What are the main differences between Traditional and Progressive?

[Sophia7]

This is a decent breakdown. I had written a similar description elsewhere, but this goes into more detail. I wouldn't call Des Ford a progessive Adventist though. He hasn't rejected the tradition understanding of the IJ, he has completely rejected the IJ.

Des Ford has rejected the IJ, but he still sees meaning in 1844 as a fulfillment of prophecy by applying what he calls the "apotelesmatic principle." I disagree with him on that.

Geoff, many Progressive Adventists have rejected the IJ, so what are you saying, that they're not really Adventists? In Ford's case, it's a moot point because he actually is no longer an Adventist. He withdrew his membership a few years ago to seek a teaching position at a Baptist university; however, they ended up turning him down because of his Sabbatarian views. So, leaving Ford out of the equation, I would like to know how your statement relates to those who are still members of the Adventist Church and consider themselves Progressive Adventists but disagree with the IJ teaching.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Moderates in the Adventist church are usually conservative leaning, simply because of the nature of the denomination. I consider them moderates because they are not as unyielding and unreasonable as thier fundamentalist counterparts. They are more willing to rethink things and adept to change than the ultra-conservatives are.

They are right-wingers, but they are not overbearing and intolerant about it. It isn't the be-all end-all as it were.

Thus, they incorporate elements of conservatism in moderation.

Bottom line-an Evangelical or Progressive SDA is going to get a lot further and make more progress with a balanced, reasonable Roy Adams than they ever will with a cultic, ultra-conservative Larry Kirkpatrick.

Well the categories of moderate, progressive, or traditional is not or should not be based upon whether the members of the category are based upon how much of a jerk the person is. Because I will say that you will find that in all the groups. So in effect you are admitting that those people are not moderates but as you say right wingers which is certainly a description of Traditional SDA using the conventional American Left wing Liberal right wing conservative scale.

 

[Telaquapacky]

Well the categories of moderate, progressive, or traditional is not or should not be based upon whether the members of the category are based upon how much of a jerk the person is. Because I will say that you will find that in all the groups. So in effect you are admitting that those people are not moderates but as you say right wingers which is certainly a description of Traditional SDA using the conventional American Left wing Liberal right wing conservative scale.

Like saying, "I call myself a moderate, because I'm really a Traditional, but I'm not a jerk about it," as if not being a jerk shifts one from either extreme to the center. By that logic we ought to all be moderates, because the alternative is to be a bunch of jerks. I agree with RC that there's a little more to it than that.

But I don't agree with the view someone stated earlier, that political moderates are really wishy-washy liberals. A far-right conservative would view any moderate as a closet liberal because it's a matter of their perspective- how the world appears from where they are. You have a fine example of a conservative-leaning moderate in John McCain. The far-right judges McCain to be a liberal only because he's a liberal in comparison to them- because he sometimes works with Democrats. An example of the skewed neo-con political perspective is where Anne Coulter says she would vote for Hillary before John McCain because she thinks Hillary is more conservative than McCain is- which is ridiculous.

I tried (tentatively) in an earlier post to classify Traditional as "systematic theology," and Progressive as "exegetical theology." I see conscientious moderates as those who don't interpret the Bible by the one method or the other strictly, but rely on both, because each method by itself seems to us to be too limiting. I'm curious if anyone else besides me sees that systematic-exegetical dichotomy, and I'm looking for a more objective way of differentiating Progressives and Traditionals, so we won't label a brother or sister wrongly just because of our own perspective, where they seem to be in comparison to our theology, or because we think they're jerks.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

I tried (tentatively) in an earlier post to classify Traditional as "systematic theology," and Progressive as "exegetical theology." I see conscientious moderates as those who don't interpret the Bible by the one method or the other strictly, but rely on both, because each method by itself seems to us to be too limiting. I'm curious if anyone else besides me sees that systematic-exegetical dichotomy, and I'm looking for a more objective way of differentiating Progressives and Traditionals, so we won't label a brother or sister wrongly just because of our own perspective, where they seem to be in comparison to our theology, or because we think they're jerks.

