The Purpose of Progressive Adventist?

[reddogs]

Question that has been in my mind. Is pushing the evangelical view and rejecting the Spirit of Prophecy, the only purpose of Progressive Adventist?

 

[moicherie]

The spirit of prophecy is the Holy Spirit why would we reject that ?

 

[StormyOne]

Question that has been in my mind. Is pushing the evangelical view and rejecting the Spirit of Prophecy, the only purpose of Progressive Adventist?

everyone who is a progressive sda does NOT share the same set of beliefs..... what makes that so difficult to understand?

 

[Bourbaki]

Question that has been in my mind. Is pushing the evangelical view and rejecting the Spirit of Prophecy, the only purpose of Progressive Adventist?

Your terminology is terribly confused. The Spirit of Prophecy view is evangelical and the primary purpose of the Aggressives is to overthrow the credibility of Ellen G. White's prophetic ministry.

 

[StormyOne]

Your terminology is terribly confused. The Spirit of Prophecy view is evangelical and the primary purpose of the Aggressives is to overthrow the credibility of Ellen G. White's prophetic ministry.

other than promote your website, your purpose would be what?

 

[honorthesabbath]

I'm still waiting for a prog to answer this question with truth and meaning.

 

[freeindeed2]

Question that has been in my mind. Is pushing the evangelical view and rejecting the Spirit of Prophecy, the only purpose of Progressive Adventist?

The testimony of Jesus IS the spirit of prophecy!

 

[freeindeed2]

I'm still waiting for a prog to answer this question with truth and meaning.

Maybe you could define what the 'Evangelical view' is?

 

[honorthesabbath]

Maybe you could define what the 'Evangelical view' is?

This is what I am waiting to hear from those who practice it. I have no idea what the progs/evangelicals actually stand for--if anything.

 

[freeindeed2]

This is what I am waiting to hear from those who practice it. I have no idea what the progs/evangelicals actually stand for--if anything.

How can the accusation be made that so-called 'PROGS' are pushing and Evangelical view, when you don't even know what it means?

Can you post without having to include sarcasm?

 

[moicherie]

I'm still waiting for a prog to answer this question with truth and meaning.

It was answered with truth and meaning don't shoot the messenger cos you don't like the message.

 

[moicherie]

Question that has been in my mind. Is pushing the evangelical view and rejecting the Spirit of Prophecy, the only purpose of Progressive Adventist?

Perhaps you should rephrase your orignal question , the present one is based on stereotypes. As you can see the thread has already been hijacked with sarcastic comments from a Traditional (shall I then presume that all Traditionals are sarcastic?)

 

[StormyOne]

I'm still waiting for a prog to answer this question with truth and meaning.

it has been answered several times.... I guess the answer is not to your liking..... let me say again;

everyone who is a progressive sda does NOT share the same set of beliefs..... what makes that so difficult to understand?

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Maybe this will answer Red:

So the question should arise in most people's minds, just how do those doctrines become "pillars" of the Traditional/Historic SDA's? The answer is found in the label Traditional/Historic, These were the doctrines incorporated into the SDA church therefore they must be true and accepted. The Progressive SDA's see those doctrines as history, but not as truth. They must be tested to ascertain if they are indeed true, if they should be used as doctrines in the SDA church at all.
Here is the conflict between the Progressive and Traditional/Historic SDA's. The Progressives desire to hold to a Biblical standard, whereby all doctrines we preach should be clearly demonstrated from the Bible. This method retains a commonality with other Christians outside the SDA church, as well as showing our esteem of the Biblical source of truth. We certainly understand that the Bible cannot be taken literally in all places, that poetry, symbolism, and apocalyptic literary forms are present in the Bible. Nor does it mean that we must view the Bible as inerrant. God is inerrant, He alone is infallible the Bible while inspired does not contain all the attributes of God, errors are present, much of the Bible is man's attempts at representing God and as such man's suppositions can color his view of God. This is why Progressive's SDA's encourage looking at the Bible as a whole complete volume. Allowing the more comprehensive New Testament authors to help explain the Old Testament.

