New Moon Meeting: April 2007, 3:12 EST
The New Religion
Introduction
Zahakiel: Ok. Luke, please open the meeting with a prayer.
Qinael: Our most holy and
righteous Father,
We thank you for this New
Moon, for bringing us all safely to another monthly convocation, a time to reflect
on our experiences through the past month and how you have provided for us
during... We thank you for this
opportunity to search ourselves, and to garner more knowledge of your character
to apply to our own lives.
We ask that your Spirit open the minds and hearts of all both present and that will read this hereafter. In the name of Yahshua we pray, amen.
Rita: Amen.
Zahakiel: Amen.
Barbara: Amen.
Crystle: Amen.
Zahakiel: This month’s New Moon topic is designed to accomplish two purposes at once. First, it will become one of the appendices for The Highway of Holiness, the first volume of which we are hoping to use in conjunction with our lesson plan for the upcoming Feast of Unleavened Bread. Second, it will acquaint us as a Church with one of the key aspects of the upcoming trial and the differences that we hold apart from the mainstream body of Seventh-day Adventists that are taking us (collectively) into court before the worldly powers because of the things we believe. In addition, although this is not an “official” reason for the topic, the transcript of this study will provide an excellent resource to share with others regarding the difference between Creation Seventh Day Adventists and the General Conference organization of Seventh-day Adventists.
What we will do is go over the 1872 statement of Adventist beliefs and the current “28 Fundamentals” of modern Adventism, showing where they differ, and demonstrating why we are in complete agreement with the former and original Seventh-day Adventism. This study is actually an expansion of an email that I sent to pastor a few months ago, and my conclusion at that time was that the Seventh-day Adventism of today is a fundamentally different religion to that movement of which the pioneers were members. This was certainly not a new conclusion, but examining the beliefs in detail certainly underscores the loss of distinctive beliefs and – naturally – the loss of distinctive character amidst the sea of doctrines in Christendom.
Since this is potentially a lengthy study we will get right into it. The best way, I think, is to simply provide a list of both here, give you a few minutes to look them over, and then go into the comparison and examination one-by-one. The sources from which I have taken these two documents are http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/orc/fb1872.php for the 1872 beliefs, and http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html for the 28 Fundamentals.
Table of Statements
Zahakiel: Please note that in the table below, I have rearranged the more recent document to correspond as best I can with the order of thoughts in the 1872 statement. This will make a point-by-point comparison easier. Let me know when you’re ready to continue.
Barbara: Ready.
Happy Rock: Thanks.
Guerline: Ready.
Qinael: Done.
Pastor “Chick”: Finished.
Crystle: Finished.
Rita: Done.
Happy Rock: Done.
Link to Tables of Doctrine
Zahakiel: You may wish to keep the window with this table open as we speak, since I will be referring to it several times.
Increasing Light
Zahakiel: Before we begin our detailed examination, I would like to point out one of the main arguments I make in my forum post that responds to the SDA defense of the Trinity doctrine, since that is a good example. Some Adventist theologians like Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi and Dr. Woodrow Widden have acknowledged the historical fact that Adventists were originally non (and even anti) Trinitarian in their approach, but they say that this doctrine was rightly accepted in the process of time due to “increasing light.”
Creation Seventh Day Adventists are fully in favor of genuine progress in the development of Christian doctrine. Our acceptance of the Feast Days, our re-introduction of the Holy Kiss, our unique (in Adventism) observance of the New Moons and so on represent doctrinal growth based upon what we believe the Scriptures point out as distinguishing features of the last-day Church. It is interesting that in Christianity “progress” is actually defined as properly going back to the original doctrines that we, as Protestants, believe were lost or corrupted by the papal domination over Bible religion during the formative years of the Ecclesia. Since we believe that Yahweh is perfect in His words and deeds, and that Yahshua is the perfect representation of His character in human form, nothing can be added to – or subtracted from – true doctrine without doing damage to the religion of Christ. What we can, and must, do is adapt the true principles of faith to the day in which we are living, and this is the path that true Christian progress ought to ever have followed. This is the fundamental principle of conservatism.
What I point out in the post is that genuine progress in doctrine, or perhaps the genuine reclamation of legitimate doctrine, is a unidirectional process if the Holy Spirit is truly leading the way. For example, no conservative Adventist theologian will claim that the Holy Spirit was not leading the Adventist pioneers in the days they were coming to an understanding of the 2300-day prophecy, the investigative judgment and so on; but they will say that somehow they “missed” an acceptance of the Trinity while developing all these other distinctive doctrines. I myself find this to be a fantastic claim, particularly since Ellen White is on record saying “the personality of God […] is everything to us as a people.” [Ellen G. White: The Early Elmshaven Years, Volume 5 1900-1905, page 292, paragraph 4] The doctrines being developed by the pioneers were certainly pillars of the Advent faith, but not the sanctuary, not the investigative judgment, not any of those things was ever referred to as “everything” to us, since our entire purpose in the Great Controversy is to vindicate that very character, that very personality, before the universe.
