I had hoped...

[TrustAndObey]

Am I the only one on here that has never seen an official belief statement for the Progressives?

We need one of those for sure.

 

[woobadooba]

Am I the only one on here that has never seen an official belief statement for the Progressives?

We need one of those for sure.

I can give you one.

It can be summed up in two words...

Anything Goes!



Oh, wait a minute. I would like to add to that for clarity...

Whatever will be will be!

There, that pretty much sums it up!

 

[TrustAndObey]

Most Progressives disagree just as much as we do. They don't have their own set of doctrine that I can gather, like Traditionals have.

I know their doctrine cannot just be "We disagree with Traditionals" but that's really all I ever see.

Woob, I really did misunderstand you before and I apologize. I thought you were trying to censor one poster and I didn't even consider the consequences of evolution discussions by atheists in our subforum.

The problem with that discussion is atheists do not believe the bible. That is OUR main tool for debate on the subject of creation, the word of God.

Unless you have a degree in science, it's a pointless discussion anyway. Sometimes you just have to have a child-like (not child-ish) faith, and atheists do not.

I agree with trying to bridge a gap, but we're to hate them with perfect hatred too. They do not honor our Father and Creator, so we're left to speak to them from our Father's Word and let Him do the rest. I'm not interested in becoming friends with them or sugar-coating anything.

 

[DrStupid_Ben]

I can give you one.

It can be summed up in two words...

Anything Goes!



Oh, wait a minute. I would like to add to that for clarity...

Whatever will be will be!

There, that pretty much sums it up!

No, that's permissivness. It's quite a bit different from being "progressive". Progressive is a convenient term for being "not the same as", or "moving away from" the orthodoxy or the tradition.

You won't find an official belief statement for "progressives" because it is a fairly abstract label. It's not defined by a specific confessional statement. In fact, it would be characterised mainly by the recognition of a certain inadequacy of such a confessional statement.

To be progressive is not to have a defined statement of beliefs, but rather to have a certain approach.

 

[TrustAndObey]

No, that's permissivness. It's quite a bit different from being "progressive". Progressive is a convenient term for being "not the same as", or "moving away from" the orthodoxy or the tradition.

You won't find an official belief statement for "progressives" because it is a fairly abstract label. It's not defined by a specific confessional statement. In fact, it would be characterised mainly by the recognition of a certain inadequacy of such a confessional statement.

To be progressive is not to have a defined statement of beliefs, but rather to have a certain approach.

And THIS has been the big issue here. We Traditionals are an open book. Our beliefs are out on the table for anyone to see (and therefore bash if they so choose).

It's a little too convenient to just give yourself a label of "progressive" and then not put your beliefs out on the table for discussion too. I think if you were asked to do so, there would be a lot of disagreement among yourselves as well.

I'm not aiming this at you specifically Ben (did you get that name from Ren and Stimpy?), just a general observation, okay? I don't want to fight with you, I just want you to consider what it's like for Traditionals to have an entire group of people that join the Adventist church yet disagree with so much of what it teaches.

YET they won't just list their beliefs/disagreements so we can discuss those as well as ours.





I know I sound like the Church Lady, but it really is convenient.

 

[woobadooba]

No, that's permissivness. It's quite a bit different from being "progressive". Progressive is a convenient term for being "not the same as", or "moving away from" the orthodoxy or the tradition.

You won't find an official belief statement for "progressives" because it is a fairly abstract label. It's not defined by a specific confessional statement. In fact, it would be characterised mainly by the recognition of a certain inadequacy of such a confessional statement.

To be progressive is not to have a defined statement of beliefs, but rather to have a certain approach.

What I had said is true.

You just fail to see the big picture.

You Progressives pretend to be guided by absolutes. But your
compromising spirit says otherwise.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

This is a serious problem:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrustAndObey
Am I the only one on here that has never seen an official belief statement for the Progressives?

We need one of those for sure.

Woob wrote:
I can give you one.

It can be summed up in two words...

Anything Goes!



Oh, wait a minute. I would like to add to that for clarity...

Whatever will be will be!

There, that pretty much sums it up!

If Woob is an official progressive SDA we have been totally corrupted. It sounds to me more like he is a TSDA who though he does not know much about Progressive SDA's thinks he does and is trying to denigrate them by miss characterizing their views.

