ATTENTION MEMBERS need your assistance :)

[VictorC]

It seems a Moderate/Progressive Adventist would have its roots in congregationalism, a now-defunct denomination shared by Nathaniel Hawthorne and Calvin Coolidge.

Wrong group, wrong theology, wrong origin, wrong personalities, wrong wrong wrong, take these ideas that have nothing in relation to any form of Adventism away from us.

 

[VictorC]

ok this is good in my eyes too ....just for starters...how would you go about hashing something out??? finish this sentence.....

• Progressives believe that some of the beliefs espoused by the SDA 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 by _____

Tell me how progressives feel or act or answer this statement and why?


The answers we get from each of you may help clarify a purpose for you all.....I hope it leads to something anyway

I don't think it prudent to finish the sentence you suggested, as you're coming from a mindset that doesn't understand the practice of this particular forum in the form it presently exists in. Several have mentioned that it exists because it doesn't comply with the "traditional" SDA forum's SoF mandating acceptance of the SDA Fundamental Beliefs. It exists as a place where we can openly compare those Fundamental Beliefs with Scripture, and in many cases a choice needs to be made between Scripture and the Fundamental Beliefs where one can't be reconciled with the other.

Here's the reason I don't think you should be making a SoF for this group, based on what you wrote in this thread:

example in MJ (my forum) we dont allow folks to come in and talk about the law passing away, that would be off topic to MJ as that forum believes (most do strongly anyway) that the law(Torah) will never pass away

I'm a former MJ, having come out of that belief system when I could not reconcile the position you describe with Scripture stating the first covenant was taken away by the Hand of God to establish the new covenant. The best way you could define the needs of a group that are in various stages of transition is to allow free dialogue rather than caging them into a box where dissention isn't permitted. I don't think I have read anyone air a desire for a "safe haven" here, and if a unity of the one faith entrusted to us is to be attained, we need a place where we can discuss all the traits inherited that caused division in the first place.

Would you like to define the purpose of this forum?
Then categorize it the same as you would with those coming out of Messianic Judaism, or voicing a dissention with those who insist that the first covenant hasn't lost jurisdiction over God's redeemed.
Or categorize it as you would with those transitioning out of Mormonism.
Or leaving the Jehovah's Witnesses.

If a transition from MJ-ism doesn't fit within your paradigm, then I would submit that you should refrain from defining a SoF for this group. An inherent bias you have will not allow you to oversee an effort that we're having a hard time seeing a reason for. As a minimum, I would like you to step away and hand the task over to someone else more able to see past a bias that makes understanding our needs difficult.

 

[Edial]

I don't think it prudent to finish the sentence you suggested, as you're coming from a mindset that doesn't understand the practice of this particular forum in the form it presently exists in. Several have mentioned that it exists because it doesn't comply with the "traditional" SDA forum's SoF mandating acceptance of the SDA Fundamental Beliefs. It exists as a place where we can openly compare those Fundamental Beliefs with Scripture, and in many cases a choice needs to be made between Scripture and the Fundamental Beliefs where one can't be reconciled with the other.

Here's the reason I don't think you should be making a SoF for this group, based on what you wrote in this thread:

I'm a former MJ, having come out of that belief system when I could not reconcile the position you describe with Scripture stating the first covenant was taken away by the Hand of God to establish the new covenant. The best way you could define the needs of a group that are in various stages of transition is to allow free dialogue rather than caging them into a box where dissention isn't permitted. I don't think I have read anyone air a desire for a "safe haven" here, and if a unity of the one faith entrusted to us is to be attained, we need a place where we can discuss all the traits inherited that caused division in the first place.

Would you like to define the purpose of this forum?
Then categorize it the same as you would with those coming out of Messianic Judaism, or voicing a dissention with those who insist that the first covenant hasn't lost jurisdiction over God's redeemed.
Or categorize it as you would with those transitioning out of Mormonism.
Or leaving the Jehovah's Witnesses.

