Question about the Traditional/Progressive Split

[NightEternal]

I'm starting to wonder if you and I frequent the same forum Night. You haven't seen the comments about "I don't put my faith in well-meaning men that erred when writing down God's inspired words?"

No, I must have missed that. I would just like to hear whoever said that further explain what they meant in deeper context. It could be he/she and I are saying the same thing.

From now on I'll give a subtle signal like "<whoop whoop>" to point them out. That'll be our little secret.

That might help.

Come on Night, it's a true statement. You don't think there'd be actual "Progressive" Adventist church BUILDINGS if people could organize them?

Do you two even know what an offshoot is? Having your own church building does not make you an offshoot. An offshoot, by definition, is a group who have literally broken away from the corporate ranks. They have also diverted tithe from the GC and keep it for themselves.

I have not done this nor has any other non-Traditionalist here that I know of. So, I will rightly fight this ridiculous label as long as it continues to be irresponsibly thrown around at others who do not fall under that definition.

You bet there would be, but there isn't enough of them to do that yet....so they attend the mainline churches.

We are all a part of the official organization, no matter which style of church we choose to attend. Offshoots do not and will not ever align themselves with the mainline church, either financially or fellowship wise.

It's not a statement made for attack, it's just a true observation that there are offshoots to the original Adventist message...and some of them do break away and form their own churches. Just because some haven't yet doesn't mean they're any less of an offshoot and/or that they teach a different message.

Just because some of us have a different take on the fundamentals and allow for growth and change, does not mean we are, by default, wanting to or are going to split off into independent churches. What kind of rationale is that?

It's not an insult, it's just the truth. If you hadn't found an Evangelical Adventist church you'd be in the same boat, right?

No, it is an inflammitory charge meant to get a reaction and Honor knows it. I've told her that repeatedly.

Trust, if you think there are not many, many non-Traditionalist churches out there, you haven't gotten out in the Adventist landscape enough. Have you been to California or Australia lately and attended some of the churches there? Have you been to Campus Hill church and heard Hyveth Williams preach? How about LaSierra church? Have you heard Dan Smith preach? If you think some of RC's positions are rare and unique, I would suggest you go to some of the surrounding Loma Linda churchs. Have you heard Graham Maxwell's lectures or sat in his classes? There are legions of Adventists who deny penal atonement.

BTW, many non-Traditionalist churches still hold to the fundamentals. They just may have a different interpretation or understanding of them than you do. You have this picture in your head of a church that is some radical, way out there body of believers who have no resemblance whatsoever to an Adventist church. Not so. Many times it is mostly personal lifestyle issues, worship styles and a focus on the Bible over EGW that would be the obvious differences.

 

[NightEternal]

I can fellowship with you just fine, but from some of the things I've seen you say, I do not consider you a teacher. I wouldn't let you teach me anything.

And where have I said anywhere here that it was my desire to teach anyone anything? A simple willingness to think outside the box would suffice.

Trust, I see you boasting about how you are not influenced. Unfortunately, it is clear you are being heavily influenced by certain ones here who dazzle you with strong EGW quotes thrown at you out of context and with no qualifiers, cultural setting, circumstances, or intended audience specified.

You are being sucked into the ultra-Conservative rhetoric more and more and you don't even see it. I see the rigid, intolerant black and white, us vs. them, witch-hunt mentality continually coming from you. Once in a while you break free and show some reason, but then you revert right back to it again. It's not a good, natural fit for you and I can see that. I have said many times I regard you more as a reasonable moderate than strict TSDA. But you seem to be wanting to take things further and further to the right for some reason.

Who you let influence your thinking is totally your choice. Just don't make the claim that you are not being influenced, because you are.

 

[NightEternal]

Hmmm, there aren't any but he found one. Does anyone else see the problem here?

Conklin, what are you talking about? There are plenty of non-Traditionalist SDA churches in the world. California alone is flooded with them.

Given that some feel they are the only real and true progressive that means he could meet in a closet!

I have never claimed to be Progressive SDA in the same vein as RC. I am a progressive thinker willing to explore and consider new things and don't believe my beliefs or church should be stuck in the 1800's, yes. But I am an Evangelical Adventist, a critical distinction to make. We are more orthodox SDA than the pure Progressives are. By far.

Someone else who has not read my list, apparently.

 

[TrustAndObey]

I should probably clarify something I said, because it probably did sound hateful looking back at the typed words....

When I say that I won't let another person teach me, I mean exactly that. Scripture is very clear about Who can teach us, and that's the Holy Spirit. (So that comment wasn't aimed at you directly Night).

