Can someone educate me?

[Byfaithalone1]

I must admit that I am at a bit of a disadvantage. I'm still relatively new around here, and I don't fully understand the differences between the progressive SDAs and traditional SDAs with respect to the "fundamental beliefs" of SDAism. Can you educate me?

Because post sizes are limited, let's start with fundamental belief #1-5. Would the progressive SDAs accept these five beliefs as written, or should these beliefs be revised?

1. Holy Scriptures:
The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God, given by divine inspiration through holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God's acts in history.

2. Trinity:
There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons. God is immortal, all-powerful, all-knowing, above all, and ever present. He is infinite and beyond human comprehension, yet known through His self-revelation. He is forever worthy of worship, adoration, and service by the whole creation.

3. Father:
God the eternal Father is the Creator, Source, Sustainer, and Sovereign of all creation. He is just and holy, merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness. The qualities and powers exhibited in the Son and the Holy Spirit are also revelations of the Father.

4. Son:
God the eternal Son became incarnate in Jesus Christ. Through Him all things were created, the character of God is revealed, the salvation of humanity is accomplished, and the world is judged. Forever truly God, He became also truly man, Jesus the Christ. He was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. He lived and experienced temptation as a human being, but perfectly exemplified the righteousness and love of God. By His miracles He manifested God's power and was attested as God's promised Messiah. He suffered and died voluntarily on the cross for our sins and in our place, was raised from the dead, and ascended to minister in the heavenly sanctuary in our behalf. He will come again in glory for the final deliverance of His people and the restoration of all things.

5. Holy Spirit:
God the eternal Spirit was active with the Father and the Son in Creation, incarnation, and redemption. He inspired the writers of Scripture. He filled Christ's life with power. He draws and convicts human beings; and those who respond He renews and transforms into the image of God. Sent by the Father and the Son to be always with His children, He extends spiritual gifts to the church, empowers it to bear witness to Christ, and in harmony with the Scriptures leads it into all truth.
​

BFA

 

[StormyOne]

it depends.... some progressives do some don't...

 

[Avonia]

oops!

 

[Avonia]

Would the progressive SDAs accept these five beliefs as written, or should these beliefs be revised?

There are laws that describe the functioning of the universe--if A then B--and principles that describe the relationships within.

Our 28 have roots in universal law and principles of relationship. But we insist on overlaying our assumptions, biases and desires on this foundation. And insist on this overlay--or belief--as truth.

So the answer to your question is Yes and No.

 

[mva1985]

BFA,

I am a "traditional" Adventist and I do agree with them as they are written.

I know that you asked for "progressives" to answer this, but thought I would chime in.

 

[moicherie]

I would revise 1. based on the fact God did not write the bible so its not His personal written word, being inspired does not mean the men who wrote the books we call the bible have given us infallible material. If the word was so infallible we would not have needed The Word to come, all humanity would need is to keep reading.
But all Progressives do not think alike so you are not going get to an official Progressive answer.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

it depends.... some progressives do some don't...

OK. So you think that there probably isn't 100% consistency among progressive SDAs on the 5 fundamentals listed? That makes sense. There would certainly much diversity of perspective in my own church on the wording of the 5 fundamentals listed.

Can I ask how you personally view the 5 fundamentals listed? Is the wording OK as it is, or would you prefer a revision? If you'd prefer a revision, what sections should be reconsidered?

BFA

 

[Byfaithalone1]

There are laws that describe the functioning of the universe--if A then B--and principles that describe the relationships within.

Our 28 have roots in universal law and principles of relationship. But we insist on overlaying our assumptions, biases and desires on this foundation. And insist on this overlay--or belief--as truth.

So the answer to your question is Yes and No.

OK. Fair enough. If you were to take a crack at revising the five fundamentals listed, which would not need require any revision and what would you like to tweak? Can you give me something more specific?

BFA

 

[Byfaithalone1]

I am a "traditional" Adventist and I do agree with them as they are written.

I didn't ask traditional SDAs to provide comments about problems with the fundamentals because I assumed that the traditionals would have no problems with them. However, if any traditional SDAs would like to express concerns about the fundamentals, they are more than welcome to do so.

BFA

 

[StormyOne]

OK. So you think that there probably isn't 100% consistency among progressive SDAs on the 5 fundamentals listed? That makes sense. There would certainly much diversity of perspective in my own church on the wording of the 5 fundamentals listed.

Can I ask how you personally view the 5 fundamentals listed? Is the wording OK as it is, or would you prefer a revision?

BFA

me personally? I don't think the 5 you listed are fundamental. I do not believe that the bible is any of those things. I believe the bible contains enough information that a person can come to realize that there is a Creator who loved humans enough to rescue them after they had fallen.....I do not think the bible is accurate historically, nor the standard of character, nor the authoritative revealer of doctrines.... I think people have extrapolated doctrines from what they have read, but the bible has been used to prove or justify all kinds of things....

It is my belief that there is One Supreme Being, The Creator. This Super Being can manifest itself in 3 or more different ways. Christ is one of those ways. The Holy Spirit is another. However to me, there is just One Creator....

