http://video.google.com/videosearch?…%22&sitesearch=

Many of you may not know the importance of QOD. well let me give a little history lesson. the story of QOD and the issue relating to it go back to 1856.

In 1856 there was a “bible conference” on the discussion of Righteousness By Faith (RBF). in question was what role did the law play in the christian life. J.H. Waggoner had written a book “the law of God: and examination of the testimony of the two testements. (1854) It was widely circulated amoung the Adventist. The teaching was threatened the way the Chruch wanted to teach the sabbath so it was voted out in favor of a new view this became the standard view until 1888. As the was the coustom the breatheren studied and then the view was supported by a Message from God in the form of a testimony from EGW. Uriah Smith and G I Butler were there. And preached this view for there entire life and went unchallanged until 1886.

In 1886 E.J. Waggoner son of J.H Waggoner came along and published a series of articles on the law in Galatains and the Subject of RBF. Butler and Smith were shocked, because his view was what was voted out and confirmed by God by EGW in 1856. Butler and Smith wrote books and articles countering Jones and Waggoner. A committee was formed that included Waggoner,Canwright,Butler and Smith, As they stuides Canwright came to agree with Waggoner and realized that Adventism was in error and that Righteous did not come through the keeping of the 10 commandments, but throught christ. Well he had misgivings about Adventism and EGW for years and this was his oppetunity to leave and he did.
It was decided to appeal to EGW as get her view on the matter and Butler and Smith believe that she would give them there support since she had do so in 1856 when J.H. Waggoner had brought the same topic up. But they were Wrong.

Ellen White was at first indifferent to what Jones and Waggoner were saying, siding more on the side of denominational unity, upon hearing Jones and Waggoner she reversed her postion and was willing to risk denominational unity for the message.

Why do we refuse to recognize that the Christian church have evolved greatly since it began. Any denomination begins to fossilize and dote on its early doctrines and founders: something the younger generation is least concerned with. Tradition becomes of ultimate importance as the church ages and if newer ideas are cast aside when introduced by those who have no vested interest (read young people), it will die just as its members will.

Some of us had to leave the church, as did Philip Yancey, to find faith; others left to regain their integrity and sanity. Any institution that does not change will eventually die.

Where do I sign?

At the Glacier View meeting, it was stated that Dr. Ford’s views had to be “tested by the Bible and the writings of Ellen G. White,” and be compared with the historic interpretation of the church. The heavy mass of material of nearly 2,000 pages filling the bulging suitcases of committee members could have been replaced with one book—the Bible—as an answer for all their confusion. One of the participants at Glacier View, Raymond Cottrell, stated in SPECTRUM (Vol. 10, No. 4) that “it was nothing less than a miracle that our spiritual forefathers found any consensus to unite them on important points of faith. . . that miracle was the active presence of the Holy Spirit in the person and ministry of Ellen White. . . her selective choice among the resulting alternatives determined which of the various interpretations the infant church should adopt. Whether or not this selection comported with strict exegesis of the Bible is irrelevant.”

May I suggest the teachings of Jesus, illuminated by Ellen White’s Christocentric writings, in the form of “The 28 Fundamental Teachings of Jesus” - as the answer to all our confusion, whether “Christianity” likes it or not…

“I encourage a re-examination of the role of doctrine in community. It is ironic that a church which would take the Bible at its only creed has allowed doctrine this much power inside community.”

As much as I regard our church’s founders, the careful study and hard theological work many of them did, and the self-sacrifice they made, I also must recognize that our church, like others throughout Christendom, is at least somewhat disengenious to claim anything like that “the Bible is our only creed”. It is true that like most Protestants, the early Adventists wanted to do away with the influence of tradition and return to a purer, more Biblically-based religion. But it is also clear that this Biblical restorationism very early on skewed towards a certain, code-based reading of the Scriptures, particularly those passages that seemed to speak of both Christ’s soon second coming, as well as the timeline and event mileposts many believed had or were occuring.

So, in short, their understanding of “the Bible as our only creed” was pretty heavily influenced by the tenor of the times.

And there’s nothing wrong with that. Their devotion has helped create the institutions, the religious “world” that many of us have lived in for years and love dearly. The love and devotion the founders exhibited should be an inspiration for us.

I think what binds us together, both our current generation in current time and us together with our 19th century forebearers in historical time is, I hope, a search for authenticity. As odd as it may seem, I suspect this continual search for authenticity, i.e. for real, enduring truth, is what motivates both the more “historic” SDA groups, as well as those Adventists taking a more “emergent” focus. I think both want, in some way, the same thing, but the paths there, and the current manifestations of those searches, can look radically different.