Traditional Adventist's Beliefs

[tall73]

Since some are asking what distinguishes the traditional view I made a tentative list of some elements. Please feel free to comment on this list or make suggestions for correction, etc. I also hope this will help the mods in their decision making, as this has been a source of contention.

For those who prefer I also listed this in the Traditional area. If you are part of the Traditional forum and wish to post comments or suggestions there feel free. I want feedback from both sides, but I particularly want to make sure I am representing the views correctly. So Traditionalists please give your input in one area or another.

NOTE: People don't tend to divide along one line or the other completely. But here are some defining issues. Progressives MAY in fact agree with some or even most of these characteristics of traditionalists. But they tend to diverge in significant ways on individual issues, or even underlying assumptions.

Key traditional tenants:

a. Inspiration. The Bible is the result of God's revelation of Himself, and is correct in its teachings in theological arenas. Some would also say it is correct in all respects, such as historical facts, scientific facts, etc. So called contradictions can usually be explained by further study. God's word is the rule of faith, and is use ful for correction, teaching, training in righteousness, and most of all are able to make one "wise unto salvation."

While traditionalists may see inspiration as either verbal or thought inspiration they reject the idea that parts of the Bible are not inspired, or that the human element was such as to overshadow the divine. They tend to avoid rejecting literal applications of Bible texts based on new cultural or scientific understandings.

This one may be the most important as it determines one's approach to the whole biblical record, and therefore other beliefs.

For instance, Traditionalists generally accept a literal reading of Genesis, including seven 24 hour periods. Many of them also believe this was generally 6,000 years ago, based both on biblical chronology and EGW comments.

Progressives (though not all) tend to make more allowances for slightly longer (in the 10's of thousands of years) to much longer (millions) based on scientific and historical data. To reconcile this with the biblical record they say it is largely allegorical, reflective of a larger truth.

In general Traditionalists reject the idea of taking "larger truths" at the expense of specific biblical data.

Another case study is the account of the Exodus. Traditionalists tend to favor a literal reading of all of the data present in the account, including the number of adult males being over 650,000, the traditional dating according to biblical chronology, etc.

Progressives tend to state the difficulties in the dating of the Exodus, as well as some of the numbers involved.

In more technical terms, Traditionalists tend to reject the historical-critical method of Bible interpretation and prefer the historical-grammatical method, which takes seriously the text, but does not read in naturalistic presuppositions or question the basic inspiration of the Bible. This grammatical-historical method was affirmed, and the historical-critical method rejected in meetings and statements of the Adventist Church in 1974 and 1986.

b. The distinctive role of the Seventh-day Adventistist Church. Traditionalists hold to the view that the Seventh-day Adventist church is the remnant church of God with a distinctive message to be delivered to the world in light of Jesus' soon coming. The Three Angel's Messages of Revelation 14 comprise the content of this last day warning.


c. Various lifestyle, church issues
Traditionals often oppose:

i. Homosexuality as a legitimate christian lifestyle choice
ii. Consumption of alcohol
iii. Eating of unclean foods (and sometimes flesh foods)
iv. Wearing jewelry (sometimes the wedding ring)
v. dancing
vi. Sabbath observance that resembles worldly recreation.
etc.

d. 28 fundamentals. Traditionalists subscribe to the accepted statements of doctrine encompassed in the 28 fundamental beliefs, and to be supportive of the General Conference. They are less likely to openly question these beliefs or even actions of the church, desiring unity on the fundamental theological understandings of the church.

They resist efforts to overturn long held pillars, especially the often attacked traditional Adventist eschatology and Sanctuary doctrines.

e. View of Ellen White. Traditionalists view the ministry of Ellen White as inspired, and useful for today. They resist efforts to say that her visions were a result of delusions, or head trauma, etc. and that she was uninspired. They also tend to resist definitions of inspiration that would make it possible to discern what elements of her writings are inspired, and what ones are not. In this respect they see the issue similarly to the question of biblical inspiration.

