ATTENTION MEMBERS need your assistance :)

[Edial]

Hello there.

CF needs some type of a Statement of Faith for this specific sub-forum.

This forum is in a Congregational area of CF and need protection from other folks questioning and debating the doctrinal basics you all agree upon.

No one knows more about Progressive and Moderate Adventists than ... the Progressive and Moderate Adventists who live here.

Let's say some fellow would come in and say: "Hey, you guys must not follow Sabbath!" and would not relent.

If you have a common Statement of Faith, then you would be protected by the Congregational safe haven.

Outsiders should not be able to question your common beliefs in your own home.

Could we (you) define a common set of beliefs that both of your groups agree on, so we could Sticky it on the front door of your home?

Thank you.
On behalf of Admins,
In Christ,
Edial

 

[VictorC]

Hello there.

CF needs some type of a Statement of Faith for this specific sub-forum.

This forum is in a Congregational area of CF and need protection from other folks questioning and debating the doctrinal basics you all agree upon.

No one knows more about Progressive and Moderate Adventists than ... the Progressive and Moderate Adventists who live here.

Let's say some fellow would come in and say: "Hey, you guys must not follow Sabbath!" and would not relent.

If you have a common Statement of Faith, then you would be protected by the Congregational safe haven.

Outsiders should not be able to question your common beliefs in your own home.

Could we (you) define a common set of beliefs that both of your groups agree on, so we could Sticky it on the front door of your home?

Thank you.
On behalf of Admins,
In Christ,
Edial

My own opinion - the SDA forum was split into two sub-forums, to produce this one and the "traditional" SDA forum. I believe the "progressive/moderate" sub-forum represents those who are in some stage of transition between Adventism (aka "traditional") and the rest of Christianity. Since it is hard to categorize those in various stages of transition, I would be resistant to having a codified statement of faith. Having one would inhibit the dialogue that takes place here.

It is tempting to have a SoF that would prohibit the "traditional" SDA from making entries, but in the grand scheme of things I would consider having any restrictions a detriment to discussion here.

 

[Kira Light]

I agree with Victor. I enjoy the debates and discussions that take place in this forum and I would hate to see those hindered.

 

[Tishri1]

Hi everyone I dont know if you remember me but I sorta helped you break away from being one big forum with SDA....I wonder if we could make even two or three points of agreement into a SOP and have that be enough?....the reason its important is because this is suppose to be a safe haven for you and not a fish bowl that everyone passing by will tap their fingers , and disrupt the harmony in .....if you can visualize a fish tank in the pet store... and everyone seems to not be able to control themselves and pokes on the glass ... the store owner usually has a sign asking folks to stop.....well we need to make a sign for you all telling folks that concerning certain subjects, they need to leave you all alone and just listen, no chalenging.....


how bout the Sabbath Day???? that should be top of the list right?

 

[Laodicean]

Hi everyone I dont know if you remember me but I sorta helped you break away from being one big forum with SDA....I wonder if we could make even two or three points of agreement into a SOP and have that be enough?....the reason its important is because this is suppose to be a safe haven for you and not a fish bowl that everyone passing by will tap their fingers , and disrupt the harmony in .....if you can visualize a fish tank in the pet store... and everyone seems to not be able to control themselves and pokes on the glass ... the store owner usually has a sign asking folks to stop.....well we need to make a sign for you all telling folks that concerning certain subjects, they need to leave you all alone and just listen, no chalenging.....


how bout the Sabbath Day???? that should be top of the list right?

Edial and Tishri1, my newbie-cents worth: I don't think this subforum was created in order to be a safe haven. Indeed, after reading the threads, starting back at 2005, it has become clear to me that this is somewhat of a waystation for SDAs who are progressing their way out of the church. There are some here who were once SDAs and have left and have now turned around and are themselves tapping on the fishbowl along with other nonSDA bowl-tappers. So how can this place be a safe haven for beliefs when those beliefs are in flux?

I thought, when I first joined, that "progressive" meant progressive enlightenment on established beliefs, but it appears to be more of a place to disagree with certain established beliefs. And what makes you qualify as a truly progressive member is to be able to speak badly of the church and some of its beliefs. If you champion an established belief, I get the feeling that such a person is now viewed as an outsider, an interloper, and they should head back to the main SDA forum because certain established beliefs are not welcome in these parts. I could be wrong, but this is the impression that I've received.

So, bottom line is, I don't think a SoF will work in this forum. Probably a statement of disbelief is more what will work. If the bowl-tappers are coming not just from the outside but also from the inside of the bowl, I doubt this forum can be made a safe haven for any set of beliefs....especially the Sabbath belief.

