete with Christ’s atoning death on Calvary. Nothing else we do or don’t do can add to or subtract from the Cross. This is the argument we attempt to make in FB 22, Christian Behavior. When we make this argument well, we don’t need the crutches of the law. We lose too much by hanging on to it.

Now to the second option: shrinking the 28 by eliminating redundancies. In this respect, we have an opportunity to kill three “proverbial birds” with one stone, by rephrasing the Trinity statement. We don’t need four separate statements to display our Trinitarian credentials. Fundamental Belief 2 begins: “There is one God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, a unity of three coeternal Persons.” Our dependence on Augustine’s Trinity formulation is evident in this statement. So too is our adoption of the difficulty he created with his explication of the concept. After all, how does one explain how a unitary God is at the same time three separate Gods who have always existed; one being Father, the second, Son and the third, unembodied genderless Being? Then three sentences into the exposition of the identity and composition of the Triune God, the term Trinity is genderized and morphed into a “He.” This is where we should accede to the counsel in the same passage that the Trinity “is beyond human comprehension,” then accept that we don’t adequately understand the godhead and say no more.

Since we designate the Trinity as a singular “He,” we complicate matters by separating them into three different Gods in FB 3, 4 and 5. If we insist on maintaining this differentiation, we could do this under a unifying heading, save space and maybe even achieve a little more clarity. With these two maneuvers, elimination of FB #19 and inclusion of FB 3, 4 and 5 as subsidiaries of FB 2, our beliefs could be whittled down by a seventh to 24. That still leaves us 10 more than our targeted 14, so we have our work cut out for us. Our task now is to determine which of the remaining 24 should form part of the 14 and which should be retired?

The foregoing discussion has been a long detour from a consideration of Dr Weiss' original question: “Why is the Bible, and not God, our first core belief?” This is a serious question which deserves an earnest answer. The answer revolves around two words: inerrancy and infallibility, words we seem to have fallen in love with for the wrong reasons. These words will be the subject of a future essay that seeks to discover why we prize the Bible above God.

Matthew Quartey is a transplanted Ghanaian who now lives in and calls the Adventist ghetto of Berrien Springs, Michigan, home. Previous Spectrum columns by Matthew Quartey can be found at: http://spectrummagazine.org/author/matthew-quartey.

Image Credit: Adventist.org

We invite you to join our community through conversation by commenting below. We ask that you engage in courteous and respectful discourse. You can view our full commenting policy by clicking here.


This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at http://spectrummagazine.org/node/9500

(Patrick Travis) #2

Matthew,
I think you will later get there but in the meantime…There are many gods and saviors in the world. The Bible describes the Judaeo-Christian God. We don’t prize the Bible “above” God but view it as His communication to us through the Spirit that describes who He is and we are, the promises and what is expected of us the created. The words given are the faith that we have “faith in.”
Regards


(Sirje) #3

I grew to the age of 15/16 without the Bible - but not without God. This God came from my mom. She taught me the God who controls the world - He sends rain and sunshine; and watches over me and those I love. My awareness of God mimics the entire human experience with God. He first appears in our uncontrollable nature; and the things that happen to us.

At about the age of 9/10 I had thought about God, and declared to my mom that if there is a God, like she had told me, then shouldn’t we do something about it? I don’t know exactly what I meant, but it seemed to me that if we acknowledge God, we can’t just leave it at that. Doesn’t that require some sort of response?

I think the Bible is our response to the God who has made Himself known to each of us, perhaps in unique ways. There seems to be a commonality in human responses to God. We seem to feel unworthy in light of “there is a God”. We seem to have something to live up to. It depends on what culture we grow up in, that determines what our responses are. Growing up in a particular faith community dictates what our response needs to be. Ignoring everything mom and dad ever told you about God, how would we respond? The “4-22-27-28” are mom and dad on steroids.


(Thomas J Zwemer) #4

I still have the Bible of my baptism and my army days. The Psalms were my stay, John, Romans and Hebrews were my assurance. Daniel and his three friends were my example. My post war delights were Heppenstall, Maxwell, and Ford. Spectrum beats the Review and Ministry. in Georgia I have found Dr. Dan McCall Of Reid Memorial Church as a kin to Maxwell. So there as health permits we worship.


(Steve Mga) #5

As we read through the Bible [as the Babylonian captivity Jews and a little later
put it together] we find a progression of views about God. Of course in their
time there was “ONE GOD” and that One God had a “Spirit” that could
impact the world, and the humans living on the world in good ways.
The Old Testament is a combination of God talking to humans, and humans
talking to God, humans talking to other humans, and individual humans talking
to themselves. This is especially pronounced in the Psalms.
Much of what we call Scriptures are Really “Stories”. Stories allow for MANY
interpretations, MANY types of discussions, learning, and insights toward learning.
Toward becoming “mature” human beings.
The Old Testament did NOT have the SAME future expectations we who read the
“New Testament” have, such as “the 2nd coming” and all the “perils” that would
happen before it occurred.
They wanted to KNOW God through experience and relationship. As the Psalmist
says – Live in the Temple and meditate on God and KNOW God by experience.
Then he would be the happiest person on earth.
Much of the New Testament is commentary on the Old. Again calling for experience
and relationship, but this time with EACH of God – Father, “Son”, Holy Spirit as an
“individual”. And to be called to “become like God” with ALL the God attributes of
character. As revealed in the Old Testament, by Jesus as written down by 4 persons,
and the other writers in their letters as they explain the O.T. and the new relationship
with God – as being a PART of the Family of God.

The Bible [as a core belief] ALLOWS us to look in on all those named and un-named
personages in the Bible, and SHARE in their experiences of searching for the God
they felt and saw and heard in the world. And the reason for being on paper is so
that we might share in the MYSTERY they felt, experienced, and to pass this on
to others in 2019. 3000, 3500, 4000 years ago, and the Thrill is the same for us.


