Adventist Credophobia - An Explanation

© JULIAN KASTRATI, 2004, 2012. PLEASE NOTE: Footnotes are acknowledged but withheld for copyright reasons

What do Adventists mean when they say that the Bible is their only creed and what are the methodological implications involved?

‘We have no creed but the Bible.’ This has been the constant chorus heard among Seventh-day Adventists from the very beginning of their existence. Since the early days, the Adventist pioneers, took a strong stand against the endorsement of any creeds or formal statements of doctrinal belief. They consistently held that the Bible and the Bible alone should be the church’s rule of faith and practice.

However, throughout its brief history, in order to protect its own identity from rivalling epistemologies, the Adventist Church has had to formulate statements of beliefs, as a current majority understanding, such as the adoption of 27 statements of fundamental beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists during the 1980 General Conference Session (a 28th statement was added during the 2005 session). Preceding these statements, there is a very important (yet often overlooked) preamble, which confirms the position of the Bible as the only creed and guarantees the future alteration or revision of the doctrinal statements.

Given the context, many questions come to mind. Have Adventists been consistent in using the Sola Scriptura principle? What led them to take a stand against creeds and confessional statements in the first place? How do the current fundamental beliefs fit in the picture? In this context, what do Adventists really mean with the Bible being their only creed? What are the methodological implications of such a stand in terms of biblical theology?

Adventists still accept the Bible as their only creed

Preamble to Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists: Seventh-day Adventists accept the Bible as their only creed and hold certain fundamental beliefs to be the teaching of the Scriptures. These beliefs, as set forth here, constitute the church’s understanding and expression of the teaching of Scripture. Revision of these statements may be expected at a General Conference session when the church is led by the Holy Spirit to a fuller understanding of Bible truth or finds better language in which to express the teachings of God’s Holy Word.

The Anti-creedal Stand in Early Adventism and Ellen G. White's Contribution

If Seventh-day Adventists should take pride today in their adherence to "no creed but the Bible", they need to give due credit to the pioneers which founded the denomination under this invaluable Protestant principle. So let us go back in time and analyse certain significant events in early Adventism which were to set the anti-creedal trend of the church in the following years. Having done that, we may then focus on the indisputable contribution made by Ellen G. White on the subject.

Part 1: Origin and Development

The Adventist stand against creeds goes back to none other but William Miller himself. Rather bluntly, he considered creeds and formulas as infringing religious liberty: ‘We must…let our brethren have the freedom of thought, opinion and speech, or we must resort to creeds and formulas, bishops and popes…I see no other alternative.’[1] Indeed, the Millerites had been cast out of their former churches, not because they were proven wrong by the Bible, but because their beliefs were not in harmony with the creeds of their original churches.[2]

Many of the Advent believers in the mid-1840s were disfellowshipped because they had discovered new truths in their Bibles and refused to remain silent about them.[3] Ironically, the majority of the Millerites themselves at the Albany Conference in 1845, ‘drew a circle of narrow orthodoxy around their beliefs, excluding those who believed in the seventh-day Sabbath, the visions of Ellen G. White, and the ordinance of footwashing.’[4] Because of such experiences, the Sabbatarian Adventists—eventual founders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church—acquired a deep antipathy and phobia against creeds, having been direct victims of them.

Thus, as early as 1847, James White published a 24-page pamphlet, in which he declared: ‘The Bible is a perfect, and complete revelation. It is our only rule of faith and practice…’[5] For James White, human-made creeds lead to confusion and bondage. In two consecutive articles in the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, he stated: 'We want no human creed, the Bible is sufficient. It is the will of the Lord that his people should be called away from the confusion and bondage of man made creeds, to enjoy the oneness and freedom of the gospel.'[6] It is the opinion of the mass of professors of religion, that human creeds are indispensable to the maintenance of gospel order…Creed making has produced the Babel of confusion now existing among them.[7] As the heavens are higher than the earth, so is our creed, which is the word of God, higher in perfection and real worth than all human creeds.[8]

By the beginning of the 1860s, the Sabbatarian Adventists had decided to get organised under a separate denomination. The organisation of the Michigan Conference amounted to the first ‘moment of truth’ for the newborn church, which distrusted creeds, yet realised the need for some sort of definition of Adventist doctrine. This situation was resolved when James White, backed by John N. Loughborough, proposed a ‘church covenant’ rather than a creed.[9] The covenant read: ‘We, the undersigned, hereby associate ourselves together, as a church, taking the name Seventh-day Adventists, covenanting to keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus Christ.’ This short statement avoided ‘the language of an inflexible creed, while at the same time fulfilling the group’s responsibility to say something about what it believed for the benefit of both members and outsiders.’[10]

