... being a recent creationist?

Since our baptismal vows do not require one to be a recent creationist, I would say one can be an Adventist and be a recent creationist.

However since many of our mainstream Adventist ministries like Voice of Prophecy, It Is Written, SafeTV, Amazing Facts, Hope Channel and Geoscience Research Institute are incorporating creation science into evangelistic efforts, any Adventist that is not a young-earth creationist may want to avoid trying to proselytize others in the church to their own theology.

When an old-age creationist does come into the church and try to expound on his or her method of reading the Bible, he or she should not be surprised at all when others in the church are not receptive. It is like an Adventist going into a Sunday-keeping church and preaching on the Sabbath, going into a Catholic church and revealing the pope as the little horn of Daniel 7 or going into a Jewish synagogue and proclaiming Jesus to be the suffering Servant of Isaiah 53. I wouldn't advise anyone to do any of those things.

So basically what you're saying is that they can get in under a technicality but they're not really welcome?

Well, I don't think their views on an ancient-creation or death before Adam are welcome. But that is not to say they are not welcome as individuals. People have a lot to offer besides their beliefs on origins. Theistic evolutionists sing just as well in the choir. They can sing at nursing homes. They can teach Pathfinders how to tie knots and make camp fires. They can teach Sabbath School and organize food drives. They can go into jails and prisons with the gospel. And the list goes on and on. Simply because they do not accept the creation account from a literal Biblical reading doesn't mean there is no place for them in the church.

I will give an example of a belief I hold which is different from Adventism. I do not believe wearing jewelry is forbidden by the Bible. This is not one of the baptismal vows either. Now I don't push the issue with any of the Adventist churches I attend. If I am asked about it I explain my position. I do not ever take up the issue when preaching from the pulpit or teaching Sabbath school. I think to do so would be betraying the trust of those that ask me to fill such a position.

???



OG

This is a very good position to take. I appreciate it. Unfortunately .... I've witnessed hard nosed ... in your face people who do not share your method.

I'd say the answer is yes, without having a clearly formed opinion as to how it all works. There are, in fact, Seventh-day Adventists who are not recent creationists.

So perhaps a different question might be "How can one be a Seventh-day Adventist and not believe in recent creation?" or "How can one be a Seventh-day Adventist and believe that evolution is true?" These are real questions that real people have, and if they can't talk about them within the Seventh-day Adventist Church, they'll certainly talk about them elsewhere.

Sola scriptura might be a great principle, but we're still left with humans doing the real work of interpreting the Bible. And I definitely mean to suggest that there are ways of reading the creation stories of the Bible other than literally.

For more than one reason, it would be personally inappropriate for me to talk about my evolving views within my local church. That's one of the reasons I'm here. And there, too.

Guess I'd better brush up on my knot-tying skills.

<ot>And Shane? If it were up to me, I would institute a five-year church-wide moratorium on the jewelry issue--no one gets to talk about it, write about it, keep members out of leadership because of it, otherwise discriminate on the basis of it. But I'm not the GC president yet--and never will be, for at least one obvious reason.</ot>

First, I like you as a person Bravus. I enjoy talking with you on here. You seem to be a pleasant person.

As to creation, the official church understanding differs from yours (rather widely, I'd say).

If I joined the Amish and insisted on driving a Volvo, only four choices would be available to me.

1) Go somewhere where they drive Volvos (or minivans etc..). Noble choice.
2) Pick & choose cafeteria style among the doctrines of the Amish and hide the Volvo under a haystack in the barn. Leads to hypocrisy.
3) Lobby for the church to accept my position as equally valid as theirs. (postmodern response). This requires me to live in rebellion to the church whether quiet or loud rebellion).
4) Give up the volvo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (noble choice).

All the best,


olger

Choice #5 Become a Mennonite

It's a difficult situation, then. If I believe the SDA denomination is right on the Sabbath and on all their other doctrines, but wrong on origins (or at least, am not prepared to state strongly that they are right on origins - agnostic, remember?) then I'm not welcome in the SDA denomination (or should shut up, keep my head down and stay out of leadership positions, at least), but don't really have any other denominational home. Is the noble action to stop going to church?

