If a split happens, who is who?

StormyOne · Aug 26, 2007

mjona3 said:
Many of the 'traditionals' here don't beleive in the 28 fundamentals either.

And I thought the SDA church didn't have creeds?

JM

lol... I suspect the early pioneers would be appalled that the church decided to formulate fundamental beliefs....

JonMiller · Aug 26, 2007

tall73 said:
Here are the current standards.

Please characterize which one you fall into:

Traditional - Adventists who believe in all 28 Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

Progressive - Evangelical/Progressive/Liberal Adventists, defined here as those who do not fully agree with all 28 Fundamentals.

I can agree with all statements. For example, 22. Christian Behavior: doesn't say that such things are a sin, rather that it is good to avoid them. I know many in the church who do think that such things (Theater going, alcohol, etc) are sins, and I disagree with them. Probably the one I have the most problem with is 24. Christ's Ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary: since the 'traditional' interpretation is heretical (and not in agreement with other doctrines of the SDA church), but there is an interpretation which could be true... although I don't think it is important.

JM

woobadooba · Aug 26, 2007

tall73 said:
Here are the current standards.

Please characterize which one you fall into:

Traditional - Adventists who believe in all 28 Fundamental Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

Progressive - Evangelical/Progressive/Liberal Adventists, defined here as those who do not fully agree with all 28 Fundamentals.

This is a trap!

And you are not being fair by promoting it.

The definition of Traditional is false, as is also the one for Progressive, because it makes it look like the Traditionals think that they have arrived and have no more room for growth in their understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ. I don't know of any Traditional SDA that would say such a thing.

I already told you before that one could disagree with one or more of the 28 doctrines and still be a Traditional, because in essence a Traditional is one that uses a more conservative approach to the discovery of truth. In other words, they don't deny the basic truths of the Bible as do the progressives who use a Higher Critical approach to the Bible.

Adventist Dissident · Aug 26, 2007

these 2 terms are not very good terms, it was a bad idea to use the term progressive, it is to humanistic.

what really bothers me is that the terms conservative moderate and evanglical have been dropped from the vocabulary of the forum. the most polarizing terms have been used.

djconklin · Aug 26, 2007

24. Christ's Ministry in the Heavenly Sanctuary: since the 'traditional' interpretation is heretical (and not in agreement with other doctrines of the SDA church), but there is an interpretation which could be true

I'd really like to see the proof for that--please start a new thread.

djconklin · Aug 26, 2007

these 2 terms are not very good terms, it was a bad idea to use the term progressive, it is to humanistic.

what really bothers me is that the terms conservative moderate and evanglical have been dropped from the vocabulary of the forum. the most polarizing terms have been used.

We could use "orthodox SDA" and "heterodox SDA"?

tall73 · Aug 26, 2007

woobadooba said:
This is a trap!

And you are not being fair by promoting it.

I am not promoting anything. I am citing it as a standard. It is the CURRENT standard, which is what I said.

If you want a different one then make one. But it can't be a whole book. It needs to be succinct.

The definition of Traditional is false, as is also the one for Progressive, because it makes it look like the Traditionals think that they have arrived and have no more room for growth in their understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ. I don't know of any Traditional SDA that would say such a thing.

I already told you before that one could disagree with one or more of the 28 doctrines and still be a Traditional, because in essence a Traditional is one that uses a more conservative approach to the discovery of truth. In other words, they don't deny the basic truths of the Bible as do the progressives who use a Higher Critical approach to the Bible.

Then define what the basic truths are and what it means to use higher criticism.

If it is not specific it is not something that can be enforced.

And just to be clear, does that mean I could be traditional and still debate the IJ in the traditional forum?

JonMiller · Aug 26, 2007

My beliefs on IJ were actually always of the nonheretical type. It wasn't until I came here that it was made clear to me that people actually thought we weren't saved until after 1844.

JM

woobadooba · Aug 26, 2007

tall73 said:
I am not promoting anything. I am citing it as a standard. It is the CURRENT standard, which is what I said.