Zahakiel: Increasing light, by its very name, is increasing; else it would be called “Fluctuating Light.” By definition the acceptance of the Trinity cannot be considered the result of increasing light, because those pioneers who spoke out against it came from a variety of religious backgrounds and churches, many of which knew and embraced this teaching. One would have to accept, in other words, that Spirit-led men and women rejected the Trinity, making an error on the central aspect of the Great Controversy, while simultaneously making great progress on more minor points of faith. Later on, we must continue to believe, Spirit-led men and women accepted the Trinity because they recognized the error of their Spirit-led predecessors. This is nonsense. The Holy Spirit is not some vague flare of inspiration that is so variable in its influence; the only time a Church goes back into erroneous doctrines is when there is apostasy, which is nowhere ascribed to the early Advent movement in those formative years.
The Holy Spirit is the very personality and presence of the Father and Son, the very creative essence that pulled all order from complete chaos. The Holy Spirit is that which breathed into the authors of the infallible Scriptures the light that they needed to set down an unerring record of the works of Yah. The pioneers did not make an error when they rejected the Trinity doctrine in favor of this understanding, and we do not make an error for rejecting it either – not because they did so, but for the same reasons they did so, because it is an unbiblical and potentially spiritually dangerous position to hold.
With this understanding of the “Increasing Light” argument in mind, supported by an example with which we should all be very familiar, let’s go into the doctrines of the two statements of belief to see if light has truly increased in Adventism since the year 1872. Keep in mind also that we are not going into the justification of our acceptance or rejection of these doctrines in any great detail; we have articles written on most if not all of these points, and if anyone would like further reading on any particular, I can provide a link to additional study for the Biblical foundation of these beliefs.
Zahakiel: Are there any questions so far?
Rita: None.
Pastor “Chick”: None here.
Qinael: I do not have any, no.
Crystle: No.
Guerline: None.
Happy Rock: No...
Article 1: God (The Father)
Zahakiel: Article 1 of 1872 corresponds to Article 3 of 2007, stating that there is one God who is the Creator and Ruler of His creation. We basically agree with both these corresponding articles, although interestingly enough we already see a subtle shift in focus. In 1872 we read that the Father is “everywhere present by his representative, the Holy Spirit.” In 2007 we are told, “The qualities and powers exhibited in the Son and the Holy Spirit are also revelations of the Father.” While this is not really wrong in its wording, we find that the person-hood of the Holy Spirit is already asserted as a Being (like the Son) in which the Father’s qualities and powers are manifest, rather than the representative of those powers.
Qinael: I notice another shift in #1 as well... when talking about the character of the Father, it now leaves out anything regarding justice and truth. Almost all of the exposition is about how loving and merciful He is. It lends towards their disposition of a “feel-good” evangelistic religion.
Zahakiel: Hm, that is a very good point, yes.
Pastor “Chick”: Amen.
Article 2: Jesus Christ (The Son)
Zahakiel: Article 2 of 1872 corresponds to Article 4 of 2007, stating that Jesus Christ is the Son of God the Father. We certainly agree with everything that is asserted in both statements of belief. I would point out, however, that there is a noticeable omission in the 2007 version. 1872 makes the statement that the atonement Yahshua offers was “far from being made on the cross, which was but the offering of the sacrifice.” This is a fairly significant doctrinal difference between those years. The cross was the event of the sacrifice that Yahshua offered on our behalf, but the atonement is a process, not an event, of making man “one” with the Father. This is what the very word means. The Scriptures do speak of atonement as something that we, as Christians, have already received, (Rom 5:11, 11:5) however this is in the same sense that we have already received eternal life. (John 10:28) By faith we “have” these things, yet we do not experience their reality until the return of Yahshua and the end of His ministration in the Heavenly Sanctuary.
If the atonement of man to God were already completed, the sins they had committed would already have been purged; yet we read, “Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; and He shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you, whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.” (Acts 3:19-21)
This is an issue we may look at in detail next New Moon, so we will merely state here that we are in agreement with the original belief that the Atonement continues throughout the period of probation, terminating only when sin and unrepentant sinners are finally destroyed in the Lake of Fire. Consider, basically, that the “Day of Atonement” ritual of Leviticus 16 involves not only the sacrifice of the Yahweh-goat for the nation’s sins, but also the cleansing of the sanctuary and the sending-away of the Azazel-goat. All of these steps were an integral part of that one important occasion.
Articles 2 & 5 of 2007 only: The Trinity and The
Holy Spirit
Zahakiel: We disagree with these articles, for which there are no corresponding statements in the 1872 document. The statement that God is “beyond human comprehension” is not by any means an invitation to engage in speculation about His nature. The fact that He is beyond comprehension does not make Him a Trinity any more than it makes Him correspond to any other theory or paradigm of human invention. As I have said in other places, just because we cannot say precisely what Yahweh IS like, we know enough to emphatically reject some concepts of what He is NOT like.
Let us take a look at the Scriptures used in the official 2007 statement of Adventist beliefs to support the Trinitarian position:
Deu 6:4, 1 Tim 1:17 – “Hear, O Israel: Yahweh our Elohim is one Yahweh.” “Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.” We certainly agree with these, and with the “one” aspect of the Godhead. What we do not accept is the Three in One aspect.