 

[StormyOne]

Thanks Tall for the summarization.... now the issue is not all people fit comfortably in the categories... there are some who believe some of the tenets of traditional thinking as well as some of the tenets of progressive thinking.... therein lies the rub IMO...

 

[Cliff2]

Thanks Tall for the summarization.... now the issue is not all people fit comfortably in the categories... there are some who believe some of the tenets of traditional thinking as well as some of the tenets of progressive thinking.... therein lies the rub IMO...

I would like to know how the "progessives" see things and how they view Adventism?

Surely they can't disagree with what has been said in the previous post by Tall73.

 

[tall73]

I would like to know how the "progessives" see things and how they view Adventism?

Surely they can't disagree with what has been said in the previous post by Tall73.

Here is a partial listing of beliefs that was posted by Stormy in the progressive section. It is a quote from Adventism Today.

Progressive Adventists believe

• That need produces doctrine. Energy and scholarship are put into the study of doctrinal and ethical issues that apply to our era, rather than to be content with traditional positions arrived at by earlier theologians who had their own cultural and historical biases. Theological and ethical considerations deemed pertinent and relevant in one era may not be at all relevant in another era. Progressive Adventists also recognize that catastrophes or crises of all kinds-economic, social, and natural-have formed the bedrock for forging "the truth," truth which may have no meaning for the next generation.
• That revelation is progressive. That beliefs must be studied and restudied to come to a fuller understanding of God and His will for us. Progressive Adventists reject the idea that there is nothing new to learn and that Ellen White is the final interpreter of the bible. It is believed that difficult questions must be asked even when there is no immediate answer. The goal is not to destroy the truth, but to come to a clearer understanding of what we call “the truth.”
• Progressive Adventists believe that no one has the right to dictate the only correct and acceptable belief system. That one can belong to the body of Christ and have differing views on “the truth.” The importance of theological positions is not to identify a church body, but to support fellowship, brother/sisterhood, help with living in a increasingly dangerous world, give counsel for the depressed, and express love for the unloved. Theological stances or positions are not to shut out others but to include all. They are to assist us in reaching out in loving, inclusive gestures.
• Progressive Adventists do not believe that the clothes and/or adornment make the person acceptable to God in worship. God is not a provincial lord who wants everyone to look alike and demands that only certain clothes are appropriate for worship. The matter of relationships among believers is more important than their apparel. One cannot worship God and also shun and resent those who don't adhere to a specific dress code. Progressive Adventists believe that the church building and the organization and its standards are never more important than the people who attend the church. The system operates for the individual church member. The church members do not exist for the church.
• Progressive Adventists believe that one cannot correctly understand Scripture without referring to the historical context, the cultural mores, and the language in which it was written. The belief in progressive revelation makes us aware that our pictures of God keep changing. Progressive Adventists believes that the picture of God blotting out populations either by the sword of man, or by fires, earthquakes, catastrophic storms, and volcanic eruptions, demonstrates that man has indeed made god in his own image. It is appropriate to think, ask questions, weigh material and not be intimidated by the words; it's inspired. No leap of faith is wide enough to bridge the chasm of these contradictory pictures of God.
• Progressive Adventists believe that in the 20th century there are many issues that are not even hinted at in the Scriptures, even when possible biblical principles do apply. Progressive Adventists take the Bible seriously, yet they recognize that the revelation is progressive. Science is not derived from the Bible, but it does illuminate our perspectives, both spiritual and physical. Progressive Adventists have a healthy respect for science and research and incorporate the knowledge gained from science into their understanding of who God is and how He interacts in the lives of mankind.

This does not respond to all aspects of my post, so they will have to clarify those issues not spoken to.

 

[tall73]

Thanks Tall for the summarization.... now the issue is not all people fit comfortably in the categories... there are some who believe some of the tenets of traditional thinking as well as some of the tenets of progressive thinking.... therein lies the rub IMO...

Understood. I find myself agreeing with most of the traditional views, but not all. But I tried to faithfully reproduce the position regardless. Since I find more agreement in the specifics, and particularly the spirit of the traditionalists I have signed up there.