If a transition from MJ-ism doesn't fit within your paradigm, then I would submit that you should refrain from defining a SoF for this group. An inherent bias you have will not allow you to oversee an effort that we're having a hard time seeing a reason for. As a minimum, I would like you to step away and hand the task over to someone else more able to see past a bias that makes understanding our needs difficult.

VictorC, no bias is indended here.
Tishri1 is working with you.

If she would have had bias against you, this forum or your vews, and would have acted on the bias, she could have dissolved this place.
She is an Advisor.

Please, let's not change the direction of this conversation.

In Christ,
Edial

 

[Edial]

This forum seems to me to be about examining SDA teachings. Anyone with knowledge of their beliefs, and an opinion, should be welcome to participate.

I am third or fourth gen SDA and I never officially left the church, but I now believe they are pretty much wrong on everything that sets them apart from mainstream Christianity. I like to come here and talk to the people who are still "true believers". If some sort of statement of faith is made wherein I would have to hold to certain SDA principles in order to participate in this forum, then that would be a great loss for me.

I see.

Would you say you are an SDA dissident?

Would you say this is a place where SDA traditional teachings are questioned?

You apparently compare SDA teachings to what you call mainstream Christianity.

Work with me here.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[VictorC]

VictorC, no bias is indended here.
Tishri1 is working with you.

If she would have had bias against you, this forum or your vews, and would have acted on the bias, she could have dissolved this place.
She is an Advisor.

Please, let's not change the direction of this conversation.

In Christ,
Edial

Ed,
Perhaps you could provide a bit of background to help us understand why this effort has suddenly come to the forefront. We have had one of the more peaceful members already state that the provision of a "safe haven" SoF is likely to shut him out, and I'm concerned about that. I too would have to determine an exit from this forum, and I believe it serves a value some of the administration isn't hearing while they're "working with us".

 

[Kira Light]

I see.

Would you say you are an SDA dissident?

Would you say this is a place where SDA traditional teachings are questioned?

You apparently compare SDA teachings to what you call mainstream Christianity.

Work with me here.

Thanks,
Ed

Everyone in the SDA church is in a different stage of rejecting the teachings of EGW. Even the most hardcore traditional SDA's on this forum run away from her teachings when questioned. I would call this forum a place where SDAs or people interested in SDAism come to discuss what the church is and what it should be.

I would say yes that makes me an SDA dissident, but so is anyone who rejects the 18th fundamental belief of the SDA church as found on their official website:

Fundamental Beliefs

18. The Gift of Prophecy:
One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. White . As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. (Joel 2:28, 29; Acts 2:14-21; Heb. 1:1-3; Rev. 12:17; 19:10.)

 

[Edial]

Ed,
Perhaps you could provide a bit of background to help us understand why this effort has suddenly come to the forefront. We have had one of the more peaceful members already state that the provision of a "safe haven" SoF is likely to shut him out, and I'm concerned about that. I too would have to determine an exit from this forum, and I believe it serves a value some of the administration isn't hearing while they're "working with us".

Forget SoF.
The reason for SoF is because, believe it or not , we wanted to help you out when we saw a non-SDA debating Sabbath day.
We thought, if you all agree on Sabbath, then we could protect you guys from extreme pressure from some anti-Sabbath folks.

But you are saying that even some of the members here question Sabbath.
Fine. Cool. No problem.
No SoF.

However, we do need an SoP - Statement of Purpose.

Who are you? What do you do? What is the purpose of this forum?

If you say that SoP is to discuss and question traditional SDA doctrines by folks who are traditionally or culturally or theologically or (find the right words) are related to SDA.

This will not include a word "former SDA" since some that might want to question these could be current SDAs.

However, we do not need the Baptists, or Lutherans (me ), or Catholics to come here and start bashing Ellen White.

It is just not right. You see what I mean?
Otherwise we might as well call it General Theology.