Mat 28:19 – “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” We accept what this verse says, but not what it is made to mean by modern Christianity. All we do is in the name (singular) of the Father, Son and Spirit, but this does not give them distinct names (plural), which represent characters in the language of this passage. Scripturally, we know that the Father and Son have specific names that represent their presence. (Pro 30:4, John 3:13, Isa 42:8, Mat 1:21) The Holy Spirit, on the other hand, is a holy Spirit – it has no name one may reference in the Bible; it has no personality apart from that of the Father and Son.
2Cor 13:14 – “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.” I think I dealt with this verse in one of my posts to the CSDA forum. I pointed out that the wording here is quite significant. Love and Grace, although they are often shared between two or more people, are also directed emotions. In other words, I may have love for an individual, and I may extend grace to an individual, but I cannot “commune” with an individual in a one-sided relationship. The word “communion” in that verse means intercourse, fellowship, intimacy; it is not something given from one to another, but something always shared. We receive grace from Christ, and love from Yahweh, but because we share one spirit, we have communion. In fact, the next verse on the list there points this out precisely:
Eph 4:4-6 – “There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.”
The Body of believers is all of one Spirit, and this is why we, the members thereof, are in communion. Neither 2 Corinthians nor Ephesians 4 serve to indicate that the Spirit is a personified agent who acts independently to provide communion to the saints. Paul there is simply praying that the believers continue to receive grace and love from the Father and Son, and continue in the fellowship that comes from the uniform experience of the Holy Spirit.
Rita: It says that he is Gods representative, not person.
Zahakiel: Right.
1 Peter 1:2 – “Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.” Here again we see the Father, Son and Spirit working in unison, and this is never a point we have contested. What we would point out is the connection that the Scriptures (and Adventist pioneers, as a result) have made between the Holy Spirit and the Person of the Son. As Rita just said, there is a distinction between a representative and a Person. For example, in 1 Peter we read that sanctification is of the Spirit (contrasted with the Father and Son) but we read in another place that “of Him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.” (1Cor 1:30) The Scriptures constantly assert the equivalence of Christ, who is the incarnation of the Godhead, (John 1:14, 1Tim 3:16) with the Holy Spirit, who is the omni-present representation of the Son. We have seen this verse before, speaking of Christ, “Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” (2Cor 3:17)
Zahakiel: Ellen White, of course, stated as much, writing, “It is by the Spirit that the heart is made pure. Through the Spirit the believer becomes a partaker of the divine nature. Christ has given His Spirit as a divine power to overcome all hereditary and cultivated tendencies to evil, and to impress His own character upon the church […] It is the privilege of every son and daughter of God to have the indwelling of the Spirit.” [Our High Calling, page 150, paragraph 3]
“Cumbered with humanity, Christ could not be in every place personally; therefore it was altogether for their advantage that He should leave them, go to His father, and send the Holy Spirit to be His successor on earth. The Holy Spirit is Himself, divested of the personality of humanity and independent thereof. He would represent Himself as present in all places by His Holy Spirit, as the Omnipresent.” [Manuscript Releases Volume Fourteen, page 23, paragraph 3, emphasis added] In this Mrs. White is merely agreeing with the various equations present in the Word of God.
Finally, Rev. 14:7 – “Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come. And worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.” This verse points out the sovereignty of the Godhead, but of course it does not address either the nature or number of Persons involved.
The verses of Article 5, which seek to portray the Holy Spirit as “God the Eternal Spirit,” an entirely alien term to the language of Scripture, are all (I believe) dealt with in the article “Where Two or Three are Gathered,” so we need not take more time with it here.
Are there any questions so far?
Crystle: I have none.
Qinael: No.
Rita: None.
Happy Rock: No.
Guerline: No.
Barbara: No.
Pastor “Chick”: No.
Article 3: The Holy Scriptures
Zahakiel: Article 3 of 1872 corresponds to Article 1 of 2007, describing the importance of the Scriptures. We agree with both of these, although I like the 1872 inclusion of the word “only;” i.e., “the only infallible rule of faith and practice.” This seems to emphasize the Protestant position of sola scriptura, “the Bible only,” when developing definitive teachings.
Article 4: Baptism
Zahakiel: Article 4 of 1872 corresponds to Article 15 of 2007, discussing the ordinance of baptism. We agree with these, but today would provide more emphasis than both on the idea that by this symbol we signify that we are dead to all known sins. We would stress the point that we are, upon being baptized, committed to a life lived free of past transgressions and putting away current ones as they are discovered, for “if any man be in Christ he is a new creature; old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” (2Cor 5:17)
This also provides the opportunity to bring up an important point. Simply because an article is present or absent in either of these documents does not necessarily indicate an error. For example, one of the articles in the 1872 list that we will see below mentions a specific error regarding the millennium that is absent in the 2007 list. This is not a problem with the more recent set of doctrines, for the millennium issue mentioned in the 1800s is not the primary issue keeping people from the acceptance of Adventism today. Articles of faith related to present issues and present truth will, understandably, receive more attention than others.
I bring this up because I wish to point out that saying “We would word this or that differently today” is not necessarily an indictment of either one or the other of the documents. It simply reflects the fact that the errors of mainstream Christendom have, in some cases, changed, and require a direct response in both the teachings and practices of those who have made the Bible their standard.