#6

Why not do away with the whole of the trinity deception and return to The GOD of The Bible? He’s there waiting for His people to do as the first angle cries out: Fear GOD! What a novel idea, use GOD’s Word to tell us who GOD is, who His Son is and who Their Holy Spirit is. It ain’t no trinity of ‘gods’ nor 3 in1 or 1 in 3.


(Ray Smith) #7

For some reason we so often seem to miss Paul’s alternative to living by letters written on tables of stone. The metaphor says so much more. We are “a letter of Christ (not law) written … with the Spirit of the Living God.” Law kills. The Spirit gives life.

We find this so well illustrated in the Sabbath School lesson dated March 15. How are we admonished to stand through the last great conflict? 1. By fortifying our minds with the truths of the Bible - doctrines. 2. By our obedience. The Pharisees in Christ’s day were obedient to the law, they searched the Scriptures, all to what end? They crucified Christ.

Christ and Christ alone will carry us through any conflict we face. It’s a living union with Christ that empowers us, saves us, gives us victory. Christ plus nothing is infinite power and righteousness.


(efcee) #8

Perhaps the authoring committee felt the need to predicate a discussion of God with an appeal to a definitive source used to affirm the attributes of that God. Whom we believe God to be - and whether we are inventing Him or He is inventing us - is the fundamental value of our belief in God.


(Patrick Travis) #9

Ray, I appreciate your words and visuals of Christ. Can we see it as both words and art (visible life of Christ) are important? Alone they lack clarity? What was the picture of Christ on the Cross? What did it mean? Why was it necessary? Words add to the visual. They are complimentary. Love is both felt and described by words in scripture.
Regards


(George Tichy) #10

I already told you that if I lived in Augusta I would probably go to Church with you on Sunday morning. And if you lived here in Riverside-CA we would go together to on of the SDA churches around here, on Saturday.


(Steve Mga) #11

Tex–
WHICH God are you referencing to??
Genesis 1 talks about and Names one God.
Genesis 2 talks about and Names a different God.


(Harry Allen) #12

Thanks, @PapaAfful.

As I posted on Twitter, excellent question.

To put it simply, one can believe in God without believing in the Bible. The reverse is not true.

However, regarding your commendable effort to edit the SDA Statement of Fundamental Beliefs—God needed ten laws; Adventists need 28—it seems a first question would be, "What is the purpose of such a statement?

For example, you refer to “its communication purpose.” But “communication” to whom, and for what end?

HA


(Steven Siciliano) #13

I believe the SDA statement of core beliefs begins with the bible because that is how most systematic theologies begin, with the doctrine of revelation. I suppose the underlying idea is to establish the reliability of our source of information about God before moving to a description of the God so revealed.


(Patrick Travis) #14

To put it simply, one can believe in God without believing in the Bible. The reverse is not true<<

One may believe in A god without the Bible. It just may not be the God described in the Bible. If that works for you that’s fine with me.


(Harry Allen) #15

Thanks, @1QOL.

I said:

To put it simply, one can believe in God without believing in the Bible. The reverse is not true.

You said:

In response:

Since you’ve not countered my second point—that one cannot believe in the Bible without believing in God—we’ll talk about my first: One can believe in God without believing in the Bible.

One may derive a belief in an all-powerful, morally good, creator of the universe from a considered philosophical study of the universe, especially if it is prompted and undergirded by the Holy Spirit.

See:

This God, though absent the detail provided through the resurrection of Christ, would be the God of the Bible.

So, you are, in part, correct: One may believe in A god without the Bible. It just may not be the God described in the Bible. However, I would add this clause to your statement:

But it may be the God of the Bible.

That is, one may derive a belief in the God of the Bible without the Bible. (Romans 1:19, 20)

HA


(Patrick Travis) #16

That is possible after all Abraham did it. There is a “if” that I appreciate also in your comment…“One may derive a belief in an all-powerful, morally good, creator of the universe from a considered philosophical study of the universe, especially “if” it is prompted and under-girded by the Holy Spirit.” Now that we have scripture we are able in the Christian Faith to evaluate what god or God one may be following as it relates to Christian understanding.
There indeed are other faiths and “other Gods.” They obviously don’t share the God of (OT implied) & NT scripture that states He has a Son Jesus the Christ.
Thanks & Regards


(Leroy Gillan) #17

Regardless of how the “authorized” Adventist leaders identify the 28 fundamentals, it IS a CREED! It became a creed the day the committee came up with it and put it on paper. And the way it reads, I am happy to say that, I AM NOT ONE OF THOSE!


(Harry Allen) #18

Thanks, @1QOL.

You said:

In response:

Yes. Those Gentiles in Romans 2:14 who became “a law unto themselves” are, so, prompted and under-girded, for example.

You said:

Yes. I would say that the life of Christ, and His miraculous resurrection from the dead—if true—separates Christians from those with “other gods.”

HA


#19

Early SDA people did not want a creed or any such nonsense. That was the pope and the catholic church. Making people swear to something, then kicking you out if you did not. We even make people raise their hands and swear to believe in the 28 “creed.” That’s nonsense. No convert in The Bible ever had to swear to anything… https://the-undercover-adventist.blogspot.com/2018/10/unity-sabbath-quarterly-is-adventist.html


(Peter) #20

Yes. Why a creed now (Yes, that’s what the 28 Fundamentals are!) when early Adventists strongly opposed such a thing?

The staff at my church were told this week that all denominational employees will soon be required to sign a document affirming their agreement with ALL of the 28 Fundamentals or lose their employment.

I fear for the future of Adventism!