I guess my relationship with the HS isn't like a lot of people's in that I don't read something and then hear "that's RIGHT!" or "that's WRONG!" in my head. I do, however, oftentimes feel like I'm being "led" or that I'm being pushed away.

Does that make sense?

As rusty as I am right now in scripture, there are times when I'll read something and instantly know it contradicts what I read in the bible....not necessarily WHERE I read it anymore, but definitely that I've read it.

It's funny too, because the person that's responsible for me picking up my bible for the first time in 15 months is an ex-Adventist (you know who you are...and thanks again). He said one of those "things" that I knew contradicted something I had read in scripture, and I had to search it out....amazingly, I found the verse I wanted within seconds even though it had been a long time since I had even picked a bible up.

So I do value every single person's words. I mean they took the time to type them so they obviously valued their observations at that moment, even if I didn't/don't right when they type them....I might later.

I do find it odd that OntheDL's daily devotionals tend to fall right in line with some of the discussions in these threads...but the thing is, THAT HAPPENS TO ME ALL THE TIME.

Call it the reticular activating system in our brains or the Holy Spirit (that's my guess), but it does seem like when an issue arises for me, there is always a discussion about it going on at the same time that I'll catch the tail end of on TV or happen across online...when I had never noticed it before.

I feel "led" a lot. I feel like I was totally led to the Adventist church too. I still haven't typed up my testimony, but I will.

Anyway, there are certain things (like when my son's doctor told me my son might have Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome) that I'll deliberately seek out information about...but then there are those times when I have barely a whisper of a doubt, and information seems to fall in my lap without me looking for it.

When that happens, I do know Who is teaching me, and believe me...there have been times I didn't WANT to read something, but I did it anyway...and learned quite a bit.

Like the trinity for instance. I know what I felt when I read scripture and it is very similar to the things Maco says on here. He's a Progressive, Night, but I don't see too many Progressives agreeing with him.

Now why would something a Progressive says influence ME if I were so against even listening? Because I feel led to read the words.

It isn't Maco leading me, mind you, it's the Holy Spirit, and I find it quite possible that the words I'm meant to read can come from ANYBODY. Whether it be scrambling through scripture to prove them wrong or whether it's to say "that's what I felt scripture said TOO"...in either scenario, I feel we're all led to what we read.

I was a terrible teenager, horrible to my parents, breaking all kinds of biblical principles with my lifestyle, but I do know that there is nothing I've ever done that wasn't forgiven....and I do not believe the Holy Spirit would lead me astray. I just don't.

I do know that there have been times that I've only been given "glimpses" though. Enough to peak my interest and make me want to know more.

That's how I recognize people that were led to lead me. They're the ones that say "well, here's what scripture says on that subject....interpret that how you will."

Those kinds of people are the best teachers in the world, in my opinion.

I know that everyone here is aware that there's a lot of behind-the-scenes things that happen on this board. For instance, if I STRONGLY disagree with someone, I tell them...but I usually do it in PM. If it can't be resolved I do put them on ignore. Never ever have I put someone on ignore because of their differing theological views. Not once.

If I put someone on ignore it's because they can't keep from flaming or they've become a stumblingblock for me from ATTITUDE (not theology).

My grandma told me once that I'd have teenagers someday (I didn't believe her) and that when I did, I needed to remember that when they act the most unlovable is when I needed to love them the most.

I think that's true of other adults as well and I do have a problem with applying that across the board (no pun intended). It's something I need to pray about, and I know it.

Long story short, I try to go where I'm led, even if it isn't where I want to go. I don't seek out teachers though, the HS leads them to me and I recognize it when He does.

Does that make sense?

 

[TrustAndObey]

And Night, I am well aware of how corny this is going to sound way before I even say it, but....

I feel led to people (like you and Maco) that even though they know the hardcore differences we've had about certain things, still take the time to write out a testimony to the saving power of Christ.

Even though a Tradtional or Moderate, or whatever label is stuck on me, started the thread, the testimonies touched my heart and...hey, all differences set aside, ANYONE coming to Christ is a wonderful story to fellowship about.

 

[NightEternal]

I hear ya.

As for the Trinity issue, it's never been something that has weighed very heavily on my mind. I haven't read the exchange between you and Maco on that.

I've always thought of it as ice, liquid and steam. Same substance, different forms, roles and functions. They're all water, but they are not exactly the same in every respect, even though the inherent ingredients and chemical makeup are the same.

I also believe that Christ took a subservient role as the Son when He was on earth, but that did not lessen His divinity in any way.

I have not been following the discussions on this topic, so I have no idea who I have agreed with in my stated position above.