However, if it is an all or nothing issue, then I don't qualify.

 

[moicherie]

Well I am a bit of both which shows the dividing line is not helpful for someone like me. For example I can't see the probelm with dancing since David was pretty good at it! LOL. As for jewelry issue I live by the tradtional aspect -too old to change but can see why others do not. As for the 'we are the remnant church' implies everyone else is not mmm got problems with that one too. So I call myself Christian Sabbatarian Adventist much simpler the rest are labels for tax purposes - lol

BTW thanks Tall for the list some people saying traditionals are the ones who accept the 28 fundamentals did not get to the heart of it.

 

[Cliff2]

Progressive Adventists believe

• That need produces doctrine. Energy and scholarship are put into the study of doctrinal and ethical issues that apply to our era, rather than to be content with traditional positions arrived at by earlier theologians who had their own cultural and historical biases. Theological and ethical considerations deemed pertinent and relevant in one era may not be at all relevant in another era. Progressive Adventists also recognize that catastrophes or crises of all kinds-economic, social, and natural-have formed the bedrock for forging "the truth," truth which may have no meaning for the next generation.
• That revelation is progressive. That beliefs must be studied and restudied to come to a fuller understanding of God and His will for us. Progressive Adventists reject the idea that there is nothing new to learn and that Ellen White is the final interpreter of the bible. It is believed that difficult questions must be asked even when there is no immediate answer. The goal is not to destroy the truth, but to come to a clearer understanding of what we call “the truth.”
• Progressive Adventists believe that no one has the right to dictate the only correct and acceptable belief system. That one can belong to the body of Christ and have differing views on “the truth.” The importance of theological positions is not to identify a church body, but to support fellowship, brother/sisterhood, help with living in a increasingly dangerous world, give counsel for the depressed, and express love for the unloved. Theological stances or positions are not to shut out others but to include all. They are to assist us in reaching out in loving, inclusive gestures.
• Progressive Adventists do not believe that the clothes and/or adornment make the person acceptable to God in worship. God is not a provincial lord who wants everyone to look alike and demands that only certain clothes are appropriate for worship. The matter of relationships among believers is more important than their apparel. One cannot worship God and also shun and resent those who don't adhere to a specific dress code. Progressive Adventists believe that the church building and the organization and its standards are never more important than the people who attend the church. The system operates for the individual church member. The church members do not exist for the church.
• Progressive Adventists believe that one cannot correctly understand Scripture without referring to the historical context, the cultural mores, and the language in which it was written. The belief in progressive revelation makes us aware that our pictures of God keep changing. Progressive Adventists believes that the picture of God blotting out populations either by the sword of man, or by fires, earthquakes, catastrophic storms, and volcanic eruptions, demonstrates that man has indeed made god in his own image. It is appropriate to think, ask questions, weigh material and not be intimidated by the words; it's inspired. No leap of faith is wide enough to bridge the chasm of these contradictory pictures of God.
• Progressive Adventists believe that in the 20th century there are many issues that are not even hinted at in the Scriptures, even when possible biblical principles do apply. Progressive Adventists take the Bible seriously, yet they recognize that the revelation is progressive. Science is not derived from the Bible, but it does illuminate our perspectives, both spiritual and physical. Progressive Adventists have a healthy respect for science and research and incorporate the knowledge gained from science into their understanding of who God is and how He interacts in the lives of mankind.

Because of what Progressive Adventists believe I have signed up with the Traditional Adventists.

I could never go along with a lot of what is said here by them.

 

[moicherie]

Well what is listed as Progressive I cannot see probelms with.

1. EG White is not the final interpreter of truth, no human should be anyway, she never claimed to be so why some Adventist make her that I will never know.
2. There are 21st century issues the Bible does not specfically address which makes sense cos they did not exist at the time.
3. As for the God and a dress code well people are more important that shirts and ties I have no probelm with that.
4. And I agree theology is not about shutting out - Jesus said If I be lifted up from the earth I will draw all men unto me. Our traditional 'you got to be an Adventist to be saved' evangelistic attitude is based on what part of the bible?