Bravus: There are many fine scholars who accept the Bible portrayal of a < 10,000 year earth. Dr. John Baldwin; Dr. Michael Hasel to cite a few.

It sounds like secular education (and that's what it is) has distanced you from the faith of your fathers (or your church). Is your position dynamic or static?

I think you knew that the pivot point of decision would come someday, and that can be a good thing. What would happen if you chose to accept the Bible premise on faith? What changes would result in your life and those closest to you?


olger

But see, this is my problem: I do not accept that it *is* the Bible position. I want to try to be clear on this: while many here believe that there is only one possible way to interpret the Biblical account, many, many sincere Christian theologians, working 'sola scriptura' only on the Biblical texts, have come to a different conclusion.

I *do not* see my position (if it can even be called a position) as a rebellion against scripture or God, but as an honest and on-going quest to understand.

To answer your question, if I were to accept a particular, church-approved interpretation of scripture over my own study of scripture, then I would have moved out of sola scriptura and into the realm where only the Church has the authority to correctly interpret scripture. I'll leave as an exercise for the reader - with the tuition of history - what the consequences of that move would be for me and those around me.

Is your main difference, then, the length of time the earth has existed and not the idea of special creation itself? Or do you also believe that all life evolved from simpler forms?

The Bible is not ambivalent on the issue, and sends a weekly reminder of it's cetainty.

regards,


oG

I don't want to personalize this to Bravus because I believe there are many like him and probably some of them are reading this thread or will read it in the weeks, months, years to come.

I am very sympathetic to the position being discussed here because we are only in control to a certain extent of what we believe. Various people can see the same evidence or hear the same sermon and walk away with different convictions. It is not as if Bravus (or anyone else) can change their conviction about something simply by an act of their will.

I don't think we need to keep theistic evolutionists out of leadership as long as they are willing to serve without using their church position to push the views of theistic evolution. In my church I am a deacon and director of men's ministry. I cannot use either of those positions of trust to advance my ideas about jewelry in good conscience. I expect a theistic evolutionist would be able to serve in the same capacity.

The Adventist church isn't like other denominations in that we are a movement. We hold the same role as John the Baptist did. We are preparing the way for the Lord. Creation is part of our message. The first angel declares, "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 is almost word for word the same as we find inscribed in the Fourth Commandment. "For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." Modern-day creation science has its roots in Adventism so the link of a literal six-day creation and the Adventist church is not something that is minor and insignificant.

I have never seen anyone that claimed to believe in Sola Scriptura offer another explanation for creation than a literal creation week 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. The only debatable issues I have seen among those claiming to believe in Sola Scriptura is if there is life on other planets and when the stars were created.

If there is another way to understand the creation account, using the original language and other Bible texts, I am more than interested in seeing that. All the theistic evolutionists I have spoken to or read claim that nature is God's second book and must be used to interpret the Bible. Thus they go outside the 66 books of the Bible in order to interpret the Bible.

Which is the church's official position, then? That the universe as a whole was created 14 billion years ago (or at some indeterminate time much further past) and this earth and life on it was created 6000 years ago? Or that the entire universe was created 6000 years ago? I have seen both positions held right here on CA as being the only possible correct, literal reading of the Bible. You see where my confusion arises?

If we consider the book "Seventh-day Adventists Believe..." as representing official doctrine (that is disputable), than Adventists believe the sun, moon and stars were established as signs on the fourth day - not necessarily created on the fourth day. They also believe the earth was likely one of God's last acts of creation.

So I think it fair to say Adventists believe in an old universe and a young earth. I don't know if that helps.

Look what I found:

• An Affirmation of Creation
• Response to an Affirmation of Creation

Does that help?

Well, yeah, it does help a lot in understanding the church's official position (it doesn't really speak to the secondary question of young or old universe).

It also pretty clearly answers the question of this thread: since the SDA church has chosen to basically wrap up all of scripture, the gospel and its doctrines as a single package with recent creationism as the foundation, it is *not* possible to be an SDA without believing in literal recent creation.

Better crank up the evangelism, folks, because there'll be an increasing number of people who, like me, have found themselves 'included out' of the church they love.