So I would warn newcomers that they come here at their own peril, if they want to avoid debate, doubts, and even open mockery. And to make this place a safe haven....well, I really don't think that was the purpose of those who first formed it.

Just my two-cents worth.

 

[StormyOne]

Interesting, but not quite Laodicean.... we have always resisted having a statement of faith here because we didn't feel that we needed a safe haven.... as such more traditional adventists have come and "discussed" issues with us as well as other people just seeking to get clarification about what we believed or didn't believe....

Laodicean I can see how you arrived at your perception regarding what some of the progressive folks think here, however for most of us the issue is simple. Some of the beliefs espoused by the church have no biblical basis, and need review.... the church more often than not is reluctant to do so.... so we hash it out here... the process is not always pretty....

 

[M-Class]

I'm a newbie here...

Maybe I can share my own newbie perspective (I don't presume to speak for anyone else). About a year ago I would have most certainly have been labeled a "traditional" Adventist. I thought progressives had lost their minds! I have since studied and questioned a number of traditional doctrinal positions and I now find myself now holding much of the "progressive" position (as much as you can define one anyway... aspects of progressive Adventism are very much anti-creedal [which is probably why everyone here is hesitant to define what would be perceived as a creed]).

What is the progressive position for me? Quite simply, to me the progressive position is in realizing that independent thought is not to be discouraged. We come from a background of having been taught that we have "the truth" and know all of the answers already. The reality is in the humility of realizing exactly how much we -do not- know. For me, progressiveness is about open dialog; it is about realizing that I may not have the correct answer to everything. I enjoy and learn from the debates here even when I do not participate in them.

I truly hope that one day Adventism can honestly examine and reform from what I personally believe are some very incorrect doctrines, but the present denominational system has an inherant protective bias toward fundamentalism. There are procedures for change, but any leadership that would desire change is weeded out by long before they are capable of effecting that change. Real change is going to have to come from the Holy Spirit working in the hearts of individual members, not from leadership.

Within Adventism, established members are granted more latitude in belief variations than leaders. This results in a paradox of sorts... some feel led to stick around and help from within (but outside of leadership), while others feel led to go elsewhere but need much help transitioning (the doctrinal misconceptions can run deep). If the movement were small, then I probably wouldn't even be here, but personal observations indicate that the movement is anything but small and is probably rapidly growing.

Edit: changed "statistics" to "personal observations". I have seen statistics on this, but I can't remember where nor am I capable of validating the authenticity of them, so I'm going to just stick with my own observations.

 

[VictorC]

Some of the beliefs espoused by the church have no biblical basis, and need review.... the church more often than not is reluctant to do so.... so we hash it out here...

I think that's an accurate assessment of the progressive/moderate forum's purpose. It isn't possible to write a SoF that promotes inquiry of the SDA Fundamental Beliefs, for a litmus test based on acceptance of something unBiblical would stop such inquiry.

 

[VictorC]

how bout the Sabbath Day???? that should be top of the list right?

No.
The sabbath is an object of particular affection that is discussed more than anything else here, and making it a litmus test would end inquiry on the second most unique doctrine held by Adventism (1st place revolves around 1844).

 

[VictorC]

I truly hope that one day Adventism can honestly examine and reform from what I personally believe are some very incorrect doctrines, but the present denominational system has an inherant protective bias toward fundamentalism. There are procedures for change, but any leadership that would desire change is weeded out by long before they are capable of effecting that change.

I think that is a very accurate observation. It seems most leave the "fundamentalist" camp when they find they can't reconcile the explanation for 1844 with Scripture, and then they can't reconcile Ellen with Scripture. Those in positions of leadership who act like Bereans are then labled "disbeliever" and removed from their position of leadership.

Real change is going to have to come from the Holy Spirit working in the hearts of individual members, not from leadership.

I think that's what this sub-forum's stated object should be.

 

[Edial]

OK. I understand ... I think.

I need to ask these questions.

Number of you have issues with SDA, which is fine - freedom of choice.

1. As you progress out of SDA or out of certain SDA teachings while still SDA does this progression include disagreement with the Nicene Creed (CF SoF).
Not an issue if it does, since we have a place for that in CF.

2. Is it acceptable by members of this forum not to believe in Sabbath?

Thanks,
In Christ,
Edial

 

[StormyOne]

OK. I understand ... I think.

I need to ask these questions.

Number of you have issues with SDA, which is fine - freedom of choice.