Contrary to popular belief our pioneers had a progressive attitude they never believed they knew it all already if they had that attitude we would still be going to church on Sundays, eating unclean foods and smoking tobacco.
Who decided God stopped revealing things to the church after 1910?

 

[Seraph1m]

So folks are still in the "us" vs. "them" mode... interesting

 

[awesumtenor]

Understood. I find myself agreeing with most of the traditional views, but not all. But I tried to faithfully reproduce the position regardless. Since I find more agreement in the specifics, and particularly the spirit of the traditionalists I have signed up there.

Some of us were not given that option. My views largely align with yours, yet when I declared myself 'traditional' I was relegated to the progressive forum in spite of... so there is obviously a subjective something else going into the determination of who is what...

However, if it is an all or nothing issue, then I don't qualify.

noone does... and one aspect of this that has not been addressed is divergence from the church positions to the right rather than to the left. If the bottom line of labeling and segregating 'progressives' is to avoid discord with extremists, there are extremists on both ends of the spectrum and their positions are at least as divergent as the so-called progressives, if not moreso; I've never heard a progressive group declare the GC to be Babylon, for instance; I know of myriad uber-conservative groups that have and continue to, groups whose views have been endorsed by persons in this forum claiming them to be 'traditional' where they, in fact, arent.

In His service,
Mr. J

 

[Cliff2]

Well what is listed as Progressive I cannot see probelms with.

1. EG White is not the final interpreter of truth, no human should be anyway, she never claimed to be so why some Adventist make her that I will never know.
2. There are 21st century issues the Bible does not specfically address which makes sense cos they did not exist at the time.
3. As for the God and a dress code well people are more important that shirts and ties I have no probelm with that.
4. And I agree theology is not about shutting out - Jesus said If I be lifted up from the earth I will draw all men unto me. Our traditional 'you got to be an Adventist to be saved' evangelistic attitude is based on what part of the bible?

Contrary to popular belief our pioneers had a progressive attitude they never believed they knew it all already if they had that attitude we would still be going to church on Sundays, eating unclean foods and smoking tobacco.
Who decided God stopped revealing things to the church after 1910?

As a traditional SDA (TA) let's look at your points one at a time.

#1-I do not know of any TA that places EGW above the Bible. It is a perception that many think that we do when in fact we do not. As far as I know the SDA Church does not say she is the "final interpreter of truth"

Just wondering where you get that concept from.

#2-Have things changed that much? Have people's natures changed so much in the last 2,000 years that requires us to have a new set of values?

We have more knowledge today and new inventions but people are still people that need a Saviour.

Jesus was tempted in all points as we are. His three temptations cover all areas that we are tempted in.

#3-"Dress codes, the Bible tells us in broad general terms on how we should dress and behave. Modest and that which would be acceptable if Jesus was in our house. What is wrong with that?

#4-"Our traditional 'you got to be an Adventist to be saved'"

That is something I have never heard said by any of our evangelists. In fact I have heard it said many times that our RCC friends will be in heaven along with many that we think maynot be there.

"Who decided God stopped revealing things to the church after 1910?"

I do not know of any TA that says all has been revealed.

 

[Cliff2]

As a traditional SDA (TA) let's look at your points one at a time.

#1-I do not know of any TA that places EGW above the Bible. It is a perception that many think that we do when in fact we do not. As far as I know the SDA Church does not say she is the "final interpreter of truth"

Just wondering where you get that concept from.

#2-Have things changed that much? Have people's natures changed so much in the last 2,000 years that requires us to have a new set of values?

We have more knowledge today and new inventions but people are still people that need a Saviour.

Jesus was tempted in all points as we are. His three temptations cover all areas that we are tempted in.

#3-"Dress codes, the Bible tells us in broad general terms on how we should dress and behave. Modest and that which would be acceptable if Jesus was in our house. What is wrong with that?