Evangelism is in full gear and incorporating creation science into it. We don't have to prove the Bible through science. Our threshold is plausibility not probability. All we have to show is that the historical record of the Bible is plausible not that it is scientifically probable. We are not going to convince everyone. There is no one method that will convince everyone. However these methods are showing some success here in North America and Europe.

This and several similar sentiments in the aforementioned statements make me think of nothing so much as a tower of children's blocks. Pull one out, and all the rest come crashing down.

There has to be a better way.

Many people do not understand the fundamental importance of the creation doctrine when they make attempts to reinterpret the Bible to fit into an evolutionary framework. We must accept creation on faith. Creation is the basis of faith. It is the starting point in our relationship with God.

"By faith we understand the worlds were made by God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible." (Hebrews 11:3)

I'd say so.

Will we conform to the Bible or expect it to conform to us? This fundamental question is confronting each one of us.

Once again, when you say 'The Bible' you mean 'my particular interpretation of the Bible', but that distinction is completely invisible to you.

Yes. You are right Bravus. It is a kind of spiritual arrogance that is out there. It is also a form of intolerance for anyone who would use their God given brains with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Unfortunately some feel they have a monopoly on the Holy Spirit.

"In the Beginning"

Beginning of what?

We teach that God had no beginning

Therefore creation had no beginning

What I mean is Sola Scriptura. Again, show me another way of understanding creation using Sola Scriptura. I welcome that. I am more than willing to consider other ways of applying Sola Scriptura. That means we use the original language and other Bible texts to understand creation. We do not bring in extra-biblical evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framework_interpretation_(Genesis)

The point being that there are serious, sincere, highly qualified and thoughtful Christian scholars who interpret the text itself in a different way. You might say that they are led to that approach to the text by the science, but it's equally fair to say that those who interpret the text as 6 literal days are led to that approach by tradition. Only the text and its interpretation matter.

I think it's disastrous that the denomination has made this doubtful belief the foundation of everything. As more and more people come to ask questions about origins, they will find that the church has *told* them that if this falls, everything falls. People will lose their faith who, IMO, did not need to.

(I'll start a separate thread to discuss the Faith and Science conferences.)

Bravus,

You may be right about tying everything to a single event....for some or even many. But I think there is a large number of SDA's that recognize the inconclusive nature of much of what we are told is 'truth'. I believe in the possibility of a literal 6 day creation. For me it is logical to believe such if I am going to believe in an all powerful God, I don't put limits on God. Now if it were to turn out that He took longer...so what! It does not change my belief! Why, some my ask, because I do not know everything or claim too about how the process of creation took place. It is a mystery that I can't solve nor has anyone else. I do not see the Bible as a science but as a relationship book.So for science, I will use a science book. When they disagree, I will simply scratch my head and say...hmmmmm, Houston we have a problem! Science is always learning, changing and growing, so there is more to discover and learn. I just simply choose to believe what I have learned from the Bible and continue on my merry way to the promised land for answers!

We have to find our own belief and not rely on other humans...they may be wrong. I choose to believe that God knows each persons heart and will keep the individual from going astray when they are trusting in Him and not by myself or any one else's definition of that relationship.

You are right, a circular discussion it will be w/o ending...so adios everyone to this session!

If you accept a literal 6-day Creation event about 6000 to 10 000 years ago, followed by a world-wide destructive Flood, do you run into any problems with harmonising this belief with the rest of Scripture?

If you believe in some other interpretation (such as theistic evolution, each day representing a long period, etc) do these beliefs lead to any necessary "re-interpreting" other parts of Scripture?

I believe we can do so much re-interpreting that eventually the Bible becomes a mere fractal of itself - it may still have a long boundary but it no longer has any useful area.

Graeme

To your first question - no, it all seems to fit.

To your second - it still all seems to fit. Since the creation account is concerned with meaning, and the other references to it elsewhere in the Bible are too, it doesn't damage them, IMO.

I take your point about reinterpreting. But to be honest, at this stage for me it is a matter of reinterpret or reject. It's not just creation - a number of things in the Bible, including its treatment of gay people, also sit very badly with me. That's my problem, of course, but despite the kind efforts of my friends here, it's not one that gritting my teeth and believing harder is going to make go away.

