If a split happens, who is who?

[JonMiller]

Unless you can start telling people that they aren't SDA, I don't see how this will change anything.

JM

 

[StormyOne]

Wasn't the creation of the Traditional and Progressive subforums within the SDA forum supposed to address these issues?

yes it was.... as I said somewhere else.... it seems that what some are calling a split is actually a divorce where someone must leave and not be here period....

 

[Cliff2]

What will be the standard of who is progressive and who is traditional?

A person is either a Seventh-day Adventist or not.

There should not be a split at all.

But we do have to a certain extent different points of view on issues within the SDA Church.

I would suggest that we also follow the world Chruch and do what they have done when it comes to baptism.

They have formulated a baptisimal certificate that outlines the minimum requirement for a person to be a Seventh-day Adventist.

It is not about believing in the "28" but it has been reduced down to 13.

At least that is what it is in the South Pacific Division.

If we were to follow that lead I am sure all could be under the one banner and fit into a box so to speak that satifies the vast majority.

 

[StormyOne]

A person is either a Seventh-day Adventist or not.

There should not be a split at all.

But we do have to a certain extent different points of view on issues within the SDA Church.

I would suggest that we also follow the world Chruch and do what they have done when it comes to baptism.

They have formulated a baptisimal certificate that outlines the minimum requirement for a person to be a Seventh-day Adventist.

It is not about believing in the "28" but it has been reduced down to 13.

At least that is what it is in the South Pacific Division.

If we were to follow that lead I am sure all could be under the one banner and fit into a box so to speak that satifies the vast majority.

there use to be 13 (or less) statements that one agreed to before being baptized....

 

[NightEternal]

Is it completely lost on many here that some of the Traditionalists have not, do not, and will not ever consider Progressives 'true' Adventists? We are nothing but tares to be thrown into the fiery furnace at the end of time. And you want to reason and dialogue with such a mindset?

Good luck with that.

Split the forum. It's time.

 

[OntheDL]

A person is either a Seventh-day Adventist or not.

There should not be a split at all.

But we do have to a certain extent different points of view on issues within the SDA Church.

I would suggest that we also follow the world Chruch and do what they have done when it comes to baptism.

They have formulated a baptisimal certificate that outlines the minimum requirement for a person to be a Seventh-day Adventist.

It is not about believing in the "28" but it has been reduced down to 13.

At least that is what it is in the South Pacific Division.

If we were to follow that lead I am sure all could be under the one banner and fit into a box so to speak that satifies the vast majority.

While I agree that there shouldn't be a split, I disagree with the world church's practice on baptisimal vows. That's a compromise. And people should know what they get into before hand. They shouldn't be told BTW these are the other 14 things you were not told before you were baptized.

 

[OntheDL]

Is it completely lost on many here that some of the Traditionalists have not, do not, and will not ever consider Progressives 'true' Adventists? We are nothing but tares to be thrown into the fiery furnace at the end of time. And you want to reason and dialogue with such a mindset?

Good luck with that.

Split the forum. It's time.

Night, it doesn't look like the vote is going to pass. But you can still have a roll call and ask the admin for a seperate forum and call it whatever name you decide if you like. I don't think we should cast anyone out. Whoever wants to leave can leave. We shouldn't force anyone to stay either.

 

[tall73]

A person is either a Seventh-day Adventist or not.

There should not be a split at all.

But we do have to a certain extent different points of view on issues within the SDA Church.

I would suggest that we also follow the world Chruch and do what they have done when it comes to baptism.

They have formulated a baptisimal certificate that outlines the minimum requirement for a person to be a Seventh-day Adventist.

It is not about believing in the "28" but it has been reduced down to 13.
.

One of them is a catch-all that references acceptance of the fundamental beliefs, so they are all covered.

Of course some here were baptized before the 27, now 28 were formulated, and would not have therefore agreed to that.

 

[tall73]

I think Samuel Pipim defined the difference quite well in his book, Receiving The Word

Go here and click on Receiving The Word http://drpipim.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=61&Itemid=96

I have read the book.

Now condense that down to an applicable standard.

 

[tall73]

We need a standard folks. Who wants to present one?

 

[mva1985]

Don't look at me!

 

[StormyOne]

We need a standard folks. Who wants to present one?

there isn't one.... progressive thought is not monolithic.... and for that matter neither is traditional thought....

It seems to have boiled down to, "you leave because I don't like you" and that is the standard.....

As I have stated before, the forum is already split... perhaps the anger is from the fact that anyone can post in the main area, and it is a battle ground for the most part....

 

[woobadooba]

I have read the book.

Now condense that down to an applicable standard.

I already told you that it is a matter of an approach to Biblical interpretation.

Progressives, according to the book that I spoke of, are Higher Critics of the Bible, which means they don't accept much of what is written in it. If this is true, that would mean that one could be a Traditional while disagreeing with one or more of the 28 doctrines.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

I already told you that it is a matter of an approach to Biblical interpretation.