But we cannot, because you guys clearly are a separate group.



Thanks,
In Christ,
Ed

 

[Edial]

Ed,
Perhaps you could provide a bit of background to help us understand why this effort has suddenly come to the forefront. We have had one of the more peaceful members already state that the provision of a "safe haven" SoF is likely to shut him out, and I'm concerned about that. I too would have to determine an exit from this forum, and I believe it serves a value some of the administration isn't hearing while they're "working with us".

Posted below.

 

[Edial]

Everyone in the SDA church is in a different stage of rejecting the teachings of EGW. Even the most hardcore traditional SDA's on this forum run away from her teachings when questioned. I would call this forum a place where SDAs or people interested in SDAism come to discuss what the church is and what it should be.

I would say yes that makes me an SDA dissident, but so is anyone who rejects the 18th fundamental belief of the SDA church as found on their official website:

Fundamental Beliefs

Now you are working with us ...

Anyone else?

 

[VictorC]

Forget SoF.
The reason for SoF is because, believe it or not , we wanted to help you out when we saw a non-SDA debating Sabbath day.
We thought, if you all agree on Sabbath, then we could protect you guys from extreme pressure from some anti-Sabbath folks.

More of our problems come from those intent on keeping a rendition of the sabbath contributed by a few adament "traditional" Adventists, in my opinion. These have been the impetus for shouting matches that lead nowhere.

But you are saying that even some of the members here question Sabbath.

Absolutely!
As well as the soteriology that lurks behind the Adventist view of the sabbath that no Lutheran will ever accept.

Fine. Cool. No problem.
No SoF.

However, we do need an SoP - Statement of Purpose.

Who are you? What do you do? What is the purpose of this forum?

If you say that SoP is to discuss and question traditional SDA doctrines by folks who are traditionally or culturally or theologically or (find the right words) are related to SDA.

This will not include a word "former SDA" since some that might want to question these could be current SDAs.

However, we do not need the Baptists, or Lutherans (me ), or Catholics to come here and start bashing Ellen White.

It is just not right. You see what I mean?
Otherwise we might as well call it General Theology.

But we cannot, because you guys clearly are a separate group.



Thanks,
In Christ,
Ed

Consider us a home for those who want to question Adventism directly without the general mayhem of the general population inherent in General Theology. Otherwise, I don't think there's any other difference at a practical level. In the distant past we made use of the Denomination-Specific Theology forum, but it wasn't intuitive enough for interested parties to find it. The title is a magnet, and the placement of this forum draws attention from even those new to CF's structure. If anything, I wouldn't mind an overhaul of CF's layout, as there are so many attempts to cater to everyone that there are too many cubbyholes no one knows exists.

My motivation is the unity of the faith Jude 1:3 tells us is prudent to contend earnestly for. I wouldn't mind having only one forum for everyone, but pragmatism wouldn't allow that to work very well (today's understatement).

 

[tall73]

A. I am not a progressive Adventist.

B. I was for a time a progressive Adventist. Before that I was a traditional Adventist, and an Adventist pastor for 10 years.

C. I still agree with a lot of views of progressive Adventists.

You have to understand some things about the Adventist Church to understand this forum.

The Adventist church did not always have 28 fundamental beliefs spelled out as they do now. They had certain "pillars" or key teachings. But in recent years Adventism has sought to spell out in more specifics a greater number of teachings.

Those joining the church before 1980 were not required to hold to the set of beliefs that is now required. Many of the beliefs would be the same. But the notion of fundamental beliefs that take on a creed-like identity is more pronounced in recent years.

Progressive Adventists see that the Adventist church has a role to play in the world. They value the elements of Adventism's history that allowed people to diverge from the common views and study for themselves. But they do not value the dogmatism that has developed at various periods of Adventism, and they do not value defining a great number of topics so that everyone must subscribe to the party line.

