I once heard a fellow pastor say, “The Seventh-day Adventist Church is not about a message.”

I almost could not believe I was hearing that. The reality is that the Seventh-day Adventist Church was raised up for the very purpose of delivering a message—the third angel’s message, embracing the first and second—to the whole world. That message is to be proclaimed not only in word, but also in our lives. It is a distinctive message. It presents a complete gospel that exalts the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. It prominently features unique points of vital truth such as Christ’s present work of investigative judgment in the heavenly sanctuary, a denunciation of Babylon and her wine, and a warning against the beast, his image, and his mark.

In a time when many will not endure sound doctrine, we must be firmly established in the present truth. As for the beliefs we advocate, the Bible admonishes us, “that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you” (1 Corinthians 1:10). We are told to “mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them” (Romans 16:17). “A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject” (Titus 3:10). Certainly, God has appointed church discipline to keep the body pure.

Since the maintaining of pure doctrine is necessary, the essential question is: What is the standard by which members are to be measured? By what rule is discipline to be administered in the case of doctrinal deviation?

The Bible provides a clear answer:

“To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them” (Isaiah 8:20).

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Timothy 3:16, 17).

I think we all agree that the Bible is our rule of faith and practice. Yet there seems to be an underlying distrust in the complete sufficiency of the Bible alone. After all, it may be reasoned, the Bible can be interpreted to fit just about any belief. So doesn’t there need to be some authoritative voice that determines how the Bible is to be interpreted?

The prevailing assumption is that the authoritative voice for Seventh-day Adventists is the General Conference in session, and that that body alone has the final say in the determination of the doctrines to be upheld by all members. That body has in fact decided that Seventh-day Adventists hold 28 Fundamental Beliefs. And according to the Church Manual, which is also authorized by the session, denial of faith in those stated Beliefs is the first reason for the discipline of members.

In keeping with the biblical injunction to “Prove all things,” we would be remiss if we did not carefully evaluate the underlying premise that the church, through its representative delegates from around the world, holds the power to prescribe the faith of the body.

Although we have statements from the pen of inspiration affirming the authority of the General Conference in session, we don’t have any that specifically assign to the session the right to establish doctrine. What about church history? Do we find any precedent there for the practice? To find out, we will briefly review both the early Christian Church and the early Advent Movement.

In Acts 15 the Jerusalem Council might be considered the equivalent of today’s General Conference session. There they addressed an important doctrinal question. The answer came through two recollections: Peter’s vision at Joppa, and the prophecy of Amos. All that the delegates had to do was recognize what God Himself had already clearly made known to them by vision. There is no mention of a formal vote, though they were all in “one accord” on the matter (Acts 15:25). Sister White explains the secret of their consensus: “As a result of their deliberations they all saw that God Himself had answered the question at issue” (AA 196). “The Holy Spirit had, in reality, already settled this question” (AA 192). It was not for them to decide. They simply acknowledged the answer that God had provided through the gift of prophecy.

Throughout Paul’s writings the apostle emphasized that the doctrines he taught were received, not from man, but by special revelation from God (Galatians 1:11, 12; Ephesians 3:2-5). The only role the church played in the development of doctrine in the New Testament was to humbly accept what the Lord Himself had taught them.

Between 1848 and 1850 the early Adventist believers held twenty-two Sabbath Conferences in which they “searched for the truth as for hidden treasure” until “all the principal points of our faith” were made clear to their minds (1SM 206, 207). None of the participants were trained theologians. In the second meeting, Ellen White reported that of the approximately thirty-five in attendance there were hardly two agreed. Some were holding serious errors, and each strenuously urged his own views, declaring them to be the truth. But when the discussion reached an impasse, Sister White would be taken off in vision, and a clear explanation of the matter would be given to her. This is how all the leading points of our faith were established, and doctrinal unity was achieved.

Our spiritual forefathers were united in the truth because it had been “clearly defined” (Ms 135, 1903, par. 3) for them in the Scriptures and in the visions given to Sister White. “The truth for this time God has given us as a foundation for our faith. He Himself has taught us what is truth” (1SM 161). We find no precedent anywhere in the history of God’s people for doctrine to be decided by parliamentary action of the church.

The church has no greater authority than what has been delegated to her by God. In the absence of any authorization in the Bible or Spirit of Prophecy for the church to formulate doctrines, have we perhaps overstepped our bounds in the authority we have placed in our voted statement of Fundamental Beliefs? Preparing a written statement of beliefs for informational purposes is fine. But when we require affirmation of any official, voted statement as a test of fellowship, that statement becomes the benchmark.

In listing our beliefs, the church’s website, Adventist.org, explains, “These 28 Fundamental Beliefs describe how Seventh-day Adventists interpret Scripture for daily application.” When we then make that document a test of fellowship, it is no longer the Bible itself, but the church’s interpretation of the Bible, that is now required. How does this actually differ from the Catholic magisterium?

“Though the Reformation gave the Scriptures to all, yet the selfsame principle which was maintained by Rome prevents multitudes in Protestant churches from searching the Bible for themselves. They are taught to accept its teachings as interpreted by the church; and there are thousands who dare receive nothing, however plainly revealed in Scripture, that is contrary to their creed or the established teaching of their church” (GC 596, emphasis hers).

Is this not, by our own admission, the very thing we have done? Ellen White plainly emphasized the utter impotence of a representative church council for defining doctrine:

“The opinions of learned men, the deductions of science, the creeds or decisions of ecclesiastical councils, as numerous and discordant as are the churches which they represent, the voice of the majority—not one nor all of these should be regarded as evidence for or against any point of religious faith” (GC 595).

“In the commission to His disciples, Christ not only outlined their work, but gave them their message. Teach the people, He said, ‘to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.’ The disciples were to teach what Christ had taught....  Human teaching is shut out. There is no place for tradition, for man’s theories and conclusions, or for church legislation. No laws ordained by ecclesiastical authority are included in the commission. None of these are Christ’s servants to teach” (DA 826, emphasis supplied).

Although we claim to have no creed but the Bible, our handling of the voted Fundamental Beliefs statement as a standard for discipline speaks otherwise. To raise awareness of this inconsistency in the usage of our doctrinal statement, concerned members have drafted a constructive petition to be presented to the 2025 General Conference session. The request is simply that we resurrect one sentence from our denomination’s first statement of beliefs, published in 1872, which says,

“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.”

The addition of that historic sentence will help to align our usage of the Fundamental Beliefs with our positive affirmation that the Bible is our only creed. Please sign the petition on this website to add your support to this cause.