As I said, I don't know everything...so I will just wait and see!

(opps, was going to stay out of this mess...my bad)

The framework interpretation is far from Sola Scriptura. What Biblical basis do we have for even considering the creation account to be symbolic? The text itself reads "evening" "morning" after every day.

Now look at how they handle the Sabbath Commandment.



If we are going Sola Scriptura, we need to find something in the Bible that would lead us to believe the days were symbolically added to the creation account. Where is that? Basically they are saying we don't keep the Sabbath because it is an actual memorial of creation, rather symbolic days were added to the creation story in order to give us a reason to keep the Sabbath. So... if that is the case, and the days were not real days, then we really don't have a real reason to keep the Sabbath either. Why would God need to invent symbolic days in order to make up a reason for us to keep the Sabbath. Does that make any sense to anyone?

If the Sabbath is given to us as a memorial of Creation, that doesn't mean it's necessary for Creation to have happened in a certain number of days. We celebrate Armistice Day on one day, but that doesn't mean World War 2 happened in a week. God is at liberty to commemorate his creative acts in any way he chooses.

Mercy. That is some industrial-strength rationalism, pardner.


Regards,

oG

The Ten Commandments were written by the finger of God. They are literally the words of God. What reason do we have to believe that the "days" mentioned in the Fourth Commandment we inserted symbolically?

Even if we concede that the six days of creation were symbolic (and I don't know how to get there using Sola Scriptura) we are still left with the issue of death and sin. The Bible teaches sin came before death. Are we to now believe that death was occurring in the animal kingdom long before man was ever created? How do we get there using Sola Scriptura?

Meh, it's going to be a circular argument forever. Let's just leave it aside. As mentioned, I'm clinging onto faith by my fingertips, and you guys are enthusiastically stamping on them.

A lot of us struggle with our faith. At least I can say I do. I don't think anyone on this site wants to silence another in order to make our spiritual battles any easier. Part of the battle is listening to others that think differently than we do. That goes both ways.

Bravus, may I suggest this and this ?

Hang in there.

Life is hard, Shane, isn't it? Sometimes it's best to leave the battle before sustaining a mortal wound.

Thank you for those, Vera. I may have expressed myself badly earlier - I'm hanging in there with God and Jesus, and with Christianity. It's Adventism that seems determined to get rid of me. It's always helpful to know there are other believers out there who have a different approach.

Is the "beginning" that Moses wrote about the same "beginning" that John had in mind? Are they both writing about the same event?

mel

The Anglican church (Episcopalian in the US) is a good place for theistic evolution since they do not believe in Sola Scriptura. It fits much better into their theology than it does into traditional Protestant denominations.

I have discovered life is 20% what happens to us and 80% our reaction to it.

"My soul, wait thou only upon God; for my expectation is from Him. He only is my Rock and my Salvation: He is my Defence; I shall not be moved." (Pslams 62:5, 6)

One can only assume so. That would be a logical application of Sola Scriptura.

And that "beginning" would be when?

mel

I guess my final comment on the issue that is the focus of this thread is that the current approach of the SDA denomination - tying all its beliefs to creationism, actively evangelising on creationism, making non-creationists into second-class citizens in that they are muzzled[1] at least and often excluded - will lead to a selection process of SDA members. A certain type of people will tend to leave the church in large and growing numbers, and those who join will be a different kind of people. Please understand I'm not saying either type of person is superior or inferior, but I am saying that a 'monoculture' church that narrows its diversity is more vulnerable to various 'infections' and other illnesses, just like a monoculture farm.

[1] And I find it interesting that in the 'Affirmation of Creation' document there's precisely one reference to 'ethics and dissent', and it's in relation to how those with different views speak when they're in church employment. As always, much emphasis on the individual's obligations toward the denomination, none on the denomination's toward the individual. What is the ethics of the church's handling of dissent and intellectual freedom on this issue in its institutions?

(and as people leave, the church will blame them, or blame education, and never really look at the issue of whether there is something about the church that is forcing them to leave despite their faith in God and love of the church)