What divides 'Traditionalists' from 'Progressives' in Adventism...

[reddogs]

I have always gone by one basic test when someone tells me they have 'new light', does it change Christ as the one who I rely on for salvation and does it go by what God has given us in his word and the testimony of Jesus Christ.

So saying, I cannot understand what some people stand to gain with peripheral issues which in my view doesn't take away the gift of grace and righteousness that Christ offers us, and nothing is gained except a brownie point in some minds and pride in others in their ability to point out some minutiae in Greek or Hebrew text.

Thus my feeling is that if you break most of these issues down that divide instead of unite, the only real thing that seperates 'Traditionalist' from 'Progressives' in Adventism is this type of vanity of the 'wisdom of man' and means nothing to God, or a real problem of 'lawlessness' that some people want to sin but need to get around God's truth, which goes to the root of what sin is.

 

[Jimlarmore]

I think the last part of your statement nails it. From my perspective and from what I have seen so far the SDA's who claim to be progressive have in truth went backwards in the faith. Some of them claim we can never live a holy life even in Christ that sin is inevitable. IOW, it's impossible to keep from sinning. By accepting this deception they are free to violate any and all of God's Holy laws at will and feel it won't matter or cause them to be lost whether they confess and repent or not.

What's really strange to me is the real progressives that were here for so long have left in the clatter of strife over the 3abn fiasco. I haven't even seen them listed in the heading over the SDA forum as logged on members for quite some time.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Here are the catagories that I have come accross in my disscussions. Most of these have the 27/28 fundemntals in common. I have listed the major discinction of each groups. most of these will ascribe to a biblical lifestyle

All but the liberas have these areas in commom that make them "adventits"

1. Sabbbath
2. State of the dead
3. the visible second coming.
4. Historical method of dating.
5. Sancturary in heaven although what is happening and when it happened is up for debate.
6. spritual gifts

The divisions occur on a couple of line

1. the investigative judgement dan 8:14
2. the role of ellen white
3. Sabbath keeping - mainly the liberals will have a problem with looser sabbath keeping.
4. creation - when and how it happened. the liberal again will be the most extreme.
young earth-young universe,
young earth -old universe,
old earth -old universe.

5. lifestyle issues.


you are the following if you meet the following creiteria

T/HSDA - traditional /historic SDA - this was the main-line body until 1950's question on doctrine. Now they are the independant ministery crowd.
a. post fall human nature of christ
b. last generation theology
c. characer perfecton
d. view of SDA remnant chruch of prophecy

CSDA -conservative SDA -main line sda
a. pre-fall human nature of christ
b. born again /no last genreation theology
c. remnenat chruch of prophecy

ESDA -evanglical sda
a. pre-fall
b. born again
c. EGW devotional/pastoral not prophetic and authoritive.
d. no investigative judgement.
e. not remenat chruch of prophecy, but special and most accurate view of scripture.

PSDA- progressive SDA
a. pre-fall
b. born again
c. EGW devotional/pastoral not prophetic and authoritive.
d. no investigative judgement.
e. no 2300 days
f. possibly antioucs as the little horn.

LSDA - liberal SDA
a. post fall human nature of Christ
b. down play life style
c. old earth creationism
d. nothing unique of SDA chruch
e. no disicipleship
f. no EGW was not a prophet.

EX-sda
a. still christian
b. not christian.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Thus my feeling is that if you break most of these issues down that divide instead of unite, the only real thing that seperates 'Traditionalist' from 'Progressives' in Adventism is this type of vanity of the 'wisdom of man' and means nothing to God, or a real problem of 'lawlessness' that some people want to sin but need to get around God's truth, which goes to the root of what sin is.

Really, that is an interesting idea, I can't say I agree with it but just for clarity which ones have the lawlessness and want to get around God's truth, are you referring to the traditionalists or the progressives?

The reason I can't agree with it no matter which one you assume to be lawless, I think both sides are actually trying to follow God's truth. there certainly seems to be enough confusion in all segments of Christianity but it also seems that confusion and misunderstanding are far different then intentionally trying to avoid truth. I am not sure that such a judgment is helpful for anyone.