I think EGW says that Christ was the One who walked with and spoke to Adam and Eve in the garden as well as the One who gave the commandments to Moses and walked past him showing only His back. So, it seems there may be a case to be made that He is, in essence, the Father as well.

I don't know, it's probably someting we will never really understand fully anyhow, much like Omniscience and Alpha and Omega. How can you fully comprehend 'no beginning and no end' from a logical, reasonable standpoint? You cannot. How can you fully comprehend Christ being completely human and Divine at the same time? You cannot.

The Trinity is not worth dividing into factions and fighting over, declaring heresy on either side. It's all simply man's attempts to grasp the ungraspable.

There, I just created a new word. Someone call Merriam Webster.

 

[TrustAndObey]

I agree that it probably is ungraspable (like the new word) and that it shouldn't divide, but man, the minute I said I agree with Maco...I got a "new" label.

Anyway, it's unimportant to me really. I know where I'm welcomed and where I'm not, so it's all good.

But I think it should be pretty obvious that I don't just take "one side" or that I'm close-minded, when the exact opposite is actually true.

I just don't agree with some people, that's all.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

I agree that it probably is ungraspable (like the new word) and that it shouldn't divide, but man, the minute I said I agree with Maco...I got a "new" label.

Really what was the new label you got. I recall myself and Tall saying that you were in disagreement with the 28 fundamental beliefs and as such not a traditional per this forums previous definition of a traditional as one who accepts the 28 completely. But I don't recall hearing someone give you a new label. I do remember pointing out that there are many historic/traditional SDA's who are semi-arian and therefore they do not agree with the 28 fundamentals as well. Just pointing out that Progressives are not the only ones who disagree with the 28.

Well I have told you this several times and it still does not seem to register with you.

 

[TrustAndObey]

Really what was the new label you got. I recall myself and Tall saying that you were in disagreement with the 28 fundamental beliefs and as such not a traditional per this forums previous definition of a traditional as one who accepts the 28 completely. But I don't recall hearing someone give you a new label. I do remember pointing out that there are many historic/traditional SDA's who are semi-arian and therefore they do not agree with the 28 fundamentals as well. Just pointing out that Progressives are not the only ones who disagree with the 28.

Well I have told you this several times and it still does not seem to register with you.

Again I will say that the way our fundamental belief is worded about God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit gives me absolutely no pause and I can honestly say "I agree."

So I do agree with the fundamental beliefs, absolutely.

And apparently there are some Progressive semi-Arians out there too eh?

In fact, from what Maco has posted, I seem to fall right in line with what EGW said on the subject.

 

[moicherie]

Well, what would you call someone who believes that we evolved, takes a low view of Scripture and distorts what you say? And that's just for starters.

Progressives don't see traditionals as simply having a different view--they see us was warped and in need of serious psychiactric care (they are practicing medicine without a license!).

Do you go around sticking the label enemy on people who differ from you? Not a great witnessing tool is it?
Did all Progressives on here suggest or said Traditionals were warped and needed serious psychiatric care or this your view of things?

 

[sentipente]

There are a couple of Progressives that post on this board that do not believe the bible is reliable.

If you intended to be fair about this you would have said that there are a few Traditionals who do not believe in the Trinity, and do not believe that Jesus is God. Why did you not speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I will hazard an answer. It could be because you are more interested in the labels than you are in the truth.

 

[sentipente]

Also--I have noted that some Progressives do not believe that baptism is part of the salvation plan of God.
Traditionals believe that it is an essential part and then that by immersion.

Do you have any evidence showing where God has settled that difference in opinion? Please share it if you do.

A major issue here is the fact many continue to confuse what the church believes the Bible teaches with what the Bible actually teaches. There was a time when the SDA interpreted what the Bible teaches into the Shut Door doctrine. Reality soon forced them to change their interpretation.

 

[sentipente]

I get a feeling that what really is raising the ire of Traditionals is the fact that the more they read of what the Progressives are prepared to discuss the more they seem to become of a narrow-minded and parochial mindset in their midst. They are having difficulty grasping the concept that someone can continue to explore different ideas.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Again I will say that the way our fundamental belief is worded about God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit gives me absolutely no pause and I can honestly say "I agree."

So I do agree with the fundamental beliefs, absolutely.

And apparently there are some Progressive semi-Arians out there too eh?

In fact, from what Maco has posted, I seem to fall right in line with what EGW said on the subject.

wow that is amazing, you either don't understand the fundamental statements or you are seriously in denial.

