What are the main differences between Traditional and Progressive?

[JonMiller]

Probably if either side (progressives or traditionals) were more organized, you would see the SDA church split.

However, since at every level but the local church level (and even often there) the SDA denomination is made up of a mix of traditiionals and 'progressives' that doesn't seem likely to happen in the near future.

JM

 

[JonMiller]

Where did I say she was more inspired than say CS Lewis?

JM

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

It bes just expressing its own opines, not challenging you.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

But if what makes the SDA "distinctive" -- meaning, necessitating its own denomination -- bes all the things the Progressives have outgrown -- the legalistic focus on lawkeeping, the obsession with self-centric meta-narrative and a supposed "lead role" in the apocalypse, the extra-biblical authority of EGW and SDA tradition, etc. -- then would not progressive reform of necessity take the form of re-integrating the splintered sect with the rest of Christendom eventually?

there is nothing that necessitates any denomination, they are merely tools to spread Christianity. When a tool becomes the truth then that tool is being misused.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

I still think that EGW was a prophet, although I don't place that as being very important (I think that it is likely that there are lots of prophets alive right now) and I don't think that she has authority.

Honestly, I am not picking a fight. Rather, I genuinely don't understand this statement I hope that you'll clarify it for me. How is it possible for a prophet to have no authority? How does that work exactly? If Ellen White writes that she was shown something by God, is it authoritative?

BFA

 

[JonMiller]

Her interpretation isn't authoritative.

JM

 

[Sophia7]

Her interpretation isn't authoritative.

JM

If a prophet is giving messages from God, shouldn't those messages be considered authoritative?

 

[Byfaithalone1]

If a prophet is giving messages from God, shouldn't those messages be considered authoritative?

Thanks for reiterating my question. Perhaps Jon misunderstood it. I was asking about messages from God, not her interpretations of such messages.

BFA

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Question from the OP: What are the main differences between Traditional and Progressive?

Follow-up question from BFA: Would it be fair to suggest that traditional SDAs lean more toward pelagianism (or at least semi-pelagianism), and that progressive SDAs lean more toward arminianism?

BFA

 

[Sophia7]

Question from the OP: What are the main differences between Traditional and Progressive?

Follow-up question from BFA: Would it be fair to suggest that traditional SDAs lean more toward pelagianism (or at least semi-pelagianism), and that progressive SDAs lean more toward arminianism?

BFA

I think that Traditional/Historic Adventists may have Pelagian or semi-Pelagian leanings because they consider salvation a cooperative effort between man and God. However, it's my understanding that even Pelagianism wouldn't be characterized by such legalistic ideas of sanctification by keeping the law as Adventist perfectionists teach. Or maybe Pelagianism just doesn't address that because it's more concerned with the questions of original sin and how people initially come to God. I guess I would think of most Adventists as Arminian rather than Pelagian, though.

 

[Mankin]

Nowadays, trads in my church teach "revised perfectionalism". You can't be perfect but you have to be miserable in your sins everyday and you must struggle to discover and root out as many sins as possible.

 

[sentipente]

Her interpretation isn't authoritative.

JM

Authoritative for what purpose?

 

[Byfaithalone1]

I guess I would think of most Adventists as Arminian rather than Pelagian, though.

I suspect that, among historic/traditional SDAs, the belief system leans more to pelagianism. Therefore, I don't think I could agree with the above statement unless it was clear that historic/traditional SDAs make up only small minority of SDAism. Although I certainly don't know the stats, my experience does not suggest that historic/traditional SDAs represent only a small minority of SDAism.

BFA

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

I think that Traditional/Historic Adventists may have Pelagian or semi-Pelagian leanings because they consider salvation a cooperative effort between man and God. However, it's my understanding that even Pelagianism wouldn't be characterized by such legalistic ideas of sanctification by keeping the law as Adventist perfectionists teach. Or maybe Pelagianism just doesn't address that because it's more concerned with the questions of original sin and how people initially come to God. I guess I would think of most Adventists as Arminian rather than Pelagian, though.

Probably depends on what you are meaning by pelagianism:

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This Pe·la·gi·an·ism n. The theological doctrine propounded by Pelagius, a British monk, and condemned as heresy by the Roman Catholic Church in [SIZE=-1]A.D.[/SIZE] 416. It denied original sin and affirmed the ability of humans to be righteous by the exercise of free will.

By the dictionary definition I would be pelagian because I don't believe in the doctrine of original sin (a depravity, or tendency to evil, held to be innate in humankind and transmitted from Adam to the race in consequence of his sin. ) If it is innate it does not have to be transmitted. And I accept the the idea of being righteous by the exercise of free will, if not then what is the point of belief and faith. (Justification by faith)

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Probably depends on what you are meaning by pelagianism

Thanks for illustrating my point.