Article 5: The New Birth
Zahakiel: Article 5 of 1872 corresponds to Articles 10 and 11 of 2007, speaking about the conversion experience. The “entire change” wording of 1872 corresponds to their (and our) understanding of being born again into a victorious life, and we would probably expand on that. Again, though, it is understandable that this need not have been emphasized so much in the 1800s, since moral apostasy within Christian churches was not as pronounced as now.
Qinael: I think it’s worthwhile to note that in the 1872 they described it as being an entire conversion in two parts – the moral part taking place now. Modernly, although it hasn’t been said such in official writings, there is a “second moral change” preached. We become different people in heaven – we suddenly start obeying and stop sinning.
Zahakiel: Right. Very good.
Qinael: So either there are two moral changes, or no change occurs on earth at all and we are just some sort of cultists and followers rather than the born again children.
Zahakiel: The wording of the “Growing in Christ” section of the 2007 statement of beliefs is actually fairly good for the purpose of describing the walk of sanctification, but unfortunately the teaching that comes forth from this doctrine will focus on, “we are called to grow into the likeness of His character,” rather than we, like Christ who is our Example, “do always those things that please Him.” (John 8:29) It is true that we are “called” to grow into Christ’s character, but this is the case whether or not one is genuinely born again. Only those who are born again succeed in doing so, but the point we would stress is that they do, invariably, succeed.
Article 6: Prophecy
Zahakiel: Article 6 of 1872 corresponds to Article 18 of 2007, and is about the gift of prophecy. We agree with both these articles, and I don’t think we would need to add anything to either of them, except that we might wish to indicate its conditional nature (e.g., Jonah 3:4, Ezek 38:18 – fulfilled for New Jerusalem in Rev 20:8) when speaking of fulfillments and applications.
Understandably, Ellen White is mentioned in the 2007 version, but not the 1872 version when she was still alive.
I can think of two good reasons for this. First, her body of work was not yet completed, so her full contribution was not realized until the 1900s. Second, I believe Mrs. White would have objected to the placement of her name in an official statement of beliefs that is to be used as a test of fellowship. Regardless of how consistently useful an individual’s prophetic gift may be, the focus of the Church must be on the Person of Christ and Him only.
Rita: Amen.
Pastor “Chick”: The 1872 statements were never used as “tests” – only to give those outside of Adventism some clarity on beliefs held in common. The long introduction makes that clear.
Zahakiel: Right. That is another fundamental difference between the documents as a whole.
Qinael: In the 2007, you notice they limit the gift of prophecy almost wholly to Ellen G. White. There is no mention of any of what the 1872 statement talked about regarding the value of the gift of prophecy beyond the scope of her ministry. They speak about it for a time and then say “As manifested in the ministry of Ellen G. White” Essentially, prophecy is cut off after her ministry; she was the fulfillment of it. In 1872, it was simply the gift of prophecy - it came through her at that time, thats true.
Zahakiel: Quite right… while we would not object to the main sentiment expressed in Article 18 of the 2007 statement of beliefs, were we to make something similar for the CSDA Church today, I would wish to include only a general statement about the continuing gift of prophecy in the Body, and an adherence to the principles that are revealed by any member who has light from Heaven.
Article 7: The History of The World
Zahakiel: Article 7 of 1872 roughly corresponds to Article 8 of 2007, which is about the Great Controversy. We would agree with the contents of both these sections.
Qinael: I may be missing it, and let me know if so, but I don’t see anywhere in the 2007 list that it mentions the history of the world in any capacity being shown in prophecy... The only passing mention I see made is to 2300 days when talking about Christ in the sanctuary. I would imagine the reason is that if you teach this, you have to go with the full flow of it, and what the little horn represents. I think there’s a complete omission of one that has to do with the papacy later on, too.
Zahakiel: Well, they do have the traditional interpretation of the horn…
Qinael: Do they still teach that? I know Amazing Facts does, as a sort of “related ministry,” but I don’t know if the Conference itself still teaches prophecy?
Zahakiel: On paper, yes... but I will get to that in the appropriate section in more detail.
Qinael: Ah, okay.
Article 8: The Timing of The Millennium
Zahakiel: Article 8 of 1872 is the one I mentioned above that does not really correspond to anything in the 2007 list, although it does bear similarities with Article 27 of 2007 (and Article 24 of 1872). We do agree with it, and I find that it is a useful statement to have, considering that errors about last day events such as the temporal millennium and the Pre-Tribulation Rapture have only increased with time and the popularity of the Left Behind series and other similar works.
I wrote three articles some time ago dealing with the Pre-Tribulation Rapture doctrine that may be of use:
Articles 9 & 10: 2300 Days and The Sanctuary
Zahakiel: Articles 9 and 10 of 1872 correspond to Article 24 of 2007, and deal with the 2300 days prophecy terminating in 1844 and the subsequent Sanctuary-based ministry of the Messiah. We agree with all the content of these three articles.
On the other hand, although it is not explicitly stated in the list of beliefs, the 2007 statement does provide more insight into the shift that occurred regarding the way in which the Atonement is viewed. For example, we read from Article 24 of 2007, “Christ ministers on our behalf, making available to believers the benefits of His atoning sacrifice offered once for all on the cross.” This is true, but only if we remember that simply because the sacrifice was “offered once and for all on the cross” does not mean that the atonement process was thereby brought to an end.