Progressives, according to the book that I spoke of, are Higher Critics of the Bible, which means they don't accept much of what is written in it. If this is true, that would mean that one could be a Traditional while disagreeing with one or more of the 28 doctrines.

What I think is funny that in Pipim's book he uses the incident of the quail provided for Israel to try and show the difference between the liberal with their Higher Criticism and his own plain reading Historical Grammatical approach. First he claims that the Liberals say that the quail were piled up to three feet on the ground for the huge amount of space of the encampment. This is based upon:

(Num 11:31 KJV) And there went forth a wind from the LORD, and brought quails from the sea, and let them fall by the camp, as it were a day's journey on this side, and as it were a day's journey on the other side, round about the camp, and as it were two cubits high upon the face of the earth.

Then he says the proper way to understand this verse is not the plain KJV reading but that presented by the NIV:

(Num 11:31 NIV) Now a wind went out from the LORD and drove quail in from the sea. It brought them down all around the camp to about three feet above the ground, as far as a day's walk in any direction.

Of course he ignores the fact that the NIV translators very clearly use Higher Criticism techniques. In this case simply translating so that the account makes sense with physical realities.

It is really funny when you think about it with all the agitation of the "KJV Only" crowd and the books that call the NIV a New Age Bible because it does not match the incorrect translations of the KJV. Historical grammatic does not care if the verse does not make any sense, Higher Criticism does.

Here is what one of the KJV Only sites says as they proclaim the scholarship of the 1600's superior to today's scholarship, which is really laughable.

The translators of the original King James Bible had a distinct advantage. They were able to use their vast knowledge of ancient languages and translation abilities prior to the time when the deadly virus of so-called "Higher Criticism" infected the whole field of scholarship. False teachers boldly dissected God's Word with the "tools of scholarship" in order to reconstruct it according to their own speculations and presumptions. The result is a pseudo-intellectual aura in which no one can be sure of anything. It's time to get back to the pure Word of God where faith prevails and doubt is vanquished! http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/reynolds-nkjv.html

For those who don't know what Higher Criticism is and looking at the websites I have just googled there are a lot of those people see the following:
http://www.theopedia.com/Biblical_criticism


The rejection of Higher Criticism is part of Fundamentalism which says the Bible is the Word of God, Inerrant and Infallible. You can find those Fundamentalists in most any denomination but aside from the certain "KJV Only" churches such as certain segments of Baptists they remain in denominations which are not as extreme.

For example here is one of the faith statements of Faith Baptist Church in Texas:

I. The Holy Scriptures​

We believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be THE Verbally and Plenary Inspired Word of God. The Scriptures are Inerrant, Infallible and God-Breathed, and therefore are the FINAL AUTHORITY for faith and life. The sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments are the COMPLETE and Divine Revelation of God to man. The 1611 King James Authorized Version of the Bible shall be the ONLY official translation used by the True Bible Believing Church. (II Timothy 3:16-17; II Peter 1:20-21)
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/9446/believe.html
​

Of course if you have ever seen the 1611 KJV (you can see a PDF photocopy page here and it is not that easy to read) you know they are not really using it but inconsistency does not matter to some people. They it seems have no problem decrying Higher Criticism.

 

[tall73]

I already told you that it is a matter of an approach to Biblical interpretation.

Progressives, according to the book that I spoke of, are Higher Critics of the Bible, which means they don't accept much of what is written in it. If this is true, that would mean that one could be a Traditional while disagreeing with one or more of the 28 doctrines.

Woob, a book is not a standard.

Make a plain one sentance or two sentence statement that will serve as a guideline that is fairly easy to apply.
For instance:

Traditionals are those who hold to all 28 fundamental beliefs.

 

[woobadooba]

RC,

I'm all for multiple Translations. If I had the time and patience I would learn Greek, which would be even better.

But in any case, even a Higher Critic can speak of things that are true. So just because Pipim used the NIV that doesn't mean he duped himself.

 

[JonMiller]

But see, I can say that, but I have been told I am not welcome in the Traditional forum.

JM

 

[StormyOne]

Woob, a book is not a standard.

Make a plain one sentance or two sentence statement that will serve as a guideline that is fairly easy to apply.
For instance:

Traditionals are those who hold to all 28 fundamental beliefs.

if they were really traditional though they would object to the 28 fundamentals as the church has "progressed" to the point where it has formulated those 28 beliefs... they are a recent addition, as I have shared before, when I was baptized there were no 27 or 28 fundamental beliefs.... and folks did just fine....

 

[tall73]

But see, I can say that, but I have been told I am not welcome in the Traditional forum.

JM

Here are the current standards.

Please characterize which one you fall into:

Traditional - Adventists who believe in all 28 Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

Progressive - Evangelical/Progressive/Liberal Adventists, defined here as those who do not fully agree with all 28 Fundamentals.

 

[JonMiller]

Many of the 'traditionals' here don't beleive in the 28 fundamentals either.

And I thought the SDA church didn't have creeds?

JM