1. As you progress out of SDA or out of certain SDA teachings while still SDA does this progression include disagreement with the Nicene Creed (CF SoF).
Not an issue if it does, since we have a place for that in CF.

2. Is it acceptable by members of this forum not to believe in Sabbath?

Thanks,
In Christ,
Edial

We have not made belief in the Sabbath the litmus test for membership here in this sub-forum... so for me if a person chooses not to believe in the sabbath its no biggie...

 

[VictorC]

OK. I understand ... I think.

I need to ask these questions.

Number of you have issues with SDA, which is fine - freedom of choice.

1. As you progress out of SDA or out of certain SDA teachings while still SDA does this progression include disagreement with the Nicene Creed (CF SoF).
Not an issue if it does, since we have a place for that in CF.

Edial, I'm going to quote a short description of the Nicene Creed that appears in the public domain, and try to illustrate a misunderstanding the administration of CF may have:

The Nicene Creed was formulated at the First Ecumenical Council at Nicea in AD 325 to combat Arianism, and it was expanded at the Second Ecumenical Council at Constantinople in AD 381 to balance its coverage of the Trinity by including the Holy Spirit. It is the only creed that was promulgated by any of the seven ecumenical councils and thus it is the only creed that is truly ecumenical and universal. In the Orthodox Church, it is the only creed.

In a nutshell, the Nicene Creed was created to counter the Heresy of Arius in 325 AD. Those who describe a non-trinitarian view of the Godhead (Colossians 2:9 affirms Jesus as God in the flesh) are reverting to some form of Arianism in their thinking.

The SDA church has its roots in Arianism, and it wasn't until during the 1800's that a transition in the church made an effort to replace that Arian rendition of the Godhead with the Trinity. And yet in many cases Adventists today will describe a tri-theistic view of God (One in purpose), and affirm the Trinity in name while describing a view that isn't trinitarian (One in substance). It is perhaps illustrative for the administration to remember that the SDA church shares its origin with the Jehovah's Witnesses.

While it isn't a matter of discussion here very often, it is the formers who are much more likely to adhere to the purpose the Nicene Creed was created rather than those remaining in Adventism. The concern you air over acceptance of the litmus test CF employs is directed at the wrong group of people.

2. Is it acceptable by members of this forum not to believe in Sabbath?

Thanks,
In Christ,
Edial

Of course it is.
We who do not believe the sabbath has jurisdiction over God's redeemed children view the sabbath as a component of the first covenant, and it was a shadow of the eternal rest God would grant those He adopted as His sons and daughters. The sabbath remains a point of contention between mainstream Christianity and traditional Adventism. Those in transition are going to have every reason to discuss it from either side of the fence.

 

[Joe67]

A Statement of Faith is only a statement of what a group of people believe to be true.

It is not a statement of absolute, complete truth. A child does not have to defend his/her belief.

If a group's SoF is that they do not have a fixed written position, then that is workable to me.

If a group's SoF is written and that becomes a wall of protection from hostility by those who are not qualified members, then that is workable to me as well.

It is my understanding that most of those who are qualified members of PM are open to questioning the written position of the SdA 28 FBs. But most of these are not aggressively critical and harsh toward them since they are still members in good standing, attending SdA worship services on a regular basis. Wherein I am mistaken, please correct my statement here.

Since "Former" was removed from the PMF Adventist name I no longer qualify as a member and therefore post as a guest of the sub-forum. Therefore I feel respect is due to another person's house.

The Administration's desire and will is supreme in the matter.

Joe

 

[Edial]

Edial, I'm going to quote a short description of the Nicene Creed that appears in the public domain, and try to illustrate a misunderstanding the administration of CF may have:

In a nutshell, the Nicene Creed was created to counter the Heresy of Arius in 325 AD. Those who describe a non-trinitarian view of the Godhead (Colossians 2:9 affirms Jesus as God in the flesh) are reverting to some form of Arianism in their thinking.

The SDA church has its roots in Arianism, and it wasn't until during the 1800's that a transition in the church made an effort to replace that Arian rendition of the Godhead with the Trinity. And yet in many cases Adventists today will describe a tri-theistic view of God (One in purpose), and affirm the Trinity in name while describing a view that isn't trinitarian (One in substance). It is perhaps illustrative for the administration to remember that the SDA church shares its origin with the Jehovah's Witnesses.

While it isn't a matter of discussion here very often, it is the formers who are much more likely to adhere to the purpose the Nicene Creed was created rather than those remaining in Adventism. The concern you air over acceptance of the litmus test CF employs is directed at the wrong group of people.