Some Adventists today have accepted the Evangelical position that this is just what has happened. They will say, “The atonement is ended; it concluded at the cross, and now Christ is simply applying His blood (the vehicle of the atonement) to new believers as they are converted, and to established believers as they repent of their sins.” This is not the full picture, as we will see next month.
And finally, regarding these corresponding articles, Creation Seventh Day Adventists would include our belief that the final phase of the Investigative Judgment, which involves those currently living on the earth, began in 1988.
Article 11: The Law
Zahakiel: Article 11 of 1872 corresponds to Article 19 of 2007, and is about the Law of God. We definitely agree with the concept presented in both, for it is a cornerstone of faith for any group that even claims to be identified in Revelation 12:17 and 14:12.
Article 12: The Sabbath
Zahakiel: Article 12 of 1872 corresponds to Article 20 of 2007, and this one is about the 7th day Sabbath. We agree firmly with the wording of both these articles, and I like the 2007’s wording here regarding “joyful observance,” as opposed to a focus on “sacred religious duties,” although both are certainly true. This is, I think, a necessary emphasis for today’s powerful bias against anything that can even possibly be misrepresented as “legalism.”
Any questions so far?
Barbara: No.
Qinael: No.
Guerline: No.
Pastor “Chick”: No.
Rita: None.
Happy Rock: No.
Crystle: None here.
Article 13: The Man of Sin
Zahakiel: Article 13 of 1872, as Luke pointed out, corresponds to nothing in the 2007 statement of beliefs. This, to me, is perfectly understandable. The protest of the papal power described in this article was one of the distinguishing features of the Protestant Reformation, and Satan himself has seen to it that in Christendom there has been a gradual weakening of this doctrinal position. Today, ecumenism, joining hands with various religious groups, is the order of the day, and the high moral and uncompromising Scriptural characteristics of the churches have, to a great degree, been thereby lost.
We perfectly agree with this article from 1872, and would further state that the “reform” prophesied to attend the keeping of the 4th commandment is not by any means limited to just the letter of the law. The spirit of the Sabbath must be fully understood by all who will enter into New Jerusalem, and it is here that we see a wide divergence of character between the original and modern Adventist Churches. While the pioneers strongly taught against the use of civil and worldly force to defend spiritual organizations and divine concepts, the modern Adventist Church has certainly lost this distinction from the papal office.
Pastor “Chick”: I think in an updated version, we’d add specifics on the “image of the beast” as well. It may be a separate article, though one that dealt with [both this and] “The Beast and His Image” might suffice.
Zahakiel: Yes, we would need to point that out very clearly. <nods.>
Articles 14 & 15: The Natural Man
Zahakiel: Articles 14 and 15 of 1872 correspond to Article 7 of 2007, and speak about the nature of man, before and after the fall. 2007 gives a bit of background, while the articles of 1872 simply describe the present conditions. We would be in agreement with all that is stated in these, and both sets of beliefs correctly stress (as do we) the “dependence” of the believer upon Christ for all that we are and can do.
Article 16: Spiritual Gifts
Zahakiel: Article 16 of 1872 corresponds to Article 17 of 2007, which is about spiritual gifts in the Church. I believe we agree with what is stated in the 1872 version, although the wording is a bit confusing to me. For example, “these gifts are not designed to supercede, or take the place of, the Bible, which is sufficient to make us wise unto salvation, and more than the Bible can take the place of the Holy Spirit; that in specifying the various channels of its operation, that the Spirit has simply made provision for its own existence, and presence with the people of God to the end of time…” and it goes on. What I think this is saying is that the Holy Spirit makes its presence with the people of Yahweh manifest in every age by means of these gifts. If that were the case we wouldn’t have any problems affirming that, but read it over and let me know if any of you have a different understanding of that sentence. Are there any comments about that article?
Rita: I agree with your conclusion.
Crystle: No comments here.
Happy Rock: No.
Guerline: No.
Qinael: I understand it all but the part that says “more than the bible can take the place of the Holy Spirit”...
Rita: But, how can the Spirit make provision for its own existance if it is but a representative of the Godhead?
Qinael: The Spirit, through the agency of the writers of Scripture, made provision in writing for later manifestations of itself. The Spirit inspired Paul to tell people what the Spirit would inspire others to do later on so you would know it was the same Spirit.
Zahakiel: That’s the best I can figure it means. <nods.> That the continuance of the gifts is evidence of the same Spirit from beginning to end.
Rita: My thought was : Why would it be concerned about itself?
Zahakiel: The Spirit must testify properly, for that is its purpose. The article on the Trinity I mentioned deals with actions ascribed to the Spirit that appear to indicate “choices.”
Pastor “Chick”: The correct wording is... “any more than the Bible can take the place of the Holy Spirit;...”
Zahakiel: Oh… was there an error in the source, then?
Pastor “Chick”: Yes, there was an error.
Qinael: Ah. That makes sense then.
Zahakiel: Ok. I will fix that in the table. Thanks :)
Qinael: So it’s saying neither can take the place of the other since they are both from the same source.
Pastor “Chick”: Correct.
Zahakiel: Ok, good.
[Note: the table at the link above contains the corrected version.]