The reason those terms don't differentiate is because any exegetical theology has to also be systematic theology. The fact is that in Adventism what you are defining as the traditional's systematic theology is their use of extra biblical authority. No one would come up with the IJ by reading Daniel 8 or 9. That doctrine had to come about through a continuing series of errors after a failed predictive prophetic interpretation. The foundation of Adventism is based upon ideas which are not systematic but eisegesis. For instance we have a whole theme that we call the Great Controversy. It is far more detailed then any other Christian view yet they see the struggle between good and evil. Our view is based upon the writings of John Milton and based upon other Christian traditions such as Origen and Tertullians eisegesis about Lucifer is Satan referred to in Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 then retold by Ellen White. A systematic theology and an exegetical theology can't rewrite the Bible against the context of its statements. Yet those things are routinely done in Traditional Adventist theology.

What you are referring to as systematic theology in the traditional Adventist view is a theology that is based upon their traditions rather then the Biblical material (that does not mean it is all without systematic theology since it incorporates much theology from the larger Christian world with is systematically derived.. It is systematic only as far as it describes what the traditions that are presupposed allow. Anything that does not fit those presuppositions is ignored.

 

[Telaquapacky]

The reason those terms don't differentiate is because any exegetical theology has to also be systematic theology.

Not really, but now I see.

I think I am barking up the wrong tree, because the moment I ask someone in one of the hostile camps to attribute the theology of the other hostile camp to an accepted system of theology, they will quickly realize that they are on the slippery slope that leads toward the to-be-avoided-at-all-costs-fate-worse-than-death of acknowledging that someone on the other side might have half a brainium in their cranium. Never gonna happen.

 

[StormyOne]

Not really, but now I see.

I think I am barking up the wrong tree, because the moment I ask someone in one of the hostile camps to attribute the theology of the other hostile camp to an accepted system of theology, they will quickly realize that they are on the slippery slope that leads toward the to-be-avoided-at-all-costs-fate-worse-than-death of acknowledging that someone on the other side might have half a brainium in their cranium. Never gonna happen.

perhaps, however the problem is that there are beliefs in adventism that were arrived at based on a proof-text method of bible study... then those beliefs were more or less cast in concrete and declared "the truth." Thus when cracks started to show in the "truth embedded in that concrete" and people saw that the traditional beliefs did not make sense, the church faced a conundrum..... admit that the traditional interpretations were incorrect because of the method used to arrive at "the truth" or denial that there was anything wrong and use more proof-texts to confirm the beliefs.... It is my opinion that the church did not choose to admit it was wrong...

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Not really, but now I see.

I think I am barking up the wrong tree, because the moment I ask someone in one of the hostile camps to attribute the theology of the other hostile camp to an accepted system of theology, they will quickly realize that they are on the slippery slope that leads toward the to-be-avoided-at-all-costs-fate-worse-than-death of acknowledging that someone on the other side might have half a brainium in their cranium. Never gonna happen.

well yes you are barking up the wrong tree as long as you are declaring that it is the Traditional SDA that are using systematic theology.

Question: "What is systematic theology?"

Answer: The word "theology" comes from two Greek words meaning "God" and "word." Combined, the word "theology" means "study of God." Systematic refers to something be put into a system. Systematic theology is, therefore, the division of theology into systems that explain its various areas. For example, many books of the Bible give information about the angels. No one book gives all the information about the angels. Systematic theology takes all the information about angels from all the books of the Bible, and organizes it into a system - angelology. That is what systematic theology is all about - organizing the teachings of the Bible into categorical systems. http://www.gotquestions.org/systematic-theology.html

I doubt also that the Traditionals would appreciate the implication that they don't use exegesis theology. Because in the world of hermeneutics it is either exegesis (letting the text speak for itself ) or eisegesis (reading a particular view into a text).

What certain people do such as Samuel K. Pipim do is declare their method of hermeneutics Historical-grammatical as correct and that Historical-Critical is wrong. You have probably heard it before as Traditionals and fundamentalist declare Higher Criticism to be in error or of the devil.

For a little more on the subject see my old blog article:
Is This a Resurgence of SDA Fundamentalism

 

[StormyOne]

RC you need to clear your cache so your posts will show the correct time.... you can hold down the shift key and click on the refresh button on the menu bar.... that will clear the cache and make the computer get the most recent data......

 

[StormyOne]

also the quick reply option seems to be malfunctioning....

 

[Lebesgue]

Des Ford has rejected the IJ, but he still sees meaning in 1844 as a fulfillment of prophecy by applying what he calls the "apotelesmatic principle." I disagree with him on that.

Geoff, many Progressive Adventists have rejected the IJ, so what are you saying, that they're not really Adventists? In Ford's case, it's a moot point because he actually is no longer an Adventist. He withdrew his membership a few years ago to seek a teaching position at a Baptist university; however, they ended up turning him down because of his Sabbatarian views. So, leaving Ford out of the equation, I would like to know how your statement relates to those who are still members of the Adventist Church and consider themselves Progressive Adventists but disagree with the IJ teaching.

And I also disagree with him on the state of the dead(I think he still holds to the SDA view on the state of the dead).

That said, I have a lot of respect for Dr. Ford and it was definetly unjust the way the SDA church treated him over the IJ thing when he was actually right about that.

What's really interesting to note is that when that 3Q 2006 Adult Sabbath School quarterly on the IJ that led to my leaving the SDA church came out the Elder that was teaching the class said, after I admitted I agree with Dr. Ford on the IJ that Dr. Ford's ministry hasn't prospered like the SDA church so Dr. Ford's ministry must not be of G-d.

I thought, what about the Mormons and the Muslims who have really prospered and I would think ALL of us on here would agree that Mormonism and Islam are false religions. While I definetly consider SDAs Christians I would not consider Mormons Christians, and I actually wonder if Islam may be the beast of Revelation.

G-d Bless.

Shalom,

Lebesgue

 

[teresaq]

I would love to hear the definition of SDA moderate, I don't think there is one really. Rush Limbaugh often says of political moderates show me the books in the library of great moderates of history.

Aside from yourself who would you identify as a renowned Adventist moderate? If you can find one then we could possible be on the trail of a definition. someone might suggest Morris Vendon but he is pretty much hated by Traditionals and he claims that EGW is a divine commentator on the Bible. So his only claim to be a moderate in those things is not what he believes but that Traditional SDA don't like him because he is too grace oriented. And you can't be grace oriented and hold to Last Generation Theology

well there was a time i considered myself conservative, but im not liking what im seeing. and yes, the progressives are not completely wrong.

i was thinking eclectic but maybe moderate is good.

"And you can't be grace oriented and hold to Last Generation Theology" .

why not? i mean, do any of us really know what we know or just think we do? how much indepth study do we do? and why not study into the 'enemys' position and see if there is truth? if being a conservative means i have to reject the truth that is in the other camp, then there is a problem-and vice versa.
teresaq

 

[sentipente]

I would think ALL of us on here would agree that Mormonism and Islam are false religions.

No. Why do you call them false religions? On what basis?

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

well there was a time i considered myself conservative, but im not liking what im seeing. and yes, the progressives are not completely wrong.

i was thinking eclectic but maybe moderate is good.

"And you can't be grace oriented and hold to Last Generation Theology" .

why not? i mean, do any of us really know what we know or just think we do? how much indepth study do we do? and why not study into the 'enemys' position and see if there is truth? if being a conservative means i have to reject the truth that is in the other camp, then there is a problem-and vice versa.
teresaq

Why not? Because they are not, read their writings. See my blog articles linked below.

Valuegenesis and the Enemies of Research

History and Last Generation Perfection Theology

The valuegenesis article ends with the follwoing:

So here are the changes Kirkpatrick envisions:

Were points such as this understood by those who formatted the Valuegenesis questions? That is an important question. The results of the Valuegenesis study have been used to introduce far-reaching changes in the curriculum of the entire SDA educational system. They are being used now to justify the introduction of a demonstrably non-Adventist salvation understanding into the Sabbath school departments of thousands of our churches worldwide. Those who developed the underlying philosophies of both Valuegenesis and GraceLink were PhDs. These are not simpletons.

Generally, we may expect that they have processed all their ideas and, whether right or wrong, they knew what they were trying to do. Gillespie said, "We must launch a comprehensive educational effort that addresses the issue of grace and works orientation." And the church did.

<SPAN style="COLOR: blue">

 

[teresaq]

Why not? Because they are not, read their writings. See my blog articles linked below.

Valuegenesis and the Enemies of Research

History and Last Generation Perfection Theology

The valuegenesis article ends with the follwoing:

So here are the changes Kirkpatrick envisions:

Were points such as this understood by those who formatted the Valuegenesis questions? That is an important question. The results of the Valuegenesis study have been used to introduce far-reaching changes in the curriculum of the entire SDA educational system. They are being used now to justify the introduction of a demonstrably non-Adventist salvation understanding into the Sabbath school departments of thousands of our churches worldwide. Those who developed the underlying philosophies of both Valuegenesis and GraceLink were PhDs. These are not simpletons.

Generally, we may expect that they have processed all their ideas and, whether right or wrong, they knew what they were trying to do. Gillespie said, "We must launch a comprehensive educational effort that addresses the issue of grace and works orientation." And the church did.

<SPAN style="COLOR: blue">

sorry, brother, those are your conclusions and your understanding.

i dont believe in "holy flesh" this side of the 2nd coming and i do see perfect grace and not sinning going hand in hand.

there seems to be a misunderstanding of exactly what is involved. but a better person than i would have to explain it.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Why not? Because they are not, read their writings. See my blog articles linked below.

Valuegenesis and the Enemies of Research

History and Last Generation Perfection Theology

The valuegenesis article ends with the follwoing:

sorry, brother, those are your conclusions and your understanding.

i dont believe in "holy flesh" this side of the 2nd coming and i do see perfect grace and not sinning going hand in hand.

there seems to be a misunderstanding of exactly what is involved. but a better person than i would have to explain it.

True those are my understandings and conclusions but then I have researched it and there is really no other explaination that can be drawn from the history and the material that the pro LGP theology produces.

It may be that you simply don't understand what these people are really saying. They will never use the phrase "holy flesh" of course so I am pretty sure you don't know understand what they are getting at.

Any grace from God is perfect grace because God is perfect to assume that they go hand in hand with not sinning is to deny the reality or to say that God has yet to shed grace upon any man other then Christ. Something I or any New Testament writer could not agree with.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

Do Progs believe if they stay with the SDAs the denomination can be resurrected via reform and a return to scripture?

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Of course they do. The problem is that even a reformed organization will have problems, disagreements and improper understanding about God. The church is made up of imperfect people with imperfect understanding. The best any of us can do is search for truth and present our understanding of the truth, realizing we don't have all the answers. Of course a church that doesn't want reform will never reform as will those who think their have all the truth will not search for more truth.

Ultimately the difference between PSDA and TSDA is the PSDA is still looking for truth and the Traditional SDA thinks they already have the truth.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

But if what makes the SDA "distinctive" -- meaning, necessitating its own denomination -- bes all the things the Progressives have outgrown -- the legalistic focus on lawkeeping, the obsession with self-centric meta-narrative and a supposed "lead role" in the apocalypse, the extra-biblical authority of EGW and SDA tradition, etc. -- then would not progressive reform of necessity take the form of re-integrating the splintered sect with the rest of Christendom eventually?

Sincere questions, not trying to be annoying (it knows some ask these things just to push buttons but it honestly wonders about such stuffs.)

 

[JonMiller]

I still think we should keep the Sabbath, I just disagree with holding it up above all the other commandments. I think that we should be healthy and take care of our bodies. I think that Christ is coming again, and soon.

I don't see anything wrong with there being lot of different denominations.. I just note that somethings are easier (both positive things and negative things) in large groups, and the positive things mean that some group work should be done.

I still think that EGW was a prophet, although I don't place that as being very important (I think that it is likely that there are lots of prophets alive right now) and I don't think that she has authority.

JM

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

It does not perceive EGW as any more inspired or prophetic than dozens of other Christian writers through the years. And not nearly as much as some. The fact that she had to borrow others' words and would not even admit it, does not earn respect.