 

[Byfaithalone1]

me personally? I don't think the 5 you are listed are fundamental. I do not believe that the bible is any of those things. I believe the bible contains enough information that a person can come to realize that there is a Creator who loved humans enough to rescue them after they had fallen.....I do not think the bible is accurate historically, nor the standard of character, nor the authoritative revealer of doctrines.... I think people have extrapolated doctrines from what they have read, but the bible has been used to prove or justify all kinds of things....

It is my belief that there is One Supreme Being, The Creator. This Super Being can manifest itself in 3 or more different ways. Christ is one of those ways. The Holy Spirit is another. However to me, there is just One Creator....

OK. I truly appreciate the clarification. This is the type of feedback that I was hoping to get, as it really does help me understand the areas where I agree and disagree with some of the progressives who post here. I hope that others will follow your lead.

I'm not going to take issue with what you've written. That wasn't really my purpose in this thread. Rather, I simply wanted to better understand. I hope that you'll be willing to comment on other fundamentals as this thread unfolds.

From your brief description of the trinity, I don't sense that your understanding is vastly different than my own. I am intrigued by your discussion of the Scriptures; I hope to explore this subject with you further in a different thread; but I'll save that discussion for another time and another place.

BFA

 

[Byfaithalone1]

I would revise 1. based on the fact God did not write the bible so its not His personal written word, being inspired does not mean the men who wrote the books we call the bible have given us infallible material. If the word was so infallible we would not have needed The Word to come, all humanity would need is to keep reading.
But all Progressives do not think alike so you are not going get to an official Progressive answer.

I hear you. I guess I'm not looking for universals among progressive SDAs. Rather, I am hoping to better understand the individual progressive SDAs who post here. Thanks for moving me one step closer to understanding. I sense that there could be a number of different positions taken by progressive SDAs on the fundamentals listed in the OP.

What is your take on the trinity, as expressed in SDA fundamentals #2-5?

BFA

 

[moicherie]

I
What is your take on the trinity, as expressed in SDA fundamentals #2-5?

BFA

At the moment it is as expressed in F2-F5

 

[Avonia]

OK. Fair enough. If you were to take a crack at revising the five fundamentals listed, which would not need require any revision and what would you like to tweak? Can you give me something more specific?
BFA

Yes - specifically, I would be less specific.

There is a difference between believing and knowing. Belief is a bridge to knowing. Some bridges are shorter and better made than others.

This is why it's important to study many paths - putting a priority on whichever one fits you best. For most in this group, that's Christianity.

I've been doing a little informal survey and have discovered that very few people can articulate the 28 without notes anyway. There is a reason for this - they don't matter that much. They attempt to summarize that which can not be summarized. It's an attempt at a snapshot of The Whole in a few paragraphs. It's not bad - it just is what it is. A good place to start.

 

[StormyOne]

OK. I truly appreciate the clarification. This is the type of feedback that I was hoping to get, as it really does help me understand the areas where I agree and disagree with some of the progressives who post here. I hope that others will follow your lead.

not a problem, but as I said, there will probably be lots of differing views among progressive folk...

I'm not going to take issue with what you've written. That wasn't really my purpose in this thread. Rather, I simply wanted to better understand. I hope that you'll be willing to comment on other fundamentals as this thread unfolds.

Sure I will let you know what my thoughts/beliefs are on a given fundamental...

From your brief description of the trinity, I don't sense that your understanding is vastly different than my own. I am intrigued by your discussion of the Scriptures; I hope to explore this subject with you further in a different thread; but I'll save that discussion for another time and another place.

BFA

sure looking forward to doing so.....

 

[Byfaithalone1]

It's an attempt at a snapshot of The Whole in a few paragraphs. It's not bad - it just is what it is. A good place to start.

Is it safe to say then that you have no specific objection to fundamentals #1-5?

BFA

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Thanks to all for your responses so far. They have been helpful. Can you provide feedback as to the way that you personally view fundamentals #6-10? Among the 5 fundamentals, are there any that you can accept as written? Which ones would you prefer to revise and how would you revise them? Any that you would set aside completely?

6. Creation:
God is Creator of all things, and has revealed in Scripture the authentic account of His creative activity. In six days the Lord made "the heaven and the earth" and all living things upon the earth, and rested on the seventh day of that first week. Thus He established the Sabbath as a perpetual memorial of His completed creative work. The first man and woman were made in the image of God as the crowning work of Creation, given dominion over the world, and charged with responsibility to care for it. When the world was finished it was ``very good,'' declaring the glory of God.

7. Nature of Man:
Man and woman were made in the image of God with individuality, the power and freedom to think and to do. Though created free beings, each is an indivisible unity of body, mind, and spirit, dependent upon God for life and breath and all else. When our first parents disobeyed God, they denied their dependence upon Him and fell from their high position under God. The image of God in them was marred and they became subject to death. Their descendants share this fallen nature and its consequences. They are born with weaknesses and tendencies to evil. But God in Christ reconciled the world to Himself and by His Spirit restores in penitent mortals the image of their Maker. Created for the glory of God, they are called to love Him and one another, and to care for their environment.