#4-"Our traditional 'you got to be an Adventist to be saved'"

That is something I have never heard said by any of our evangelists. In fact I have heard it said many times that our RCC friends will be in heaven along with many that we think maynot be there.

"Who decided God stopped revealing things to the church after 1910?"

I do not know of any TA that says all has been revealed.

I am not about to tear down truth because I do not like it. God has revealed to us what is necessary for our salvation. What more do we need so that we can be saved?

 

[StormyOne]

I am not about to tear down truth because I do not like it. God has revealed to us what is necessary for our salvation. What more do we need so that we can be saved?

Truth cannot be torn down....only untruth or false truth, or false beliefs dressed up as truth....

 

[SassySDA]

I am not about to tear down truth because I do not like it. God has revealed to us what is necessary for our salvation. What more do we need so that we can be saved?

I can't think of anything, Cliff.

I, too, have never heard ANY Adventist say that we are the only ones who will be in heaven, as Cliff stated, on the contrary, I have heard it said, in my church, MANY times that there will be people there that we may not have thought WOULD be. That's simply stating that we do NOT know other people's hearts...

I have heard very little about Ellen White from the TA's that I know. I was doing bible studies, and attending the Seventh-day Adventist church for a couple of months BEFORE I even heard her mentioned, and that is was in Sabbath School class. I have never heard anyone say that we are supposed to take her word as final on biblical scripture for ANY reason. What works of her's I have read, I have found to be an "enhancing" experience. My bible is always with me, however, it is my constant companion, The Great Controversy, while a fascinating read, is not. I guess there are some fanatics out there who DO put her above the Bible, but I haven't truly met one of them yet. I have chatted with numerous people in chatrooms who ACCUSE me of doing that as soon as they realize I'm SDA, but I've never met one who says they actually do hold her and her writings above the word of God. I'm kind of stymied as to where that has come from.

As far as a dress code goes, I can only go by my church. We dress modestly, yes. However, we do NOT all look the same. You don't need to wear outlandish clothes, or immodest ones to make yourself different, beautiful, or to stand out in a crowd. We are all God's children, His creation, that alone makes us all UNIQUE and BEAUTIFUL, Amen? Some wear their wedding bands, some do not. That's by personal choice. I chose to take all of my jewelry OFF, and that was by MY choice alone. The realization was given to me, via the Holy Spirit, as to WHY I was wearing the jewelry. I wanted people to look at it and desire to have it. I was, I realized, encouraging others to break God's commandment by wanting them to COVET what I had. One day I may put my wedding rings back on, but not until I am certain of WHY I am doing it.

Finally....

I do not know of any TA that says all has been revealed.

Amen, Cliff. If I thought that, or any of the almost continual Bible studiers I know of in my church, believed that, we'd have to find something else to do on the many evenings we take up with just that very activity. I am never far from my bible, and I never fail to be amazed that each time I pick it up, I learn something more, something incredible, something more wonderful than this earth could ever begin to show me.

Salvational issues are the same now as they were when they were given to us. The way in which people are saved, born again, risen in Christ, those are constants that will never change.

But the Bible will continue to open our minds to new truths until the day we die and can no longer read it. I am a firm believer of that.

You see, I realize of course, that the world is constantly changing, evolving...new thing-a-ma-jigs come to our attention all of the time. I'm not interested in worldly matters, other than those matters that constitute the signs of Christ's imminent return.

In response to this post, please try to remember that I am not intending to speak for anyone else here, or anywhere else on this planet. Sometimes I get the feeling that that is how some posts are taken, and that's not the intention here at all.

I AM a Traditional Adventist, there are no parts of that that I disagree with. I, like Cliff, DO wonder where some of these "myths" (Ellen White is held in higher esteem than God) come from?

 

[Cliff2]

Truth cannot be torn down....only untruth or false truth, or false beliefs dressed up as truth....

I can agree with what you have wrote.

 

[Seraph1m]

I can't think of anything, Cliff.