And the standard is based on a false premise, as I have pointed out.

If you want a different one then make one. But it can't be a whole book. It needs to be succinct.

I already explained it. I don't know why you haven't gotten it yet.

Then define what the basic truths are

You don't know them?

and what it means to use higher criticism.

This is not something that can be easily explained, and I don't have time to explain it. This is why I referred forum members to Pipim's book. I don't agree with everything he believes, but in defining what the Higher Critical Approach is, I think he did a fairly good job. In any case, you should have learned this stuff in the seminary, and even before that.

And just to be clear, does that mean I could be traditional and still debate the IJ in the traditional forum?

In my opinion you are a Traditonal, as I know you don't espouse the Higher Critical Hermeneutic. Therefore, the answer to your question is yes.

smooze · Aug 26, 2007

I have no clue what I am . SDA people took me into their church talked about JESUS tried to explain Ellen white ( still don't get it) and Yes I came out with the belief we are all sinners and going to church once a week and singing doesn't cut it. Fellowshipping with like-minded people and keeping on the path leaning on each other for guidance and prayers. A hearty farmer's helper was out in the field all day harvesting all the grapes but the grapes were just half ripe and they all spoiled. The slow and meticulous farm hand took his time and picked the 1's he knew were ready. You see not all of us berries will ripen as fast as others. ooh now I'm becoming philosophical lol

tall73 · Aug 26, 2007

woobadooba said:
You don't know them?

Rules and standards are to be explicit, not assumed.

This is not something that can be easily explained, and I don't have time to explain it.

If it cannot be easily explained then it is not a good standard.

I realize what you are getting at, but many people who visit here would have no idea, and we will be asking them to post in one or the other.

This is why I referred forum members to Pipim's book. I don't agree with everything he believes, but in defining what the Higher Critical Approach is, I think he did a fairly good job. In any case, you should have learned this stuff in the seminary, and even before that.

I don't think we can expect new posters to read a book to know where they should post. So we need to put it very simply.

Most new posters will not know what the higher critical hermeneutic is.

In my opinion you are a Traditonal, as I know you don't espouse the Higher Critical Hermeneutic. Therefore, the answer to your question is yes.

I am fine with that. I am not sure other traditionals will be.

tall73 · Aug 26, 2007

Woob,

Here is a list of the traits of "fundamentalism" which was a response to the higher critical method.

This could serve as a beginning list for your standard. However, Adventists might take a different view of inerrancy than verbal inspirationists.

Inerrancy of the Scriptures
The virgin birth and the deity of Jesus
The doctrine of substitutionary atonement through God's grace and human faith
The bodily resurrection of Jesus
The authenticity of Christ's miracles (or, alternatively, his pre-millennial second coming)[2]

Jon0388g · Aug 26, 2007

4. Traditional Seventh-day Adventist Fellowship Sub-forum

4.1 This sub-forum is mainly for fellowship and discussion amongst Traditional Seventh-day Adventists, defined here as those who agree with all 28 Fundamental Beliefs.

4.2 Non Seventh-day Adventists and other Seventh-day Adventists, who do not identify themselves as Traditional Seventh-day Adventists, may ask questions on issues relevant to Traditional Adventists.

4.3 Debate in this forum on any topic is limited to those who identify themselves as Traditional Seventh-day Adventists.

4.4 Teaching in this forum on any topic is limited to those who identify themselves as Traditional Seventh-day Adventists.

4.5 Topics and posts that speak against any of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs of the SDA Church are not permitted in this sub-forum.

4.6 Sarcasm against another person here is unacceptable.

This would do well for the traditional forum. I think the person should self-identify as a traditional. This would exclude them from posting in the progressive forum.

Jon

tall73 · Aug 26, 2007

Jon0388g said:
4. Traditional Seventh-day Adventist Fellowship Sub-forum

4.1 This sub-forum is mainly for fellowship and discussion amongst Traditional Seventh-day Adventists, defined here as those who agree with all 28 Fundamental Beliefs.