The Adventist church started out with the notion that creeds are bad. Corporate agreement with a creed limits examination of closely held beliefs.

The best way I can put it is that Adventism in its early days re-examined many things and focused on "present" truth. Ie. they thought truth progressed. Progressive Adventists hold to this spirit of continued advancement in truth rather than focusing specific historical Adventist beliefs. Many of the historical Adventist beliefs they find may not be correct after further research.

They like the original spirit of Adventism. But they often find some of the beliefs of early Adventism to be wrong, simplistic, proof-texted or in some cases downright wacky.

The reason progressive Adventists and former Adventists who have left over doctrine have so much in common is that they have all wrestled with the same questions regarding their Adventist faith and have found some aspects of the traditional interpretation lacking. They just take different paths to dealing with that in their daily life.

Formers feel they are better off with another church. Progressives still value their experience in the church enough that they remain. Some seek to change the church from within. Others just enjoy the cultural aspects and still worship along with Adventists without necessarily feeling a need to change the system. Some feel that the church still has a larger purpose, that it can contribute to Christianity, but not necessarily in the area of Adventist disctinctives.

But they all have wrestled with the doctrine and found things that they can no longer agree with in the overall fundamental beliefs of Adventism.

 

[tall73]

One doctrine that nearly all progressives and formers are united in rejecting is the Adventist sanctuary doctrine. This doctrine was the central tenet of historical Adventism. Yet time has shown it to be a theological lightning rod in the church, with prominent Adventists routinely calling into question its biblical basis.

Even among those Adventists who still hold to the sanctuary teaching changes have been made to some of the notions present in the doctrine as it has had to meet challenges from critics, primarily those within the church itself.

If you go to the seminary they will be the first to admit that even since the scandals of the 1980's they have "progressed" a lot in their sanctuary research, and no longer hold to all the same views or arguments.

And there is a general lack of interest among some doctrines in the church precisely because of doubt over traditional views.

Here is a quote from a very traditional Adventist figure who saw the beginning of this pluralist shift, down-playing the sanctuary doctrine, even in his day:

If my experience as a teacher in the Seminary may be taken as a criterion, I would say that a large number of our ministers have serious doubt as to the correctness of the views we hold on certain phases of the sanctuary. They believe, in a general way, that we are correct, but they are as fully assured that Ballenger's views have never been fully met and that we cannot meet them. Not wishing to make the matter an issue, they simply decide that the question is not vital - and thus the whole subject of the sanctuary is relegated, in their minds at least, to the background. This is not a wholesome situation. If the subject is as vital as we have thought and taught it to be, it is not of secondary importance. Today, in the minds of a considerable part of the ministry, as far as my experience in the Seminary is concerned, it has little vital bearing, either in their lives or theology. I dread to see the day when our enemies will make capital of our weakness. I dread still more to see the day when our ministry will begin to raise questions.

M. L. Andreason letter, 1942.

That day did come. And now we are in the aftermath.

The church as a whole is in tension between those who want pluralism and and those who want purity.

The main church leadership seems to want pluralism, because allowing for a variety of views is the only way to keep the church united. But while they may push for this behind the scenes, especially in ministers meetings etc., before the public as a whole they generally promote traditional Adventist beliefs.

Conservative groups recognize that many of their leaders are playing to both sides. They resent this and take steps to restore the traditional view. They sometimes become anti-establishment as a result, with some even coming to believe that the main Adventist establishment is babylon, having departed from the faith. Generally they want faithfulness to the doctrinal stances that have always defined Adventism.

Progressives reject the hardline stance and try to feed the discussion of Adventist beliefs. They push for openness because they believe that the truth is greater than the traditional definition.

This struggle happens in many denominations of course, but the issues tend to be a bit different in the Adventist version. They tend to center around the distinctive doctrines of Adventism.

The internet has brought all this out in the open. The identity of Adventism is being discussed and shaped on forums and blogs, and other media throughout the web.

