What Do Progressives Have In Common Theologically With Traditionals?

[JonMiller]

The one thing I see as a constant through out most progressive's philosophies is they do not want to be supposedly tied down to keeping any law per se' whether they keep it with the power of Christ or not. The majority will find ways to rationalize away the requirements of keeping God's Holy Law's which includes the Sabbath. Some even go to the extent of invalidating the Bible itself.

I don't see this among progressives in general. What I do see is a recognition that it isn't the law that saves, but rather Jesus Christ.

JM

 

[OntheDL]

So if that is the case then historics would be far better off letting the progressives hang themselves with their own rope on these forums rather than trying to silence them.

A lot of the literature of the historics that I have seen has been pointing out the perceived theological errors of the progressives anyway. This way you have ammunition.

The wheat and tare shall grow together to the very end. I don't agree with those who try to rid the progs from our church. That isn't our job.

But in this forum, it's very different. Because the progs aren't as vocal in the real church setting as they are in the internet setting since there is no accountability here.

In any case it goes without saying that I disagree with the historics arguments as well. But they are consistent with the pioneers in most respects, though I don't find them to be consistent with the Scriptures or modern day notions of Adventism.

That is your opinion and I'm fine with it. And I'm gracious that at least you are consistant and honest with your findings.

 

[JonMiller]

Traditionals are a lot less vocal in the church setting as well.

JM

 

[OntheDL]

I can (and do) go a day without sleep, or without eating, or without exercising.

But I will die if I don't sleep. I will die if I don't eat. And I will die if I don't exercise.

The sabbath is about rest physically and spiritualy in the Lord. Eating and sleeping are perfectly ok to do on sabbath.

But are game playing and exercizing resting physically and spiritually with the Lord???

Additionally, you still haven't pointed out where it is said that you shouldn't exercise on the Sabbath? You don't even have good support for me not entertaining myself on the Sabbath.
JM

"Not doing thine own ways and finding thine own pleasure." It covers every thoughts and actions that do not comply with the 2 biblical qualifiers.

The bible says nothing about marijuana and cocaine. Does it mean it's ok to smoke crack? You are attempting to keep the law to the letter but not to the spirit. That is legalistic.

 

[OntheDL]

Traditionals are a lot less vocal in the church setting as well.

JM

That might be true. As the church becomes more liberal, the trads are shoved to the side and silenced.

But still, as long as SDA church officially still recognized SOP as a source of authority, when topics are brought out in public settings, the historic adventism will still come out on top.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

That might be true. As the church becomes more liberal, the trads are shoved to the side and silenced.

But still, as long as SDA church officially still recognized SOP as a source of authority, when topics are brought out in public settings, the historic adventism will still come out on top.

And that is the crux of the difference. Traditional SDA's cling to EGW as the source of authority which states they are the remnant church, they accept the Sabbath which she saw a halo around in her vision. She taught the IJ etc. Therefore they have her to tell them what is black and white, it is why every SDA controversy comes down to EGW.

Yet interestingly enough there are many gray area's in EGW. she will take one side of the prelapsarian issue or the other side depending on which source is quoted. Sometimes she is Semi-arian sometimes she says things consistent with the trinity. In some places she says God will destroy the wicked and in other God does not destroy. So even with the black and white method of using EGW there are still gray areas. Of course the tendancy is to simply ignore her contrary statements just as they ignore contrary positions in the Bible. Then when people try to look at the Bible as a whole they are said to be trying to disregard the Bible. Because the black and white view does not accept the world of gray and therefore tends to ignore gray areas. Even if the grey areas are produced by their own beliefs.

So the difference remains the traditionals look back as if they once had all the answers while the Progressive looks for more answers not being satisfied with merely believing because that is what our forefathers believed.

P.S. It is this black and white view that always appears when discussion of the sabbath occurs degenerating into what one can and cannot do on the sabbath as well. For some it seems tradition always has a stronger hold then reason which is another difference between progressive and traditionals.

 

[Sophia7]

On the other note, I think Doc is correct.

A member can be disciplined for willingly breaking the sabbath and other commandments (common case is adultery).

Apostasy is one of the two grounds for removing the membership. This is done at the local church level, not at GC level and is rarely enforced.

But if, as some traditionals seem to want, there were an organized effort to rid the local churches of those who don't hold to all of the FBs so as to cleanse the whole SDA Church of all of the "fake" or "apostate" Adventists, there would have to be some pressure exerted on the local churches from above. And there doesn't seem to be much incentive for the church hierarchy to get involved in that kind of a witch hunt.

 

[OntheDL]

And that is the crux of the difference. Traditional SDA's cling to EGW as the source of authority which states they are the remnant church, they accept the Sabbath which she saw a halo around in her vision. She taught the IJ etc. Therefore they have her to tell them what is black and white, it is why every SDA controversy comes down to EGW.