 

[Telaquapacky]

Reddogs, I myself am a traditional SDA. But I find that people who attack this or that distinctive belief have all kinds of different motives for doing so- not always that they are looking to excuse sin. Some are, but not all. I am a convert, and came into the church about 27 years ago. Early on I had experiences with people my age who were “born in the church.” I found that there was an almost impenetrable cultural barrier between me and them. I was offended by their dismissive treatment of teachings that I had come to cherish like a parched man on the desert when he finds water. I couldn’t understand why they had so little appreciation for the teachings I envied them for having learned from youth- I couldn’t believe how they took them for granted.

Then I looked at myself and saw a phenomenon at work. I had lived a fairly rebellious life before coming to the Lord, and before Him leading me to the Seventh-day Adventist message. I could look back on big sins and terrible habits that almost killed me, and see a tremendous change in my life when I came to Jesus. My born-in-the-church friends could not. They did not have this big change to look back upon, and they did not have a big demonstration of a changed life to bolster their confidence that Jesus had transformed them. Their spiritual needs were different from mine. Their different spiritual needs determined the way they looked at the gospel.

I began to realize that you can not always (yes you can sometimes but not always) tell what a person’s spiritual condition is just by what doctrines they agree with or don’t agree with. I also find that people on the internet never let down their guard. They always want to prove you wrong- even on insignificant little points, merely to win an argument. But I think that if you could meet these same people in person and get to know them you might see something different. And I think we have a far more positive influence upon the people we interact with in person than we ever could to the strangers whose texts we see here.

I think it’s important to contend for the faith, but I also believe it’s important not to judge the motives or character of others. If they have written boorishly enough, it will be evident to all who read. Others may sin, but we don’t have to talk about it. And we ought not to take so seriously what anyone writes here that we develop attitudes about them.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Some of them claim we can never live a holy life even in Christ that sin is inevitable.

Really, that is quite a statement. I think you are making it up or distorting what they say for your own purposes. Maybe you would like to rephrase it as some claim we can never live a sinless life this side of heaven. That might be a good deal more accurate.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

I think the last part of your statement nails it. From my perspective and from what I have seen so far the SDA's who claim to be progressive have in truth went backwards in the faith. Some of them claim we can never live a holy life even in Christ that sin is inevitable. IOW, it's impossible to keep from sinning. By accepting this deception they are free to violate any and all of God's Holy laws at will and feel it won't matter or cause them to be lost whether they confess and repent or not.

What's really strange to me is the real progressives that were here for so long have left in the clatter of strife over the 3abn fiasco. I haven't even seen them listed in the heading over the SDA forum as logged on members for quite some time.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

unfortunatley the term "Progressive" lumps a number of groups together. se my post above. As far as truth. Most progressives believe in truth, but Traditionals and conservatives won't accept it because they don't agree with the the T & C believe. for example the investigatve most T&C won't even look at the evidence where as the P&E"S have looked at the evidence and come to a differnt conclusion. T&C have a problem with this because they think every thing they believe is absloutely plain. it is not. that is why they are so afraid to look at the scripture for verification. I was a conservative, now I am an evanglical.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

I also find that people on the internet never let down their guard.

I find that is how you approach it. i have been more open here then I could be with my friends in real life. I do agree people can take on a different personality here. but it goes both ways.

 

[TrustAndObey]

Reddogs, I myself am a traditional SDA. But I find that people who attack this or that distinctive belief have all kinds of different motives for doing so- not always that they are looking to excuse sin. Some are, but not all. I am a convert, and came into the church about 27 years ago. Early on I had experiences with people my age who were “born in the church.” I found that there was an almost impenetrable cultural barrier between me and them. I was offended by their dismissive treatment of teachings that I had come to cherish like a parched man on the desert when he finds water. I couldn’t understand why they had so little appreciation for the teachings I envied them for having learned from youth- I couldn’t believe how they took them for granted.

Then I looked at myself and saw a phenomenon at work. I had lived a fairly rebellious life before coming to the Lord, and before Him leading me to the Seventh-day Adventist message. I could look back on big sins and terrible habits that almost killed me, and see a tremendous change in my life when I came to Jesus. My born-in-the-church friends could not. They did not have this big change to look back upon, and they did not have a big demonstration of a changed life to bolster their confidence that Jesus had transformed them. Their spiritual needs were different from mine. Their different spiritual needs determined the way they looked at the gospel.

I began to realize that you can not always (yes you can sometimes but not always) tell what a person’s spiritual condition is just by what doctrines they agree with or don’t agree with. I also find that people on the internet never let down their guard. They always want to prove you wrong- even on insignificant little points, merely to win an argument. But I think that if you could meet these same people in person and get to know them you might see something different. And I think we have a far more positive influence upon the people we interact with in person than we ever could to the strangers whose texts we see here.

I think it’s important to contend for the faith, but I also believe it’s important not to judge the motives or character of others. If they have written boorishly enough, it will be evident to all who read. Others may sin, but we don’t have to talk about it. And we ought not to take so seriously what anyone writes here that we develop attitudes about them.

You brought up some excellent points.

It seems like just about every Adventist I know that was raised in the church is questioning the teachings. I think that's very normal, I did the same thing as a Baptist. Some become stronger in the teachings once they question them, some don't.

You can't take what anyone says too seriously on any message board. Some people would fight with themselves in a mirror if they didn't have this new-fangled way of venting.

I just know that it must be very confusing to people that come to this forum with a question asking the "Adventist" stance on something when they get totally different answers from different members.

It's almost to the point that we're in two totally different churches.

So what's the answer to keep harmony among us?

 

[reddogs]

moved

 

[reddogs]

Reddogs, I myself am a traditional SDA. But I find that people who attack this or that distinctive belief have all kinds of different motives for doing so- not always that they are looking to excuse sin. Some are, but not all. I am a convert, and came into the church about 27 years ago. Early on I had experiences with people my age who were “born in the church.” I found that there was an almost impenetrable cultural barrier between me and them. I was offended by their dismissive treatment of teachings that I had come to cherish like a parched man on the desert when he finds water. I couldn’t understand why they had so little appreciation for the teachings I envied them for having learned from youth- I couldn’t believe how they took them for granted.

Then I looked at myself and saw a phenomenon at work. I had lived a fairly rebellious life before coming to the Lord, and before Him leading me to the Seventh-day Adventist message. I could look back on big sins and terrible habits that almost killed me, and see a tremendous change in my life when I came to Jesus. My born-in-the-church friends could not. They did not have this big change to look back upon, and they did not have a big demonstration of a changed life to bolster their confidence that Jesus had transformed them. Their spiritual needs were different from mine. Their different spiritual needs determined the way they looked at the gospel.

I began to realize that you can not always (yes you can sometimes but not always) tell what a person’s spiritual condition is just by what doctrines they agree with or don’t agree with. I also find that people on the internet never let down their guard. They always want to prove you wrong- even on insignificant little points, merely to win an argument. But I think that if you could meet these same people in person and get to know them you might see something different. And I think we have a far more positive influence upon the people we interact with in person than we ever could to the strangers whose texts we see here.

I think it’s important to contend for the faith, but I also believe it’s important not to judge the motives or character of others. If they have written boorishly enough, it will be evident to all who read. Others may sin, but we don’t have to talk about it. And we ought not to take so seriously what anyone writes here that we develop attitudes about them.

Telaquapacky, God has given you a insight that many are blind to, many of the born-in-the-church have not struggled in the wilderness and felt the dryness in their throats as they slowly sucumb to the lack of living water. So when a thirsty man finds that oasis of living water, he rejoices and sings songs of praise that it has saved him from the dry wilderness of death....some sitting by the well dont fully appriciate what all the joy and gladness is about over the living water to a parched man, even if told of what lies out there. That's why we must strive to teach them of what lies out there so they can fully appriciate and understand and thus keep them from leaving the living water and out of curiosity or ignorance wandering out into the scorching bone dry wilderness of death......

 

[reddogs]

Here are the catagories that I have come accross in my disscussions. Most of these have the 27/28 fundemntals in common. I have listed the major discinction of each groups. most of these will ascribe to a biblical lifestyle

All but the liberas have these areas in commom that make them "adventits"

1. Sabbbath
2. State of the dead
3. the visible second coming.
4. Historical method of dating.
5. Sancturary in heaven although what is happening and when it happened is up for debate.
6. spritual gifts

The divisions occur on a couple of line

1. the investigative judgement dan 8:14
2. the role of ellen white
3. Sabbath keeping - mainly the liberals will have a problem with looser sabbath keeping.
4. creation - when and how it happened. the liberal again will be the most extreme.
young earth-young universe,
young earth -old universe,
old earth -old universe.

5. lifestyle issues.


you are the following if you meet the following creiteria

T/HSDA - traditional /historic SDA - this was the main-line body until 1950's question on doctrine. Now they are the independant ministery crowd.
a. post fall human nature of christ
b. last generation theology
c. characer perfecton
d. view of SDA remnant chruch of prophecy

CSDA -conservative SDA -main line sda
a. pre-fall human nature of christ
b. born again /no last genreation theology
c. remnenat chruch of prophecy

ESDA -evanglical sda
a. pre-fall
b. born again
c. EGW devotional/pastoral not prophetic and authoritive.
d. no investigative judgement.
e. not remenat chruch of prophecy, but special and most accurate view of scripture.

PSDA/RSDA- progressive SDA/Reformed SDA depending on the name they choose
a. pre-fall
b. born again
c. EGW devotional/pastoral not prophetic and authoritive.
d. no investigative judgement.
e. no 2300 days
f. possibly antioucs as the little horn.

LSDA - liberal SDA
a. post fall human nature of Christ
b. down play life style
c. old earth creationism
d. nothing unique of SDA chruch
e. no disicipleship
f. no EGW was not a prophet.

EX-sda
a. still christian
b. not christian.

Not picking on you ice, but this shows all the vanity of man trying decide the nature of God, does it change God one iota, no. This is like the ant telling the mountain that it does not consider it a mountain but just a hill. Does it change the height or breadth of the mountain, no, and so the ant will find out when it tries to climb it. It is the vanity of man that he wants to take charge of the nature of God, deciding how God will be when God has already declared his nature, it is up to man to believe in Him and accept the gift of eternal salvation....that is the long and short of mans existence as sin has only left us the alternative of eternal death.....

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Not picking on you ice, but this shows all the vanity of man trying decide the nature of God, does it change God one iota, no. This is like the ant telling the mountain that it does not consider it a mountain but just a hill. Does it change the height or breadth of the mountain, no, and so the ant will find out when it tries to climb it. It is the vanity of man that he wants to take charge of the nature of God, deciding how God will be when God has already declared his nature, it is up to man to believe in Him and accept the gift of eternal salvation....that is the long and short of mans existence as sin has only left us the alternative of eternal death.....

what? no one is trying to decide the nature of God. you and I are human beings that are trying to understand the scriptue. There is no scripture that says Jesus had a fallen human nature, or that he had a unfallen human nature. there are texts that people use to use to support there belief about the fallen or unfallen human nature of christ. People look at these texts and draw the best conclusion they can using the mind God gave them this is not like the 10 command ments it is not set in stone. that is why the discussion. I would hope that you would have figured that out by now. this discussion is a old as christianity it would be arrognt for you to say you know for certian. No one is declaring the nature of christ we are trying to understand the nature of christ. there are those who have different uderstandings. what is not clear is left to the person to use the best judgement. you are not acknowledging that. your making it more difficult then it has to be. the sooner you can accept that not everything is clear cut. the sooner you will develope an attitude that can accept difference.