8. Great Controversy:
All humanity is now involved in a great controversy between Christ and Satan regarding the character of God, His law, and His sovereignty over the universe. This conflict originated in heaven when a created being, endowed with freedom of choice, in self-exaltation became Satan, God's adversary, and led into rebellion a portion of the angels. He introduced the spirit of rebellion into this world when he led Adam and Eve into sin. This human sin resulted in the distortion of the image of God in humanity, the disordering of the created world, and its eventual devastation at the time of the worldwide flood. Observed by the whole creation, this world became the arena of the universal conflict, out of which the God of love will ultimately be vindicated. To assist His people in this controversy, Christ sends the Holy Spirit and the loyal angels to guide, protect, and sustain them in the way of salvation.

9. Life, Death, and Resurrection of Christ:
In Christ's life of perfect obedience to God's will, His suffering, death, and resurrection, God provided the only means of atonement for human sin, so that those who by faith accept this atonement may have eternal life, and the whole creation may better understand the infinite and holy love of the Creator. This perfect atonement vindicates the righteousness of God's law and the graciousness of His character; for it both condemns our sin and provides for our forgiveness. The death of Christ is substitutionary and expiatory, reconciling and transforming. The resurrection of Christ proclaims God's triumph over the forces of evil, and for those who accept the atonement assures their final victory over sin and death. It declares the Lordship of Jesus Christ, before whom every knee in heaven and on earth will bow.

10. Experience of Salvation:
In infinite love and mercy God made Christ, who knew no sin, to be sin for us, so that in Him we might be made the righteousness of God. Led by the Holy Spirit we sense our need, acknowledge our sinfulness, repent of our transgressions, and exercise faith in Jesus as Lord and Christ, as Substitute and Example. This faith which receives salvation comes through the divine power of the Word and is the gift of God's grace. Through Christ we are justified, adopted as God's sons and daughters, and delivered from the lordship of sin. Through the Spirit we are born again and sanctified; the Spirit renews our minds, writes God's law of love in our hearts, and we are given the power to live a holy life. Abiding in Him we become partakers of the divine nature and have the assurance of salvation now and in the judgment.
​

When we've wrapped up this discussion, I will (in the interest of fairness) share my thoughts on the 28 fundamentals. However, I'd first like to better understand how the progressive posters in this forum view these fundamentals, and I don't want to poison the well by posting my own thoughts prematurely.

BFA

 

[StormyOne]

the next 5... a brief summary...

6. God created I agree. The sabbath was not established during the creation "week." For God to exclaim something was very good means that something very bad must have been present... what was it?

7. I do not believe humans are comprised of mind, body and spirit... I believe humans are comprised of mind and body. Those things that people ascribe to "the spirit" is really a function of the brain. "Created for the glory of God" is theobabble and to me has no meaningful definition.

8. No and there are multple reasons why I don't agree with this one... including why would a God who is everywhere need to assign angels to protect humans? He is right there, is he not powerful enough to protect given he is everywhere? Great Controversy is a bit strong, world wide flood, I don't think so... can God create a being that is really able to challenge his supremeness? I don't think so....

9. I understand it, but don't agree..... Jesus said he had completed all that he was assigned to do BEFORE getting to the cross... that suggests to me that we have extrapolated from the story being told by those who compiled the bible a scenario that may or may not be true.... I think Paul was grappling with how salvation occurs and did his best to explain it...

10. more theobabble.... all that means what? man fell, God rescued, why can't we keep it simple?

 

[Byfaithalone1]

The sabbath was not established during the creation "week."

I'm surprised that we agree on this point. Perhaps we have more in common that I originally thought.

For God to exclaim something was very good means that something very bad must have been present... what was it?

Interesting point. This is a new idea I had never considered.

I do not believe humans are comprised of mind, body and spirit... I believe humans are comprised of mind and body. Those things that people ascribe to "the spirit" is really a function of the brain. "Created for the glory of God" is theobabble and to me has no meaningful definition.

OK. Got it. Thanks.

No and there are multple reasons why I don't agree with this one... including why would a God who is everywhere need to assign angels to protect humans? He is right there, is he not powerful enough to protect given he is everywhere? Great Controversy is a bit strong, world wide flood, I don't think so... can God create a being that is really able to challenge his supremeness? I don't think so....

I've always noted the massive lack of Scriptural evidence for this "fundamental." I share many of your concerns (and have others that we haven't specifically mentioned).

9. I understand it, but don't agree..... Jesus said he had completed all that he was assigned to do BEFORE getting to the cross... that suggests to me that we have extrapolated from the story being told by those who compiled the bible a scenario that may or may not be true.... I think Paul was grappling with how salvation occurs and did his best to explain it...

I have always been amazed at the apparent contradictions of fundamental #9. It speaks of a perfect atonment, when Mrs. White is clear that she believed the blood of Christ was not to cancel sin and that there was another atonement following Christ's resurrection that was yet to take place. Seems contradictory to me.

10. more theobabble.... all that means what? man fell, God rescued, why can't we keep it simple?

I agree.

BFA

 

[sentipente]

Why do we need statements of faith? How do they contribute to the well-being of the human race.