Often the Traditional/Historic SDA's object to the difference in views of the works of Ellen White by stating that to reject the counsel of Ellen White is to reject God's counsel. This is based upon the traditional view of Ellen White as a prophet. If she were not a prophet then it would be accepted to reject her views, if they seemed to vary from the Bible. So here we are once again at the crux of the problem. The Progressive SDA's look at many of these doctrines and see them differently based upon their reasoning from the Scriptures. Since the Scriptures seem to point to a different interpretation it becomes necessary to re-evaluate the interpretation delivered or endorsed by Ellen White.

Is there an answer to such division? Either the Progressives can accept Ellen White as a "continuing and authoritative source of truth", as the Traditional/Historic SDA's do. Or the Traditional/Historic SDA's can accept the Scriptures as "the authoritative revealer of doctrines". Since both sides are in agreement about the Bible as the ultimate source of truth about God, this would seem an obvious solution. The hard part of course is that it requires the Traditional/Historic SDA's to allow for differences of interpretation. No longer can they use Ellen White as an unquestioned authority or inspired commentator. Can they be satisfied to view her work as commentary, like other commentators? It is possible that they could be satisfied with such a view, it is well known by now that much of her work was borrowed from other commentators. If the Traditional/Historic SDA's cannot accept such a view the other option is for the Progressives to accept Ellen White. We have seen over the years many leave the SDA church over the authority of Ellen White, the Investigative Judgment etc. Will history repeat itself? Ellen White should not be used as a test for fellowship in the SDA church. Neither should the rejection of Ellen White be seen as a rejection of God. Many times we have heard SDA's say that Ellen White did not claim to be a prophet. Maybe we should not be making her out as a prophet and go back to the Bible that, we all can agree upon is our source of divine instruction. Progress often requires a re-examination of beliefs, some stay, some go.
http://newprotestants.com/traditio.htm

 

[Mankin]

I have no desire to enter this sterotyping thread.

 

[NightEternal]

everyone who is a progressive sda does NOT share the same set of beliefs..... what makes that so difficult to understand?

Exactly. They constantly attempt to lump us all in together by trying to pigeon-hole our beliefs into a neat, concise fundamental list or creed.

Once again for those who may have missed it the first few times:

WE DON'T ALL BELIEVE THE SAME THING.

 

[Avonia]

The spirit of prophecy is the Holy Spirit why would we reject that ?

Right on sister . . . the Holy Spirit! Sophia! Divine Feminine.

 

[Avonia]

Question that has been in my mind. Is pushing the evangelical view and rejecting the Spirit of Prophecy, the only purpose of Progressive Adventist?

The progressive agenda? PROGRESSive. Maybe it's progress.

 

[NightEternal]

Question that has been in my mind. Is pushing the evangelical view and rejecting the Spirit of Prophecy, the only purpose of Progressive Adventist?

Red, I know you are above this sort of false generalization. Come on!

Not every Prog has rejected EGW! I have tried to explain this before many times. My own personal purpose in regards to her is to place her in her proper context within the grand scheme of things. My understanding of inspiration is the same as Graeme Bradford, and I would like to see that understanding incorporated into Adventism across the board. It is balanced and realistic and it is not dependent on either verbal inspiration or the cultic view that she is absolutely correct on every single thing, including theology.

I do not believe she has the authourity of either the apostles or the OT prophets.

For further, in-depth reference as to my understanding, please see this thread started by Tall:

http://christianforums.com/t6516109-evangelical-adventists-and-egw.html

 

[NightEternal]

This is what I am waiting to hear from those who practice it. I have no idea what the progs/evangelicals actually stand for--if anything.

You can find a general Evangelical Adventist understanding from this website, which I have linked to many times before:

http://www.presenttruthmag.com/

Proclaiming the Good News of the
forgiveness of sin and eternal life by
God's unmerited "grace alone" through "faith alone" in the sinless life and atoning death of the Lord Jesus "Christ alone".

Sola Gratia...
Only by Grace
Sola Fide...
Only by Faith
Solo Christo...
Only by Christ
Sola Scriptura...
Only by Scripture​

​

​