Of course it is.
We who do not believe the sabbath has jurisdiction over God's redeemed children view the sabbath as a component of the first covenant, and it was a shadow of the eternal rest God would grant those He adopted as His sons and daughters. The sabbath remains a point of contention between mainstream Christianity and traditional Adventism. Those in transition are going to have every reason to discuss it from either side of the fence.

OK.

Let me understand this.

Am I correct in the following points?

1. This area is a transition plateau between traditional SDA and (using your definition) mainstream Christianity. They could disagree with 7th day Sabbath. OK. No problem.

2. This area agrees with Nicene Creed.

The reason I am bringing up the 2nd point is because if some members do not and they are still called Progressives then this sub-forum does not really belong in Congregational area of CF, which is in ChristianOnly section, "Christian" as in Orthodox Christianity, as defined by CF's Statement of Faith.

Thanks,
In Christ,
Ed

 

[Edial]

A Statement of Faith is only a statement of what a group of people believe to be true.

It is not a statement of absolute, complete truth. A child does not have to defend his/her belief.

If a group's SoF is that they do not have a fixed written position, then that is workable to me.

If a group's SoF is written and that becomes a wall of protection from hostility by those who are not qualified members, then that is workable to me as well.

It is my understanding that most of those who are qualified members of PM are open to questioning the written position of the SdA 28 FBs. But most of these are not aggressively critical and harsh toward them since they are still members in good standing, attending SdA worship services on a regular basis. Wherein I am mistaken, please correct my statement here.

Since "Former" was removed from the PMF Adventist name I no longer qualify as a member and therefore post as a guest of the sub-forum. Therefore I feel respect is due to another person's house.

The Administration's desire and will is supreme in the matter.

Joe

Joe, good point.

This does not need to be a Statement of Faith (SoF), it could also be a Statement of Purpose (SoP).

Good point.

Thanks,
In Christ,
Ed

 

[Edial]

We have not made belief in the Sabbath the litmus test for membership here in this sub-forum... so for me if a person chooses not to believe in the sabbath its no biggie...

Got it ...

 

[StormyOne]

OK.

Let me understand this.

Am I correct in the following points?

1. This area is a transition plateau between traditional SDA and (using your definition) mainstream Christianity. They could disagree with 7th day Sabbath. OK. No problem.

2. This area agrees with Nicene Creed.

The reason I am bringing up the 2nd point is because if some members do not and they are still called Progressives then this sub-forum does not really belong in Congregational area of CF, which is in ChristianOnly section, "Christian" as in Orthodox Christianity, as defined by CF's Statement of Faith.

Thanks,
In Christ,
Ed

I wouldn't say its a transition plateau necessarily... some of us remain sda's in spite of the those who would suggest that we are not true sda's and are not leaving the denomination, while some have left but still like to hang out with us....

As for the Creed... not sure what to make of it, I don't oppose it, its sort of a non-issue for me...

 

[Edial]

I wouldn't say its a transition plateau necessarily... some of us remain sda's in spite of the those who would suggest that we are not true sda's and are not leaving the denomination, while some have left but still like to hang out with us....

...

So help me finding the wording to describe it.

Avoiding the word "former" ...

be original, put something down that is reflective of who all of you are.

 

[StormyOne]

So help me finding the wording to describe it.

Avoiding the word "former" ...

be original, put something down that is reflective of who all of you are.

I don't know that there is a word..... liberal thinking adventists is a descriptor that comes to mind... progressive thinking adventists? I am not sure that there is a good word. I say that because we don't all agree on the same things, some quite liberal, some not....

from the sticky which I think still holds true:

For a description of Progressive Adventism, please see this Wikipedia article. Here is an excerpt from it:

Progressive Adventists are members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church who disagree with certain beliefs traditionally or commonly held today in the church. They think of themselves as theologically progressive relative to the denomination's mainstream. They are often described as liberal Adventism by other Adventists, however the term "progressive" is generally preferred as a self-description. This is partly because most are not liberal Christians (although a small portion actually are). This article describes terms such as evangelical Adventism, cultural Adventism, charismatic Adventism, and progressive Adventism and others, which are generally related but have distinctions.

Progressives typically question one or more of the church's more peculiar, or "distinctive" beliefs such as the investigative judgment, the remnant, a future global Sunday-law, or an overuse of Ellen G. White's writings. A major factor in its rise was as a result of Adventists mixing more widely with other Christians, which was sparked by the need for government accreditation for its educational institutions. However it is an emerging movement with an emerging definition, and its proponents resist drawing up any formal belief statement. Perceptions and definitions of it may differ somewhat depending on the author, although much is common is also clearly discernable.
​