You can pull up a chair and watch it, and then you will know why this forum exists.

 

[VictorC]

You can pull up a chair and watch it, and then you will know why this forum exists.

That's pretty good advice.

 

[tall73]

Another doctrine that almost all progressives renounce is the idea that the Adventist church is the remnant church of Bible prophecy.

This is expressly spelled out in the Adventist baptismal vow from the church manual:

13. Do you accept and believe that the Seventh-day Adventist
Church is the remnant church of Bible prophecy and that people of every
nation, race, and language are invited and accepted into its fellowship?
Do you desire to be a member of this local congregation of the world
church?

Progressives generally view the remnant as far more broad and do not feel that people have to leave their own denomination to be a part of Christ's last day church.

 

[tall73]

Those who are looking for what this forum offers know it when they see it. I don't think a purpose statement would contribute much in that respect.


On a related note...


Since you are asking the Progressive Adventist forum to craft a statement of purpose, what is the purpose of your statements of purpose? What does CF hope to accomplish by having denominational sub-forums make these statements?

Are they to give an indication to onlookers?

Will they be used to rule in and rule out particular types of posts (this is within the purpose, this is not).

Is this part of a staff review of various sub-forums? Ie. if sufficient purpose is not found for a forum it could be phased out.

Understanding the bigger picture might help in the process.

 

[tall73]

However, we do not need the Baptists, or Lutherans (me ), or Catholics to come here and start bashing Ellen White.

It is just not right. You see what I mean?

I do not think they see it quite the way you do.


Many progressives recognize Ellen White's historical contributions but do not hold her as inspired, or at least hold to a different view of her inspiration than most traditionals.

What you might perceive as bashing is often just examination of her teachings. Progressive Adventists hash out Adventist teachings. That includes Ellen White.

Some progressives over time get to the point where Ellen White as a topic is just ho-hum, however. They have other things they want to look at. That is also true of the sabbath, law, sanctuary, etc.

Progressives generally start off their questioning with Adventist distinctives, but their drive to examine enters into other areas of faith. Adventism had as part of its early DNA a tendency to question the status quo. Many progressives retain that, and extend it to new areas. Along with that is a new awareness of the theological struggles of others. They are less dogmatic, more embracing of divergent views.

 

[StormyOne]

Thank you Tall!!!! You have put into words exactly what I was thinking!!!! Thank you!!!

 

[Edial]

I do not think they see it quite the way you do.


Many progressives recognize Ellen White's historical contributions but do not hold her as inspired, or at least hold to a different view of her inspiration than most traditionals.

What you might perceive as bashing is often just examination of her teachings. Progressive Adventists hash out Adventist teachings. That includes Ellen White.

Some progressives over time get to the point where Ellen White as a topic is just ho-hum, however. They have other things they want to look at. That is also true of the sabbath, law, sanctuary, etc.

Progressives generally start off their questioning with Adventist distinctives, but their drive to examine enters into other areas of faith. Adventism had as part of its early DNA a tendency to question the status quo. Many progressives retain that, and extend it to new areas. Along with that is a new awareness of the theological struggles of others. They are less dogmatic, more embracing of divergent views.

The point I was making is not whether Ellen White is "bashed" or her "teachings examined", but the fact that if Lutherans and Baptists would lead discussions concerning Ellen White then this might as well be called General Theology.

However, these folks here have definite roots in SDA while challenging SDA's teachings.

This needs to be captured in defining the identity of this place.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[StormyOne]

The point I was making is not whether Ellen White is "bashed" or her "teachings examined", but the fact that if Lutherans and Baptists would lead discussions concerning Ellen White then this might as well be called General Theology.

However, these folks here have definite roots in SDA while challenging SDA's teachings.

This needs to be captured in defining the identity of this place.

Thanks,
Ed

"Adventists Gone Wild??"

 

[Edial]

"Adventists Gone Wild??"