4.2 Non Seventh-day Adventists and other Seventh-day Adventists, who do not identify themselves as Traditional Seventh-day Adventists, may ask questions on issues relevant to Traditional Adventists.

4.3 Debate in this forum on any topic is limited to those who identify themselves as Traditional Seventh-day Adventists.

4.4 Teaching in this forum on any topic is limited to those who identify themselves as Traditional Seventh-day Adventists.

4.5 Topics and posts that speak against any of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs of the SDA Church are not permitted in this sub-forum.

4.6 Sarcasm against another person here is unacceptable.

This would do well for the traditional forum. I think the person should self-identify as a traditional. This would exclude them from posting in the progressive forum.

Jon

Just to clarify, are you then making the determination on the 28, as the above says, or on their self declaration that they are traditional? Or is it on their declaration of their beliefs?

woobadooba · Aug 26, 2007

Jon0388g said:
4. Traditional Seventh-day Adventist Fellowship Sub-forum

4.1 This sub-forum is mainly for fellowship and discussion amongst Traditional Seventh-day Adventists, defined here as those who agree with all 28 Fundamental Beliefs.

4.2 Non Seventh-day Adventists and other Seventh-day Adventists, who do not identify themselves as Traditional Seventh-day Adventists, may ask questions on issues relevant to Traditional Adventists.

4.3 Debate in this forum on any topic is limited to those who identify themselves as Traditional Seventh-day Adventists.

4.4 Teaching in this forum on any topic is limited to those who identify themselves as Traditional Seventh-day Adventists.

4.5 Topics and posts that speak against any of the 28 Fundamental Beliefs of the SDA Church are not permitted in this sub-forum.

4.6 Sarcasm against another person here is unacceptable.

This would do well for the traditional forum. I think the person should self-identify as a traditional. This would exclude them from posting in the progressive forum.

Jon

So the 28 are without error? We have arrived on our understanding of all of the ideas that they express? There is no more room for growth or improvement?

Jon0388g · Aug 26, 2007

tall73 said:
Just to clarify, are you then making the determination on the 28, as the above says, or on their self declaration that they are traditional? Or is it on their declaration of their beliefs?

Sorry I don't understand you.

I just agree that traditional Adventists should at least agree with the 28 fundamentals.

Jon

woobadooba · Aug 26, 2007

Jon0388g said:
Sorry I don't understand you.

I just agree that traditional Adventists should at least agree with the 28 fundamentals.

Jon

To what extent should they agree, to the point of believing that they are flawless and that there is not room for improvement on them?

Jon0388g · Aug 26, 2007

woobadooba said:
To what extent should they agree, to the point of believing that they are flawless and that there is not room for improvement on them?

Yes. Precisely.

Jon

woobadooba · Aug 26, 2007

Jon0388g said:
Yes. Precisely.

Jon

So then they represent perfection of thought in your opinion?

So what do you do about the following verse?

"For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?" (1Pe 4:17)

According to our belief the judgment begins with the dead, right? But according to Peter it begins with the 'house of God'.

According to our belief it began in 1844. Yet, Peter is saying that it began during his time.

How do you explain this inconsistency?

Furthermore, it is our belief that God will literally examine books which contain a record of sin to determine what kind of judgement to mete. How does this make sense when we also believe that God is all knowing? Why would He have to examine books to determine what kind of men we are when He already knows what's in our hearts?

So do you still think our doctrine is perfect? Do you still believe that our understanding of it is flawless, that it can't be improved in any way?

If a split happens, who is who?

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Legend

Senior Veteran

Moderate SDA

Moderate SDA

Sophia7's husband

Senior Veteran

Legend

Contributor

Sophia7's husband

Sophia7's husband

Veteran

Sophia7's husband

Legend

Veteran

Legend

Veteran

Legend

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency