What are the main differences between Traditional and Progressive?

[3DSabbath07]

This is new to me, I just don't understand the difference between the two?

 

[JonMiller]

Que post by Night. Basically, there are a lot of different factions in adventism, the traditionals and progressives on CF are just two groups of those factions... basically on the lines of who the traditionals don't want to be part of them.

JM

 

[catmommy]

I don't know. I think that if you do not adhere to the strict interpretation of the 28 fundemental beliefs, you are progressive. How strict you have to adhere to the 28 beliefs in order to be traditional/progressive doesn't seem to be clearly defined. I believe that EGW had visions, but wasn't a prophet in the biblical since, so I don't know where I fall.

 

[redhorse]

This is new to me, I just don't understand the difference between the two?

We have the same question when i got here, but after reading some post made in both subfuroms i find out that this two have different views.

MY QUESTIONS NOW IS:

HOW CAN THEY USE SDA IN PROGRESSIVE? They dont believe in all 28 beliefs. And as far as i know 28 beliefs is SDA doctrine. So if anyone who dont believe or fully believe this doctrines should not call themselves SDA. Im sorry if i offend someone. Because for me this like a Catholic forum but having a subforum who dont believe Mary or St. francis or st peter.

This is confusing.

 

[sentipente]

HOW CAN THEY USE SDA IN PROGRESSIVE? They dont believe in all 28 beliefs. And as far as i know 28 beliefs is SDA doctrine. For me its like a Catholic forum but having a subforum who dont believe Mary or St. francis or st peter.

This is confusing.

If you really want to be kornfused consder that there was a time when there were only 27 fundamental beliefs and before that there were no fundamental beliefs.

 

[JonMiller]

We have the same question when i got here, but after reading some post made in both subfuroms i find out that this two have different views.

MY QUESTIONS NOW IS:

HOW CAN THEY USE SDA IN PROGRESSIVE? They dont believe in all 28 beliefs. And as far as i know 28 beliefs is SDA doctrine. So if anyone who dont believe or fully believe this doctrines should not call themselves SDA. Im sorry if i offend someone. Because for me this like a Catholic forum but having a subforum who dont believe Mary or St. francis or st peter.

This is confusing.

A number of us agree with the fundamentals sort of but not with what mean traditionals think. For example, while I think that EGW was a prophet, I don't think that everything she said was true or correct or from God. As such, I don't give her the same sort of authority that many 'traditionals' give her.

Jon Miller

 

[redhorse]

If you really want to be kornfused consder that there was a time when there were only 27 fundamental beliefs and before that there were no fundamental beliefs.

Whats the connection of having this 27 and now 28? Is this progressive, traditional when its 27? Im sorry i didnt get it. But can u call a catholic person who dont believe the pope or mary or st. peter?

 

[sentipente]

SDAs don't have a magisterium, or claim not to have one.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Whats the connection of having this 27 and now 28? Is this progressive, traditional when its 27? Im sorry i didnt get it. But can u call a catholic person who dont believe the pope or mary or st. peter?

Probably not the best example because you can find Roman Catholics that believe in a fundamentalist remnant way to Catholics who don't believe in the resurrection. Overall in most every denomination there is a wide spectrum of beliefs. In some case the spectrum becomes wide enough that there is church split and a new denomination is formed. We are about 30,000 denominations and independent Christian Churches today. which tells us that the spectrum can be really big.

 

[redhorse]

Probably not the best example because you can find Roman Catholics that believe in a fundamentalist remnant way to Catholics who don't believe in the resurrection. Overall in most every denomination there is a wide spectrum of beliefs. In some case the spectrum becomes wide enough that there is church split and a new denomination is formed. We are about 30,000 denominations and independent Christian Churches today. which tells us that the spectrum can be really big.

Im sorry, i dont know about fundametalist remnants. is that another religion? If it is, Is that even posible your believing other beliefs not the belief of religion u are affialited with?

 

[moicherie]

IMO the difference seems to be the Trads view the 28 fundamentals as being written in tablets of stone, the Progs do not. What the Trads will do if the church decides to go back to the tradition of not have any fundamentals will be interesting to see and very ironic- lol

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Im sorry, i dont know about fundametalist remnants. is that another religion? If it is, Is that even posible your believing other beliefs not the belief of religion u are affialited with?

Many Churches feel that their denomination of subsection of a denomination are the remnant. From one of my blog articles:

To be the Remnant or to be part of the Remnant?

The Bible is filled with remnant principles from Noah to Elijah, from Judah to Ezekiel there is always someone who holds to the principles of God, who does not cave into the world around them. The remnant however is not exclusive the opportunity is open, some will chose God many will never, the remnant are those who as Joshua says, “choose life”. As Chip Brogden said: “ Anyone can, everyone won’t (in fact, a large majority will not) but SOMEBODY will. That group of “sombody’s” who will is the Remnant.”


To be the Remnant is to be special and since people like to feel special they also like to define themselves as the Remnant. Just to be a sincere follower of Christ is not enough for many who define themselves as the Remnant. Often they must define their particular beliefs as Remnant beliefs and the beliefs or actions of others must be apostate. Today those who claim to be the Remnant define themselves as those who hold to the truth against the apostate churches. A few examples:

1.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Gwen Shamblin, the well-known dietician who created the "Weigh Down Diet" formed Remnant Fellowship having come to the conclusion that "institutional church can be defined as the counterfeit church the Apostle John warned about in Revelation - 'The Mother of Prostitutes' (Rev. 17) .. a place that says it is Christ's church and yet .. has insidiously allowed its members to rebel against Christ" (2). Viewing the small groups of people who hearkened to her message as being a true remnant of true believers, Shamblin's Remnant Fellowship now openly urges all like-minded people to abandon Christian churches and affiliate with her band.​

2.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]A National Catholic Newspaper is titled the Remnant with the following given as it purpose: “The Remnant's position is a simple one, as it strives essentially to adhere to Catholic teaching in every aspect of its journalism. There has been great upheaval and revolution within the Catholic Church over the past five decades -- not unlike the one encountered in the fourth century by St. Athanasius, called the Arian Heresy -- and Catholics are called to oppose that which in any way contradicts the infallible teachings and immutable traditions of the Catholic Church.”​

3. The Portland International Church of Christ split, calling for the remnant to come out from their former church. “However, as of this Jubilee the Portland leadership believes it is time for a progressive “calling-out of the remnant of disciples” from dying, former ICOC Churches.”
The International Churches of Christ (Boston Movement), also known as the ICC, founded in 1979 by Kip McKean, is an organization which portrays itself to the public as “...a family of Christian churches whose members are committed to living their lives in accordance with the teachings of Jesus Christ as found in the Bible.” (Who Are We?, ICC Home page, http://www.intlcc.com/) By this statement they appear to be just another family of Christian churches. Is this an honest portrayal? In an article entitled Revolution through Restoration II (a sequel), written by Kip McKean (lead Evangelist and founder of the ICC), Kip states that perhaps the most often asked question of the ICC is “Are the people in the International Churches of Christ the only ones who are saved?” Kip avoids answering this question out right, but comments that the Bible’s answer comes from understanding the nature of God’s movements.
“To initiate his movement, God, in his grace, always works through a man. He puts his message on this man’s heart. As God’s man preaches God’s message, God moves in other men’s hearts to collectively come together to follow God through the leadership of his man.” (Kip McKean, Revolution Through Restoration II, 1994)


A few sentences later Kip states: “I believe with all my heart that the Boston Movement is God’s modern-day movement.” (ibid) This statement infers two things. First, that if the Boston Movement is God’s modern-day movement, then it’s leader, Kip McKean must be “God’s man” who is preaching God’s message. According to the above quote, this means that all persons who are moved upon by God to follow Him will do so through the leadership of “his man” Kip McKean.
Second, if the Boston Movement is God’s one and only modern-day movement, with Kip McKean as it’s leader (God’s man), then any person or group of persons not following Kip McKean by membership in the Boston Movement are not following God. So back to the question, “Are the people in the International Churches of Christ the only ones who are saved?”
​

4.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Remnant Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. From its restoration in 1830 thru the Reorganization of 1860 and Renewal in 2000 The Remnant Church has remained the true successor of Christ’s New Testament Church.​

5.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]The Remnant Church of God
6.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Association Remnant Church of Creation 7th Day Adventists
​

7.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Remnant and Its Mission: (Seventh-day Adventists Fundamental Belief 13)
The universal church is composed of all who truly believe in Christ, but in the last days, a time of widespread apostasy, a remnant has been called out to keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus. This remnant announces the arrival of the judgment hour, proclaims salvation through Christ, and heralds the approach of His second advent. This proclamation is symbolized by the three angels of Revelation 14; it coincides with the work of judgment in heaven and results in a work of repentance and reform on earth. Every believer is called to have a personal part in this worldwide witness. (Rev. 12:17; 14:6-12; 18:1-4; 2 Cor. 5:10; Jude 3, 14; 1 Peter 1:16-19; 2 Peter 3:10-14; Rev. 21:1-14.)​

One thing is certain from the many churches who claim to be the remnant, they can not all be right. Yet to be part of each particular church remnant theology they must accept that their view of the remnant is true. Of all the views expressed in the brief examples above, which only represent some of the groups who view themselves as the remnant I don’t agree that any of them represent the remnant of the followers of God. Neither would the different groups agree with that any the other groups definition of the remnant is true.


The Remnant principle is more God oriented then religious institution oriented. That is God identifies the remnant as those that are His. It is not up to the religious institution to name themselves the remnant. When they do, they are not acting with the view of how God thinks but they operate with the view of a self exalted organization or person. They choose to raise themselves as obedient and lower others as disobedient. Choosing to judge others on things which they can have no way of knowing or simply because of a different interpretation of some Bible passages. It is selfishness.


To be the Remnant or to be part of the Remnant are two very different things. To be the Remnant is exclusive and certain of its exclusive unique position. To be part of the Remnant means you are willing to accept God’s definition of the Remnant with fellow followers of God. God may use a far different definition then man, because remnants can come from all sorts of things.

 

[redhorse]

So in the two (prog & trad) who do u think is the remnant?

 

[JonMiller]

The remnant is not any particular church or group in a particular, it is those who follow God. There are 'trads' who follow God, as well as 'progs'.

JM

 

[moicherie]

So in the two (prog & trad) who do u think is the remnant?

Neither. God does not favour man made labels He is coming back for a prepared people not a prepared forum subgroup....

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

So in the two (prog & trad) who do u think is the remnant?

I thought my article was pretty clear on that. The remnant are those who follow God. And since I am man I tend to look on the outside but God sees things that I don't see. He knows who are following Him and they are His remnant, it is not my job to say who is and who is not part of the remnant, not in my job description and not within my human abilities.

 

[Zionsfriend]

I believe the terms being used, traditional and progressive, are actually soft terms used in the place of conservative and liberal. The conservative camp is generally more Bible oriented while the liberal side is less accepting of the Bible as the infallible Word of God. I am a conservative Sabbatarian Christian myself but I'm not an Adventist by denomination because I don't agree with Adventist doctrine in all points. I do however accept those in the Adventist Church as my brethren in Christ.

 

[freeindeed2]

SDAs don't have a magisterium, or claim not to have one.

Yet SDAism does consider EGW to be the infallible interpreter of Scripture.

In CHRIST alone...

 

[freeindeed2]

SDAs don't have a magisterium, or claim not to have one.

Yet SDAism does consider EGW to be the infallible interpreter of Scripture.

In CHRIST alone...

 

[Telaquapacky]

I believe the terms being used, traditional and progressive, are actually soft terms used in the place of conservative and liberal. The conservative camp is generally more Bible oriented while the liberal side is less accepting of the Bible as the infallible Word of God.

Sounds like you're saying that the Progressives are biblical liberals, that is, don't believe as much in the inspiration of Scripture. That's not true at all. It's a difference in interpretation. Progressives don't agree with the interpretations of Scripture that are traditionally, uniquely Adventist- that is, the ones inspired by Ellen White or other of the founders of the church that in the opinion of Progressives aren't Scriptural in the strictest sense. (examples: The Investigative Judgment, 1844 as the antitypical day of Atonement of Daniel 8:14, a National Sunday Law being the Mark of the Beast, The SDA church being the Remnant, the belief in Ellen G. White as a prophet, etc) I think Progressives prefer more "historic" Christian interpretations, which are more mainstream Evangelical- but only to a point- only where mainstream Evangelical intersects with the Reformation, because those are "tried and true."

Am I right? I hope nobody minds me speaking on behalf of Progressives, since I am myself not a Progressive, but a moderate.