By the dictionary definition I would be pelagian because I don't believe in the doctrine of original sin (a depravity, or tendency to evil, held to be innate in humankind and transmitted from Adam to the race in consequence of his sin. )

Do you conclude that human righteousness is something better than filthy rags, that he who sins isn't really a slave to sin and that the whole world isn't really a prisoner of sin? If so, how do you reconcile this with Scripture?

If it is innate it does not have to be transmitted. And I accept the the idea of being righteous by the exercise of free will, if not then what is the point of belief and faith. (Justification by faith)

It's a good question. If man is capable of righteousness, what IS the point of belief and faith? If man is capable of righteousness, why does he need a Savior? Who is the author and the finisher of our faith?

I am justified because Christ has credited me with righteousness, not because I am righteousness. This corruptible will not put on incorruption until the trump of God. This corruptible must place his trust in the only One who is good.

BFA

 

[Kolya]

Nowadays, trads in my church teach "revised perfectionalism". You can't be perfect but you have to be miserable in your sins everyday and you must struggle to discover and root out as many sins as possible.

That is getting closer to Orthodox Christianity. Sin is the disease, Christ's Body and Blood are the medication. We can not be saved if we are not confessing our sins and partaking of Communion! Jn 6:51,53+54.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

Do you conclude that human righteousness is something better than filthy rags, that he who sins isn't really a slave to sin and that the whole world isn't really a prisoner of sin? If so, how do you reconcile this with Scripture?

It's a good question. If man is capable of righteousness, what IS the point of belief and faith? If man is capable of righteousness, why does he need a Savior? Who is the author and the finisher of our faith?

I am justified because Christ has credited me with righteousness, not because I am righteousness. This corruptible will not put on incorruption until the trump of God. This corruptible must place his trust in the only One who is good.

AMEN, excellent post, BFA. Moriah bes not believing in human righteousness or goodness either. That humans can be kind and warm? No doubt. But those bes affects what can serve any cause with equal sufficiency -- whether the cause to befriend and bless or the cause to deceive and destroy.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

That is getting closer to Orthodox Christianity. Sin is the disease, Christ's Body and Blood are the medication. We can not be saved if we are not confessing our sins and partaking of Communion! Jn 6:51,53+54.

That bes cool really. Moriah has long considered sin to be a Virus.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

By the dictionary definition I would be pelagian because I don't believe in the doctrine of original sin (a depravity, or tendency to evil, held to be innate in humankind and transmitted from Adam to the race in consequence of his sin. ) If it is innate it does not have to be transmitted. And I accept the the idea of being righteous by the exercise of free will, if not then what is the point of belief and faith. (Justification by faith)

(1) It bes innately transmitted. It bes in our DNA just like the inheritance of death itself.

(2) Free will bes an utter illusion based upon the relentless inability of the human mind to encompass every possibility and potentiality simultaneously at any given moment. "Free will" does not exist; none of us operate in a hermetically-sealed vacuum completely and entirely divorced from either our own causality chains or the sum total of everything we bes now and ever did be, including all those tastes and preferences and inclinations we had no hand in selecting for ourselves but discovered them purely by exposure and trial ("taste and see").

(3) The point of belief and faith, of course, bes to connect ourselves with Reality, the Ultimate Reality being the mind and heart of our Creator as revealed on our level in the Person of His Son, Jesus Christ.

Your question bes not "well formed" in the sense that you ask it backwards. You ask what BES the point of belief and faith IF some condition bes not to exist, what condition itself, if existing as YOU assume it to, would utterly abrogate all need for faith and belief. Or to putsy more clearly (it hopes), the question ought to be formed this way: "IF we bes made righteous through the exercise of 'free will' as YOU contend, WHAT THEN bes the point of faith and belief?" Because clearly if what you proposed actually did bes real, faith and belief would NOT be needed at all.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

If our spirit or souls are passed on through DNA then either science has done a poor job of identifying it and God has done a poor job of expressing the nature of soul and spirit as being essentially physical (DNA proscribed).

If free will is an illusion then reality is an illusion, choice is an illusion, love is an illusion, and a God who asks us to believe, love and trust is also an illusion because He asks of us to do what we cannot do.

Since you don't believe in free will, since you believe that you are demon possessed, I don't fell any need to discuss anything with you. I must assume that you are speaking as a demon which is an enemy of God.

If you had free will I might be inclined to think that at least some of the time the words you used were your own and not filtered through a demon but as it is I can't bring myself to give much credence to your statements.