Articles 17 & 18: The Church & The Three Angels’
Message
Zahakiel: Articles 17 and18 of 1872 appear to correspond to Articles 12 and 13 of 2007, with similarities with Article 14 of the more recent list. We would agree with all that is written in these four articles, although I am not sure I would see fit to include something from Article 13 of 2007, which begins, “The universal church is composed of all who truly believe in Christ, but in the last days, a time of widespread apostasy, a remnant has been called out to keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus.” Whereas there is nothing fundamentally in error about the principles behind this statement, because we do believe that there are faithful individuals in every major church, the wording is a little off. The word “Church” itself implies being called out and gathered, therefore we would not really say that the believers in other religions constitute a “universal church.” This is more of that ecumenism we have been warned about.
Pastor “Chick”: This wording is surely indicative of their tendency to “hide” or “deny” their “remnant church” (exclusive) status. Of course, they have no “rights” to it since their apostasy.
Zahakiel: Yes, exactly. <nods.>
Our job as the Remnant people is to find the believers in the darkened halls of those traditions that have never truly recovered from Romanism and to bring them TO the Church that is at once “universal” because it is worldwide, and visible because “A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.” (Mat 5:14)
It is not reasonable to say, “I am sure there are believers everywhere, but we just don’t know who they are.” No, this is not what Christ taught. He tells us, “every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes.” (Luke 6:44) When Peter found Cornelius, he recognized that the same Spirit present at Pentecost was present in that Gentile household. When Philip met the eunuch from Ethiopia, he knew that water was all that was required for the birth of a new Christian. For some people, “Church” is a mysterious concept, vague, segmented, and even secretive. Some have made it so for their own agendas. But Christ describes His people as an army, as a united camp of believers who all bear His faith, and have His testimony, and all openly declare their identity in Him.
We would also, of course, tread lightly with the statement in Article 14 of 2007, which, when speaking of the unity of the believers, says, “This unity has its source in the oneness of the triune God, who has adopted us as His children.” As pastor effectively pointed out in a recent letter to Russell Standish, however, “We are told, ‘God said to His Son, “Let us make man in our image.” […] This sinless pair wore no artificial garments.’ [SR 20, 21] ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.’ (Gen. 1:26) ‘So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him [one man]; male and female created He them [the sinless pair].’ (Gen. 1:27) Dear Brother, this is the Biblical formula for understanding God’s personhood. It is so simple that the children can understand.”
Zahakiel: Essentially, we would remove the phrase “the triune,” and then the article would be fine. It is worth repeating, of course, that we have no issue with the idea that the Godhead consists of three elements, a trio of figures, these being Father, Son and Holy Spirit. But the expression “triune” is used today primarily as a reference to the Trinitarian doctrine that makes of the Spirit a co-equal, co-eternal, independently existing member, an idea not taught in the Word of God or primitive Adventism.
Although we have often used the covenant of marriage – the union of husband and wife, and the union of Christ and the Church – to represent the Godhead in accordance with various statements from Paul’s epistles (e.g., 1Cor 11:3, Eph 5:22-32) something about the wording in that letter struck me very forcefully. Maybe it’s the fact that it is revealed right there in Genesis, or maybe it is because of Mrs. White’s phrasing, (i.e., the “sinless pair”) but I found that simple explanation very profound. For this reason I have included mention of it here, although we have already looked at the Trinity issue a little when examining the earlier articles of faith.
On another topic relating to these… in accordance with present truth, we would also include information about the 4th Gospel Angel, which is absent from both sets of doctrines. Again, this was not an issue in the 1800s, nor was the unity of the Church, really, in those early days. On that basis, therefore, the 1872 statements are understandably lacking a specification about unity of the brethren, (we don’t write much today about the need for doctrinal unity among CSDAs) and both churches are lacking information about the 4th angel – although only one of them has an excuse for this latter omission.
Articles 19 & 20: Death and Resurrection
Zahakiel: Articles 19 and 20 of 1872 correspond to Article 26 of 2007, and are concerned with the state of the dead and the bodily resurrections. Both sets of statements are brief and to the point, and this is one pillar of Adventism that is not likely to be shaken, at least not in the letter. We would find no issue with either document on this matter.
Articles 21, 22, 23 & 24: The Second Advent
Zahakiel: Articles 21 – 24 of 1872 all correspond to Articles 25 and 27 of 2007, and are about the second advent of Christ, and the events surrounding this return. This includes more information about the resurrections, and also the final destruction of Satan, his angels, and unrepentant sinners in the lake of fire. These articles also deal with the events of the Millennium, as opposed to the timing, which is covered in 1872’s Article 8. As these articles are mostly straight-from-the-verse teachings of Adventism, we would find nothing here with which to disagree.
Article 25: The New Creation
Zahakiel: Article 25 of 1872 corresponds to Article 28 of 2007, and like the articles above they contain fairly standard, straightforward Adventist doctrine, and nothing with which we would have any issues.
Are there any questions so far?
Qinael: No.
Pastor “Chick”: None.
Happy Rock: No.
Guerline: No.
Rita: None.
Zahakiel: Now as we draw near the end, there are a few unique statements from the 2007 set of beliefs that we can touch on briefly. Articles 2 and 5 of the latter list would also have been included here, except that they do deal with the nature of the Godhead, which is dealt with early on in both documents.