I, too, have never heard ANY Adventist say that we are the only ones who will be in heaven, as Cliff stated, on the contrary, I have heard it said, in my church, MANY times that there will be people there that we may not have thought WOULD be. That's simply stating that we do NOT know other people's hearts...

Finally....

But the Bible will continue to open our minds to new truths until the day we die and can no longer read it. I am a firm believer of that.

I AM a Traditional Adventist, there are no parts of that that I disagree with. I, like Cliff, DO wonder where some of these "myths" (Ellen White is held in higher esteem than God) come from?

We are sure as folks travel and meet other Adventists outside of their "area" one will hear, see and, experience a great number of things they obviously have not heard in their neck of the woods, regardless of ones claims of Adventist traditionalism.

Any member attending the church a year or less will not have that experience but, as I have told my children who have been brought up in the Adventist church and are now raising their own children in this church, just keep livin and you may...

 

[tall73]

Some of us were not given that option. My views largely align with yours, yet when I declared myself 'traditional' I was relegated to the progressive forum in spite of... so there is obviously a subjective something else going into the determination of who is what...

Agreed, which is part of why I am addressing this issue. You might want to appeal on the basis of your agreement with most of these views to the moderators who could then reconsider.

noone does... and one aspect of this that has not been addressed is divergence from the church positions to the right rather than to the left. If the bottom line of labeling and segregating 'progressives' is to avoid discord with extremists, there are extremists on both ends of the spectrum and their positions are at least as divergent as the so-called progressives, if not moreso; I've never heard a progressive group declare the GC to be Babylon, for instance; I know of myriad uber-conservative groups that have and continue to, groups whose views have been endorsed by persons in this forum claiming them to be 'traditional' where they, in fact, arent.

Quite agreed again. However, while there is diversity even in the conservative camp, most agree on the basic doctrines etc. and the issues above. You will note though that I specifically stated that this group also is generally supportive of the GC. This would rule out some branches of conservative independent or historic groups who label the GC as babylon.

Moreover, some in the traditionalist campe would say that a large reason the "uber-conservative" groups react as they do is that the the GC administrative levels are disproportionately filled with those who support the progressive movement and its use of the historical-critical methodology. In other words, what they find objectionable to the church is primarily that which is held by the progressive elements.

Now I am not here to defend independents. I am here to try to accurately describe the so-called traditional view point, to which I partially subscribe. If you wish to also subscribe to it in some way then I suggest contacting the moderators.

 

[tall73]

There are indeed people who put EGW first. In fact, they often don't realize it. They say the Bible is first. But if EGW takes a stand on something, very few are willing to even look at the evidence beyond that point. What does that say? It says they accept her as the final authority.


I have seen this in my own church. We will be studying the Bible, looking up all information in a given passage, trying to get to the original intent, etc. Suddenly someone reads from EGW, and they are ready to move on. It is settled. But is it really? EGW did not endorse this. In the issue in 1888 over the law in Galatians she did not allow them to use her position as a determining factor, though Butler and Smith were desirous of it.

I do not however say this is the traditional view. It clearly is not, nor is it EGW's view. Nor is it the view of even some of those who practice it if you corner them on it. But unconsciously it still predominates in many corners, and in some places openly.

 

[awesumtenor]

I can't think of anything, Cliff.

I, too, have never heard ANY Adventist say that we are the only ones who will be in heaven,

You've been in the church what... 6 months? Stick around awhile and get out a little more...

I have heard very little about Ellen White from the TA's that I know. I was doing bible studies, and attending the Seventh-day Adventist church for a couple of months BEFORE I even heard her mentioned, and that is was in Sabbath School class. I have never heard anyone say that we are supposed to take her word as final on biblical scripture for ANY reason.

Then you are not as 'traditional' as you think... nor, it appears, are they.