Now it is true there is no official Progressive SDA list of beliefs. But then there is not an official Traditional SDA list of beliefs either. For instance I can show you Traditional SDA's who believe in a semi-arian view of God and Jesus, while some TSDA's will believe in Trinitariansim and some who statements make them appear to be tri-theists. Further there are TSDA who believe that Jesus had a prefall nature of Adam and those who believe Jesus had a post fall nature of Adam.

The SDA church does not subdivide itself into traditional, moderate, or progressive views though you will find all of them in the church. (well maybe not moderate because that really only means they agree with the TSDA's on some things and the PSDA's on other things.) The Church would be creating a schism to even acknowledge the two camps.

So since there is no official Traditional SDA organization and no official Progressive SDA organization there is not set of official beliefs for either one. There are however magazines like Spectrum (Associaction of Adventist Forums) and Adventist Today which could be self defined as Progressive and magazines like Our Firm Foundation and Adventist Theological Society which are very clearly TSDA oriented.

 

[DrStupid_Ben]

And THIS has been the big issue here. We Traditionals are an open book. Our beliefs are out on the table for anyone to see (and therefore bash if they so choose).

It's a little too convenient to just give yourself a label of "progressive" and then not put your beliefs out on the table for discussion too. I think if you were asked to do so, there would be a lot of disagreement among yourselves as well.

I'm not aiming this at you specifically Ben (did you get that name from Ren and Stimpy?), just a general observation, okay? I don't want to fight with you, I just want you to consider what it's like for Traditionals to have an entire group of people that join the Adventist church yet disagree with so much of what it teaches.

YET they won't just list their beliefs/disagreements so we can discuss those as well as ours.





I know I sound like the Church Lady, but it really is convenient.

Yes I did get my name from Ren and Stimpy. Glad to see someone recognise the reference.

I'm glad you don't want to fight me, because I don't want to fight you.

If you sound like the "Church Lady", then I probably sound like the "Progressive Guy" lol


Traditionals can be easily defined and identified, because they have a norm: the 28. Progressives by nature cannot produce a definition, or statement, that will encompass all who identify as progressives. You are right, they don't agree amongst themselves. But they never claim to. Or at least I never claim to. If they can be described as a group, "progressives" are just a mixed bunch of people who either are seriously questioning, or disagree with the "official" (for this context let's say, "traditional") church statements, or doctrines. This will no doubt range from those who are questioning doctrines because they feel led by the Holy Spirit and have nothing negative against those who accept the 28 (like myself), to those who are trying to attack traditionals because they had a bad experience with some conservative church members.

I hope that we can find common ground together, because labels always divide and seperate (although it is important to acknowledge diversity).

By the way, I feel like adding that I am progressive and I don't hate the Adventist church. I am actually proud of much of our church. I think that we have such a rich heritage of social concern and activism from some of our founders. They definately wanted to shape a better world in a time when everyone else thought that the world was doing just fine.

 

[DrStupid_Ben]

So since there is no official Traditional SDA organization and no official Progressive SDA organization there is not set of official beliefs for either one. There are however magazines like Spectrum (Associaction of Adventist Forums) and Adventist Today which could be self defined as Progressive and magazines like Our Firm Foundation and Adventist Theological Society which are very clearly TSDA oriented.

Add Adventist Affirm

 

[Sophia7]

Am I the only one on here that has never seen an official belief statement for the Progressives?

We need one of those for sure.

RC posted a statement not long ago that encompasses some of the essential Christian doctrines that many Progressives would agree with. It's not an official belief statement, though, since there is no official Progressive Adventist denomination. Let me see if I can find it.

 

[Sophia7]

I found it:

What would you consider to be Essential Christian Beliefs

1. Because of the complexity of the Universe we recognize that there is a God, the master designer of all we see. God is transcendent, meaning not only does God exist but He is involved with His creation in a personal way, God affects people’s minds in order to draw people closer to God and improve mankind’s existence.
2. Through the evidence of prophetic, historical, poetic and theological information we hold the Bible as God inspired information which leads to a greater understanding of God and of Humanity. The Bible is used as the standard for all doctrines the Christian holds
3. There is only One God revealed in three Persons, Father, Son (Jesus Christ) and Holy Spirit. The nature of God is outside the realm of human understanding but through God’s transcendent revelation of Himself in the Bible we can realize some of his attributes. God is all knowledgeable, characterized by love and all powerful and concerned with his creation.
4. Sin is the attitude which inspires rebellion and self centeredness, that hurts others or ourselves. Man fell from his original created condition and has suffered the natural consequences of his actions as well as the consequences upon the natural world as perfection was lost by the presence of sin.
5. God became a man in the person of Jesus Christ, fully human and fully divine. Jesus’ life, death and resurrection reveal the power and character of God, His love, His forgiveness, and His desire to reconcile fallen man back to a trusting relationship with God. Jesus has promised to return to take His followers to be with Him forever. Death the consequence of sin has been conquered by the resurrection of Jesus proving He can do what He promises.
6. Those who follow Jesus Christ are His disciples and they together make up the church. Believers gather together to worship God, strengthen and instruct each other. Christians act as ambassadors of God spreading the knowledge about the things of God and the good news about God and what God can do for humanity.
7. Salvation is the gift of God, obtained because of the gracious character of God by faith (trust) that God is God and will do what He promises.
8. We are continually growing in our knowledge of God and ourselves. There will always be more truth to learn and more ways to apply what is learned.

http://newprotestants.com/esbelieve.htm

 

[Sophia7]

It's a little too convenient to just give yourself a label of "progressive" and then not put your beliefs out on the table for discussion too. I think if you were asked to do so, there would be a lot of disagreement among yourselves as well.

Yes, there is a lot of disagreement among Progressives, but the point of any Progressive belief statement would be to focus on the essential Christian doctrines that most people do agree with and to allow for liberty of conscience on the more controversial doctrines.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

woobadooba,

you seem to want YOUR VIEWS Discussed. I agree with you that "Theistic eveloution" should not be discussed here, because there is already a place on CF to discuss it. but things pretaing to SDA culture, belief, History, Learders and instutions should be allowed.

 

[Sophia7]

Here are links to the SDA Wiki and discussion, in case anyone missed them:
http://www.christianforums.com/t5674237-wiki-seventh-day-adventist-wiki.html
http://www.christianforums.com/t5674237&nw_show=comments

We seem to be moving toward a consensus on some things.

 

[stone]

This is true.

The thing is, we need to establish what rules are musts from the start, since we already know from history what kind of problems have surfaced within this forum.

Also remember, that what you guys decide to make as rules will be made into a poll and voted upon by all SDA's.

 

[TrustAndObey]

Also remember, that what you guys decide to make as rules will be made into a poll and voted upon by all SDA's.

Someone posted in the Wiki section that we DIDN'T get to vote. ARgghhh.

Okay, that's good to hear.

I'm leaving in the morning to go to Oklahoma all weekend. When does the voting take place?

 

[Sophia7]

Someone posted in the Wiki section that we DIDN'T get to vote. ARgghhh.

Okay, that's good to hear.

I'm leaving in the morning to go to Oklahoma all weekend. When does the voting take place?

The voting comes after we reach some kind of consensus in the wiki. We don't vote about each little thing that someone wants to change in the wiki entry. The list of rules that we end up with is what will be put into a poll. I'm sure that the poll will be left open for a while in order to give everyone a chance to vote.

 

[stone]

Someone posted in the Wiki section that we DIDN'T get to vote. ARgghhh.

Okay, that's good to hear.

I'm leaving in the morning to go to Oklahoma all weekend. When does the voting take place?

I don't know for sure, i think it's going to be another week or two. We have to get more feedback from the forum about what you want and what you don't want to allow discussed in your forum.

Once you guys have your basics, you guys can make your own poll or us mods can help out with that. I think we're giveing you guys plently of time to gather your information 1st.

 

[woobadooba]

I don't know for sure, i think it's going to be another week or two. We have to get more feedback from the forum about what you want and what you don't want to allow discussed in your forum.

Once you guys have your basics, you guys can make your own poll or us mods can help out with that. I think we're giveing you guys plently of time to gather your information 1st.

I'm just curious about something.

Are other forums censoring certain topics for discussion/debate?

 

[Sophia7]

I'm just curious about something.

Are other forums censoring certain topics for discussion/debate?

As far as I can tell, only the Triune Pentecostals are. They have put in something similar to the old CF Rule 3.5:

5) No Controversial Topics Discussed in the Sub-Forum.

A. You will not post content regarding the following controversial subjects in the sub-forum:

Cessationism
Evolution
Drug use
Gambling
Polygamy
Extramarital or premarital sexual activity
Homosexuality
Transsexuality
Abortion

B. You will not post content regarding the following controversial doctrines in the sub-forum:

Full Preterism
Open Theism
Universalism or Universal Salvation
Annihilationism
Freemasonry