Article 6 of 2007: The Original Creation
Zahakiel: It is encouraging to see an affirmation of the Biblical view of the earth’s history here. Like the matter of Church unity, this was hardly the issue in the 1800s as it is today. There is no statement in the former set of beliefs about the literal interpretation of Genesis 1 – 11 for the same reason that we do not have an “official teaching” today that the book of Revelation contains prophecies about the end of the world. Just about everyone in Christendom accepts this; therefore, there is nothing “distinctive” about it that it should be mentioned.
Now, while I am “encouraged” to see this in the statement of beliefs, I have read that the actual acceptance of this doctrine falls short of the ideal. Many within Adventism have accepted the various compromised positions with currently accepted theories of geology, biology and so on. Although Ellen White was one of the very first voices (male or female) raised in protest against the new ideas coming to the front in her day about the earth being far older than Scripture would indicate, those who have continued to hold responsible positions in the Adventist Church have not been nearly so courageous in their treatment of this idea. Creation Seventh Day Adventists, of course, have no such hesitancy in their proclamation that the Almighty One, who set all things in place, and through whom all things continue to subsist, was willing and able to tell us precisely how He did it.
Article 9 of 2007: The Life, Death, and Resurrection
of Christ
Zahakiel: We agree with this article, although we would certainly reword this sentence, “The resurrection of Christ proclaims God’s triumph over the forces of evil, and for those who accept the atonement assures their final victory over sin and death.” The word “final” does not belong there.
Article 16 of 2007: The Lord’s Supper
Zahakiel: Now, we actually disagree with this one. The first part is fine, but the last sentence is where it falls short of Christian doctrine: “The communion service is open to all believing Christians.” Here again is the ecumenical spirit. When the Messiah gave this most important, most intimate doctrine, “He said unto them, ‘With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer.’” (Luke 22:15) That word, “desire,” is the same word used (perhaps misleadingly) for “lust” and so on. It is a powerful affinity that was never to be opened to the public, the unbelieving or the disobedient. Although Yahshua had many followers, with varying degrees of zeal for His message and mission, the Last Supper was shared only with those who were His closest companions.
Qinael: I thought I remembered Ellen White saying something in Desire of Ages about Yahshua’s inclusion of Judas forbade us to be exclusive at the last supper?
Zahakiel: Judas was proclaiming the same faith as the apostles. We are not to pass judgment on individuals who wish to participate for no other reason than we suspect them of something, or even know something of them. But look at the guest list :) It was “exclusive” to those who claimed the true faith AS those gathered there understood it.
Qinael: Ah, okay.
Zahakiel: Now that being said, the closed nature of CSDA communions is not an attempt to pass condemnation on those who may truly believe, but not yet be baptized. Indeed, Yahshua spoke well at times of individuals who were not yet “with” Him, yet doing His work; (Mark 9:38-41) but He did not invite them to participate in the communion service with Him either. Few realize the sacred nature of this token of the Master’s love and tender care for His Bride; few understand its deep intimacy.
Pastor “Chick”: An engaged pair may share the depth of love that a married pair share (in principle)... BUT, they do not share the “intercourse of marriage.”
Zahakiel: Right, exactly. So there is a clear distinction between those claiming the same faith but not yet baptized, and those who claim an entirely different set of beliefs, though still under the umbrella of “Christianity.”
Pastor “Chick”: There is propriety in the observation of the ordinances.
Zahakiel: Yes, and in making it open to individuals of other traditions, sometimes even of other faiths, as long as they claim to belong to the “invisible, mystical Body,” the mainstream Seventh-day Adventist Church lost their distinctive character for fear of criticism, or because of what they may believe to be the noble pursuit of unity.
A compromised people cannot truly teach that “few” will find the way to eternal life, because in the very declaring of such a thing they pass judgment on themselves by way of comparison to those whom they know to be better than they. In maintaining our position that the communion ceremony is only for those who are baptized into the united Body of Christ, we do nothing but follow the example of the Master before us. Naturally, this places us in stark contrast with those who are not of His Spirit, and no longer sympathetic to His interests.
Are there any questions on this matter?
Rita: None.
Pastor “Chick”: No.
Happy Rock: None.
Crystle: None here.
Guerline: No.
Barbara: No.
Article 21 of 2007: Stewardship
Zahakiel: We agree with what is written in Article 21, which is about stewardship. In fact, we take it far more seriously than the mainstream Church. While they will claim that “returning tithes and giving offerings” is the duty of every Christian, and this is in the very statement of beliefs, this issue is never (to my knowledge) raised as a matter for maintaining continued fellowship. The Scripture is clear, and even quoted in the document, that withholding tithes and offerings (yes, offerings are also included, not merely the 10%) is robbery toward God. (Mal 3:8) It is not that the Almighty or His Church needs money; but those who feel no conviction to contribute, even sacrificially so, to the soul-winning work of spreading the Gospel demonstrate the worst kind of alienation and hostility toward the aims of the Father and Son.