During the meeting, J.N. Loughborough, while favouring the covenant, voiced his opposition to creeds by highlighting five logical steps on how the church could end up apostatising if it were to adopt them in the future: 'The first step of apostasy is to get up a creed, telling us what we shall believe. The second is to make that creed a test of fellowship. The third is to try members by that creed. The fourth is to denounce as heretics those who do not believe that creed. And, fifth, to commence persecution against such.'[11]

The pioneers' concern was clear: were they to formulate a creed, this would disable them from future advancements, as their understanding of the Scriptures would mature. ‘Making a creed is setting the stakes, and barring up the way to all future advancements…The Bible is our creed. We reject everything in the form of a human creed.’[12]

A brief analysis of these early incidents in Adventism shows that because of their former persecution during and after the Millerite years, and because they wanted to remain faithful to the Reformation principle, the early Adventists took a stand against man-made creeds. According to them, adopting a creed implied potential ecclesiastical persecution, confusion, bondage, and would ban future advancements in doctrine.

Part 2: Contribution of Ellen G. White                      

The contribution of Ellen G. White on this topic is very significant. Throughout her writings or oral interventions in crucial church conferences, she consistently turned everyone’s attention to the Bible, as the infallible word of God and the only creed available for Christians. Moreover, Mrs White’s insights helped develop a theological framework that would uplift the Bible above any human opinion or interpretation. The following powerful quotation provides a good summary of Mrs White’s view on the topic: 'When God’s Word is studied, comprehended and obeyed, a bright light will be reflected to the world; new truths, received and acted upon, will bind us in strong bonds to Jesus. The Bible and the Bible alone is to be our creed, the sole bond of union; and all who bow to this Holy Word will be in harmony. Our own ideas must not control our efforts. Man is fallible, but God’s Word is infallible. Instead of wrangling with one another, let men exalt the Lord. Let us meet all opposition as did our Master, saying “It is written.” Let us lift up the banner on which is inscribed, The Bible our rule of faith and discipline.’[13]

There are profound implications in this statement. First, Mrs White alerts that the serious study of the Scriptures will lead to the discovery of new truths. Consequently, the embracing of the ‘new truths’ informs unity, something the creeds were designed to produce but have failed. Unity and harmony derive only when the Bible is accepted as the only creed. Secondly, Mrs White contrasts human fallibility with biblical infallibility. Creeds are human-made, henceforth fallible. They ‘present a presumption of infallibility that puts a stop to the continual unfolding of new truth. No statement of faith, however perfect, can ever stand as a final one.’[14] Lastly, Mrs White urges her readers to imitate Christ and use the Bible and the Bible for the defence and uplifting of their faith. If there is to be a rule, it must be Sola Scriptura.

Mrs White regarded the Bible, when juxtaposed to creeds, as the sole foundation of Christian thinking. According to her, only the Scriptures must define our own theology. In a contemplative sermon preached in 1889, she declared: ‘It is not how many years have I believed that makes it the truth. You must bring your creed to the Bible and let the light of the Bible define your creed.’[15] In another occasion, she advised: 'Do not carry your creed to the Bible, and read the Scriptures in the light of that creed. If you find that your opinions are opposed to a plain “Thus saith the Lord,” or to any command or prohibition He has given, give heed to the Word of God rather than to the sayings of men. Let every controversy or dispute be settled by “It is written.”[16]

Given these few quotations, a summary of Mrs White’s views on the subject of creeds may be attempted at this point. For her, the church should not adopt creeds because primarily, truth is progressive and cannot be confined by the cold prison walls of church dogma. Creeds, once established, are almost impossible to alter and henceforth they become a major obstacle in the pursuit for new truths. In addition, their extra-biblical nature makes them fallible. The infallible Word of God must be the only creed for the believer.

The Role of Fundamental Beliefs in Adventism
While the Seventh-day Adventist Church has consistently abided by its anti-creedal stand for the past 160 years, it has on the other hand defined its fundamental beliefs. The covenant that the pioneers approved in 1861 was the simplest and posed no real debate or controversy.[17] The first official attempt of such nature was Uriah Smith’s 1872 declaration of belief. The second was a statement of beliefs in 1931 and the third and the most familiar to this generation is the set of 27 fundamental beliefs approved by the General Conference session in 1980.