 

[djconklin]

A major issue here is the fact many continue to confuse what the church believes the Bible teaches with what the Bible actually teaches. There was a time when the SDA interpreted what the Bible teaches into the Shut Door doctrine. Reality soon forced them to change their interpretation.

The shut door teaching only lasted ab't 7 months. You could probably make the same argument for believeing that Sabbath ran from 6pm to 6pm--that didn't last long either. And to ascribe the change in belief solely to "reality" fails to do justice to what constitutes "reality" and the time spent in Bible study and reflection. I believe Dr. Jerry Moon did his doctorate on this very subject. In order to make an informed comment on this subject one would do well to read it.

 

[djconklin]

If you intended to be fair about this you would have said that there are a few Traditionals who do not believe in the Trinity, and do not believe that Jesus is God.

On this forum? Or, are you talking about people you have met? I have never met any SDA who didn't believe in the trinity.

Why did you not speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? I will hazard an answer. It could be because you are more interested in the labels than you are in the truth.

Likewise, you make claims without supporting them, repeatedly in fact.

 

[TrustAndObey]

DJ, just so you know, I DO believe in the trinity...exactly like it's listed in our fundamental beliefs.

THREE co-eternal Persons, ONE God.

 

[Jimlarmore]

I get a feeling that what really is raising the ire of Traditionals is the fact that the more they read of what the Progressives are prepared to discuss the more they seem to become of a narrow-minded and parochial mindset in their midst. They are having difficulty grasping the concept that someone can continue to explore different ideas.

The Bible directs us to be discerners of the truth. Isa 8:20 says " To the law and to the testimony if they speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in them." As protestants we should fall within the solo scriputura camp started by Martin Luther. The Bible should be our only one true guide.

When I read someone invalidate the Holy Bible and it's clear truths ( i.e. fiat creation, the literal global flood , the plan of salvation being symbolically represented by the ceremonial laws etc. ) I instantly begin to question that particular person's ability to accept on faith the validity of inspired scripture. I don't believe in progressive adventism or traditional adventism, I believe in being a part of the remnant church of God. Right now until I see other wise that is the Seventh-day-Adventist church.

There's only one church, one bride, one spiritual Israel. Christ didn't start all of these various theological philosophies. Satan did that and continues to work very hard within our church family. Christ only spoke of one true sheep fold that He was the shepard of. We should pray for our brothers and sisters who decide to leave or separate themselves from the only one who can save them ,,,,, Christ Jesus.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[reddogs]

The Bible directs us to be discerners of the truth. Isa 8:20 says " To the law and to the testimony if they speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in them." As protestants we should fall within the solo scriputura camp started by Martin Luther. The Bible should be our only one true guide.

When I read someone invalidate the Holy Bible and it's clear truths ( i.e. fiat creation, the literal global flood , the plan of salvation being symbolically represented by the ceremonial laws etc. ) I instantly begin to question that particular person's ability to accept on faith the validity of inspired scripture. I don't believe in progressive adventism or traditional adventism, I believe in being a part of the remnant church of God. Right now until I see other wise that is the Seventh-day-Adventist church.

There's only one church, one bride, one spiritual Israel. Christ didn't start all of these various theological philosophies. Satan did that and continues to work very hard within our church family. Christ only spoke of one true sheep fold that He was the shepard of. We should pray for our brothers and sisters who decide to leave or separate themselves from the only one who can save them ,,,,, Christ Jesus.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

Amen, you have hit it on target Jim........

This will be made crystal clear near the end and no one can say they didnt know or understand...

Red

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

DJ, just so you know, I DO believe in the trinity...exactly like it's listed in our fundamental beliefs.

THREE co-eternal Persons, ONE God.

Well only if someone has no concept of what eternal means. As I pointed out to trust earlier http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=37074665&postcount=19

I believe that Jesus is co-eternal NOW but wasn't always. Our fundamental belief in no way says otherwise.
http://www.christianforums.com/showp...8&postcount=50

Now how is one NOW co-eternal but not always having been co-eternal? That is not a reasonable view unless one does not know the meaning of eternal.

Of course when I said the above I received no explanation Further Trust said:

Maco, the belief in the trinity does appear to have some scriptural backing, although line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little, there a little....I do not believe that Jesus is equal to the Father, so I agree with you.
http://www.christianforums.com/showp...4&postcount=69

The SDA belief is that Jesus is "truly God"

Yet Trust view is that Jesus (the Son) was not at some point in time co-eternal, though He is now and that Jesus (the Son) is not equal with God the Father.

So Trust continues to say how she agrees with the official SDA belief even when her very words tell us and should tell her that she does not.