What works of her's I have read, I have found to be an "enhancing" experience. My bible is always with me, however, it is my constant companion, The Great Controversy, while a fascinating read, is not. I guess there are some fanatics out there who DO put her above the Bible, but I haven't truly met one of them yet. I have chatted with numerous people in chatrooms who ACCUSE me of doing that as soon as they realize I'm SDA, but I've never met one who says they actually do hold her and her writings above the word of God. I'm kind of stymied as to where that has come from.

Again, your experience is, at best, limited and your not having encountered such is no evidence of their not existing.

Finally....

I do not know of any TA that says all has been revealed.

Amen, Cliff. If I thought that, or any of the almost continual Bible studiers I know of in my church, believed that, we'd have to find something else to do on the many evenings we take up with just that very activity. I am never far from my bible, and I never fail to be amazed that each time I pick it up, I learn something more, something incredible, something more wonderful than this earth could ever begin to show me.

Salvational issues are the same now as they were when they were given to us. The way in which people are saved, born again, risen in Christ, those are constants that will never change.

But the Bible will continue to open our minds to new truths until the day we die and can no longer read it. I am a firm believer of that.

If you believe this, then why are you so anti-progressive?

I AM a Traditional Adventist, there are no parts of that that I disagree with. I, like Cliff, DO wonder where some of these "myths" (Ellen White is held in higher esteem than God) come from?

They aren't myths... and they arent positions held by the liberal wing of Adventism. The real battle against extremism in Adventism is not against progressives or liberals ( although there is a battle there ); it's against arch-conservatives whose concept of the church and doctrine is only large enough for themselves and no others, against the Jan Marcussens and the Ralph Perez's and the Russell and Colin Standishes of the world who keep the 'Adventists as cult' arguments going by their rhetoric and claims of being the 'true SDA church'.

In His service,
Mr. J

 

[tall73]

If you believe this, then why are you so anti-progressive?

The issue is not that everything has been discovered. It hasn't. Nor is it even that everything has been revealed, It hasn't either. Prophecy continues to the end, along with the other gifts of the Spirit according to Peter.

The issue is that when something HAS been clarified by the Bible statements, then we need to at least take seriously what they say. Does this mean we always have the proper understanding? No, but it must be an understanding that takes the Scriptural evidence as primary. It should not simply refuse to look at evidence which is there because it is deemed culturally inspired, rather than God inspired.

I am phrasing this in light of some progressives view that the biblical authors wrote some things from their cultural understanding that were not inspired. I have no idea if you personally subscribe to this. But the point is that we are not against present truth, or even discovering new truth. We are against minimizing previous truth because it was delivered in a culture other than our own.

Now, where I completely agree is that both sides can go beyond what Scripture says. For instance, I already made clear that I am opposed to alcohol, but find no prohibition in the Bible expressly stated. To say that there is goes beyond the biblical data in my estimation. It is not an inspiration question, it is a question of saying more than what is said. Nor is it particularly a cultural question. The question is simply is there a biblical prohibition.

But on the issue of homosexuality for instance, and the Bible's stance on it, there is a clear prohibition. Yet many today wish to explain that in terms of cultural settings etc. I don't see a reason to do that. And I think it IS a biblical question of inspiration. The Bible is quite clear on the issue, so to go against it is to have to explain why those statements are in fact not inspired.

They aren't myths... and they arent positions held by the liberal wing of Adventism. The real battle against extremism in Adventism is not against progressives or liberals ( although there is a battle there ); it's against arch-conservatives whose concept of the church and doctrine is only large enough for themselves and no others, against the Jan Marcussens and the Ralph Perez's and the Russell and Colin Standishes of the world who keep the 'Adventists as cult' arguments going by their rhetoric and claims of being the 'true SDA church'.

No, they are not myths. And they are held by conservative elements. However, the battle is on two fronts. One must take EGW as she asked to be taken, but that includes not sitting in judgement to determine what was cultural and what was inspired. She did not indeed favor people determining the inspired and uninspired portions in either her writings or the Bible.

Neither did she want herself used as Scripture, elevated above the Bible etc.

So the real battle is in fact over what is inspiration, and how are we to view it. And it is a battle fought on all sides, not just the conservative one.