In 1872, Uriah Smith anonymously authored a pamphlet titled A Declaration of the Fundamental Principles Taught and Practised by the Seventh-day Adventists. The introductory remarks of this statement are significant: 'In presenting to the public this synopsis of our faith, we wish to have it distinctly understood that we have no articles of faith, creed, or discipline, aside from the Bible. We do not put forth this as having any authority with our people, nor is it designed to secure uniformity among them, as a system of faith, but is a brief statement of what is, and has been, with great unanimity, held by them.'[18]

While the disclaimer speaks for itself, its author clearly intends to secure a measure of uniformity among Adventists. Through this pamphlet, the author intended to discredit the claims of some who said they were Adventists, and yet held views with which Adventists had no sympathy. However, his statement must be treated as ‘an exercise in moral suasion rather than an effort on the part of the church to force the issue through “official” declaration and subsequent enforcement of the statement.’[19]

The next major event is the appearance of the statement of beliefs in the 1931 denominational yearbook. This statement, has no special authorising action authorised and was not submitted to any committees for formal approval. It simply grew out of a need to inform outsiders about the Adventist beliefs. It was published by common consent and thus passed without major dissatisfaction of controversy since it was a general draft of a broad consensus directed to outsiders.[20]

From this moment on, the tendency in Adventism has been for such statements to sound more official. Thus, in 1941, a world church council approved A Summary of Fundamental Beliefs which was included in the Church Manual. In 1946, the General Conference in session voted ‘that no revision of this [1941] Statement of Fundamental Beliefs, as it now appears in the Manual, shall be made at any time, except at a General Conference session.’[21] This vote provided the legal basis for the formal action of the General Conference when it accepted the new statement in 1980. Indeed, the 1980 action made the fundamental beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists more formal than ever.

Yet, as Knight puts it, ‘the most astounding and important thing about the 1980 statement of fundamental beliefs is the preamble.’[22] 'Seventh-day Adventists accept the Bible as their only creed and hold certain fundamental beliefs to be the teaching of the Scriptures. These beliefs, as set forth here, constitute the church’s understanding and expression of the teaching of Scripture. Revision of these statements may be expected at a General Conference session when the church is led by the Holy Spirit to a fuller understanding of Bible truth or finds better language in which to express the teachings of God’s Holy Word.' [23]

The value of the preamble is twofold: First, it remains faithful to the historic principle held by the pioneers and Mrs White of the Bible being the only creed for Seventh-day Adventists. Secondly, it guarantees and anticipates further future revisions of the fundamentals. Guy notes that ‘this anticipation gives them an essential flexibility that is absent from the historic Christian creeds and legitimates that Adventists do not, strictly speaking, have a “creed”.’[24]

Critical Evaluation

Having taken the time and the space to highlight the development of Adventist statements of belief, a critical evaluation of them is now possible. What is the rationale for the endorsement of these statements? What is their real function? Do they compromise the ‘sacred’ Protestant-Adventist principle of Sola Scriptura?

As previously discussed, throughout its existence, the Seventh-day Adventist Church has had to formulate statements of beliefs as a current majority understanding. The most important reason for the existence of such statements is that they function as signposts or borderlines that define the territory.[25] Thus, the early Christian Church, after the realisation that its mission involved the whole world rather than Israel, was forced to define certain tenets that would distinguish it from the other worldviews. Similarly, in order to protect its own identity from rivalling epistemologies, it has been necessary, as much as it is legitimate, for Adventism to endorse statements of beliefs.

Because of the increasing secularisation of the world, especially during the past 100 years, Adventism, like Evangelicalism, has been on the defensive. In this context, the endorsement of doctrinal statements, like the 27 (now 28) Fundamental Beliefs looks like the natural and logical thing to do. The presence of the preamble, on the other hand, serves as a guarantor of the Sola Scriptura principle and allows doctrinal revisions resulting from the on-going study of the Scriptures.

Methodological Implications

Having completed a journey from early to modern Adventism, with its consistent rejection of creeds other than the Bible, it is the right moment to reflect and consider potential implications in terms of theology. What are the methodological implications of the anti-creedal, Sola Scriptura stand endorsed by Adventism? What do Adventists really mean when they claim that they have no other creed but the Bible?

From the very beginning, Adventists, led by the pioneers and Mrs White, rejected the creeds because they realised the difference it makes when biblical theology is being given priority. This is where Adventism is unique. The uniqueness of Adventism lies not in its doctrines, but on the method it applies.

Adventism assumes a method of Bible study that allows the Bible to speak for itself, free from every possible boundary. True, the 28 fundamental beliefs have their own importance and serve as boundaries. However, boundaries are not the story. The Bible needs to be allowed to tell its own story. Herein lies the mission for Adventism: to rediscover the biblical-theistic worldview and cleanse it from ‘systematic’ dirt. Just as the biblical story comes before the doctrines, so does biblical theology come before systematic theology.[26]

Because of this understanding, biblical theology should be free from tradition. Because of this understanding, the final products in systematics are always on-going products. Ultimately, because of this understanding biblical theology always deserves primacy, for there is the place where the first principles are found.