It is the carnal mind that thinks of objections to this doctrine. It is the worldly mind that seeks reasons to avoid this act, which is a faith-revealing duty and privilege. Notice the wording of the Scripture, “For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” (Luke 12:34) It does not say “Where your heart is, there will your treasure be also.” No, we need not wait for a “good feeling,” or to be particularly interested in the precise movements of the Body in that moment, to do the work we are commissioned to do, or support those who do it. We place our treasure on the side of Christ, and then our heart will be there also, for love is a principle, an active principle, not an emotion that may seek to drive us one moment and hinder us the next. The Remnant Church holds tithing to be precisely what the Scripture declares it to be, a mark of our sympathy for the lost and dying, a revelation of our servant’s spirit that comes through unity with Christ. It is, for us, an obvious test of fellowship for membership in the visible Church, for “if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His.” (Rom 8:9)
Article 22 of 2007: Christian Behavior
Zahakiel: We agree with all that is in Article 22, and only wish that the mainstream Church actually performed the specifics indicated for Christian behavior. Indeed, if the members of the General Conference organization had committed themselves to “only in those things which will produce Christlike purity, health, and joy in [their] lives,” and pledged to “engage in whatever brings our thoughts and bodies into the discipline of Christ, who desires our wholesomeness, joy, and goodness,” not a single lawsuit would ever have been filed against another group of Adventist people. The day-to-day practices are all well and good, and should certainly be done as the article indicates, but they “have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith; these [daily things] ought [they] to have done, and not to leave the other undone.” (Matthew 23:23)
It is a strange, cold religion that looks down on smokers and drinkers while putting men who claim to be worshipping the same God as they, and adoring the same Jesus as they, behind metal bars where their health, safety and very lives are at as great a risk as anything that may be found in a liquor bottle or a packet of cigarettes. The true Christian does not do it, and does not passively allow it to be done on his behalf, without raising the most vigorous of outraged protests.
Rita: Could it be that the reason they have/are doing that is as Luke stated? They have not identified with Judgement as an aspect of God’s character?
Zahakiel: The lawsuits?
Rita: Not behaving as their beliefs state them to be, neglecting to judge themselves. Yes, the lawsuits.
Zahakiel: That us probably a significant aspect of it, yes.
Article 23 of 2007: Marriage and The Family
Zahakiel: We agree with what is written in the 2007 statement of beliefs regarding marriage and the family. There are no problems with this article.
Are there any questions at this point?
Happy Rock: No.
Guerline: No.
Crystle: None.
Pastor “Chick”: None.
Barbara: None.
Conclusion
Zahakiel: In conclusion, we find that the Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church favors the wording of the 1872 statement of beliefs in most of the Articles compared in this study. Now it is not enough for that reason alone to reject the 2007 list, because we do not wish be to among those that “watch for iniquity […] that make a man an offender for a word.” (Isa 29:20, 21) It takes more, as I mentioned above, than simply saying, “We would not word it quite that way” to declare a doctrinal difference. However, wording is far from the only problem. We find that there are indeed not only changes of emphasis, but also changes of some very core beliefs about the Godhead and our relationship to the Creator that we cannot in good conscience accept. The matters of the Trinity, the Atonement, the Holy Spirit, the way in which the Communion ceremony is executed, the truth about the “new Creation” that gives us immediate, not only “final” victory over sin… These are too big to simply be ignored for the sake of a kind of unity.
Although not explicitly stated, the “Christian behavior” section would certainly forbid using state powers to defend what one believes to be divine interests, and for all the lofty goals set by the other articles of faith, “Force is the last resort of every false religion.” [The Signs of the Times, May 6, 1897, paragraph 16]
The CSDA understanding of the faith of Yahshua has continued to grow. Acceptance of the names by which the Father and Son have asked humanity to call Them, the annual feasts provided for our instruction, the New Moons and so on… these are all signs of an increase in spiritual light. But at the same time, there is not a single element of the original, true Adventism that we have repudiated or rejected to the slightest degree. Looking at the lists of doctrines, and the changes that have taken place over the course of the last century, this is not a claim that the modern Seventh-day Adventist church can make without changing the very definition of who an “Adventist” is, and what he or she believes.
Are there any questions about any of this before we close with prayer?
Rita: No.
Guerline: No.
Qinael: No.
Pastor “Chick”: No.
Happy Rock: No.
Barbara: No.
Crystle: None.
Zahakiel: Ok. Pastor, please offer the closing prayer.
Pastor “Chick”: Dear Father in Heaven,
We are blessed to know you and your only begotten Son. We thank you for your Holy Spirit’s work in our lives. We are blessed to know that our pioneer SDAs were led of the same Spirit.
Thank you for giving us a solid foundation of truth. May we progress in the advancing light according to Your will, for we pray in the holy name of YAHshua, our Savior, AMEN.
Zahakiel: Amen.
Qinael: Amen.
Rita: Amen.
Guerline: Amen.
Crystle: Amen.
Barbara: Amen.
Happy Rock: Amen.
Further Reading
- SDA/CSDA Questions
- The Victorious Life
- The Two Pauls
- Creation vs. Evolution
- Common Objections to The Victory
- Where Two or Three Are Gathered
- Adventist Pioneers on The Trinity Doctrine
- Into The Storehouse
- Overview of The Feasts
- The Fullness of Time
- The Cycle of The Moon
- SDA Trademark Alert
- The Mark of The Beast
- On The Sunday Law
- The Mark in Prophecy
- All Manner of Beasts
- The Banner of Our Faith
- Church Membership
- Ordering Additional Material