Yet interestingly enough there are many gray area's in EGW. she will take one side of the prelapsarian issue or the other side depending on which source is quoted. Sometimes she is Semi-arian sometimes she says things consistent with the trinity. In some places she says God will destroy the wicked and in other God does not destroy. So even with the black and white method of using EGW there are still gray areas. Of course the tendancy is to simply ignore her contrary statements just as they ignore contrary positions in the Bible. Then when people try to look at the Bible as a whole they are said to be trying to disregard the Bible. Because the black and white view does not accept the world of gray and therefore tends to ignore gray areas. Even if the grey areas are produced by their own beliefs.

So the difference remains the traditionals look back as if they once had all the answers while the Progressive looks for more answers not being satisfied with merely believing because that is what our forefathers believed.

P.S. It is this black and white view that always appears when discussion of the sabbath occurs degenerating into what one can and cannot do on the sabbath as well. For some it seems tradition always has a stronger hold then reason which is another difference between progressive and traditionals.

Like it or not SDA church still officially recognizes EGW writings as a source of authority. Her writings are the spirit of prophecy which is the testimony of Jesus. SOP confirms and harmonizes with the bible.

Many interpretate the bible liberally according to their own liking. SOP gives no such liberty.

And finally RC, you have no case either way. Because you have shown you don't believe in the scriptures.

 

[OntheDL]

But if, as some traditionals seem to want, there were an organized effort to rid the local churches of those who don't hold to all of the FBs so as to cleanse the whole SDA Church of all of the "fake" or "apostate" Adventists, there would have to be some pressure exerted on the local churches from above. And there doesn't seem to be much incentive for the church hierarchy to get involved in that kind of a witch hunt.

Where do you think the change of doctrines and the new theology came from? The conference level.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Like it or not SDA church still officially recognizes EGW writings as a source of authority. Her writings are the spirit of prophecy which is the testimony of Jesus. SOP confirms and harmonizes with the bible.

Many interpretate the bible liberally according to their own liking. SOP gives no such liberty.

And finally RC, you have no case either way. Because you have shown you don't believe in the scriptures.

Again simply the black and white thinking of the TSDA. If you don't believe in their interpretation which as we have seen in several threads is often totally unrelated to Biblical information then you don't believe in Scripture. Instead they cling to EGW agrees with scripture and EGW is the spirit of prophecy. Neither of which is true. So how can one even try to accommodate their limited views? It is why they remain static and often lack any type of critical thinking. It is why they tend to be the more unloving of Christians. It is their way or no way. Their belief or you are simply wrong, apostate or an unbeliever. It is why Progressive SDA's have to put the term before SDA because there are those types of SDA's in the church and they are an embarrassment to the cause of Christ. I am glad that they are subject to the mercy and grace of God that He can even work with the broken wheels and the distortions they have filled their lives with. Amazing Grace indeed!

 

[NightEternal]

I have found Doc to be kind and considerate, and very willing to take of his time to explain things to people. You don't have to agree with him if you don't want to.

And this post is very disrespectful of one of our elders. (No offense meant to your age Doc). I was raised to respect my elders.

Oh please. I suppose you consider it the height of respect to charge a person with denying the Sabbath and being a false Adventist?

Yeah okay. If you had even remotely addressed Doc's infractions in this matter I might have given your admonishment some credibility. As it is, it's clear you have no plans to call him on his inquisitional post and have chosen to lay all of the blame on me.

BTW, someone has reported me for that post. Big suprise. So, I will report one of thiers. A report for a report, that is how this will work until they stop. This was between me and Doc, so I really don't know why someone has to stick thier nose in here and report me for 'attacking a mod' as they put it. So now mods are above reproach? Psh, not likely!

What a farce. My response was not even close to attack mode. It was straight-forward, matter-of-fact and calm. It is also completely accurate and I stand behind it.

Deal with it wretched reporter. Your juvenile attempts to rid this place of my presence have failed again.

 

[NightEternal]

Elders must learn to curb their tongues. Age is no excuse. I notice that you chose not to comment on Doc's post, or did I miss something?

Exactly! THANK YOU.

 

[NightEternal]

But if you want people to listen to you, Doc, it would help if you didn't start out by telling them that they're not really Adventists and that if they don't agree with you about what the Bible says, then they haven't studied thoroughly enough.

Exactly! THANK YOU.

 

[NightEternal]

To be fair Doc you made some accusations in your response that are totally untrue, please state where any one in this forum that is an Adventist questioned the validity of the Sabbath? How do you now who is not converted to the direct teachings and doctrines of the bible? Have you appointed yourself as the Adventist Inquisition? What is the 'legal standard' to be an Adventist, whether you like it or not as long as one is a baptised member of the church one is a 'legal Adventist' until said person asks for their name to be removed from the church records.
The phrase glasshouses and stones come to mind

Exactly! THANK YOU.

 

[NightEternal]

It is these kinds of assumptions which makes people like Doc think they can practically condemn others and say they are not even part of the church they are members of. Or at best ignorant of information, or as DL posts simply unholy people.

What is probably the biggest difference between Progressives and Traditional SDA's is that the Progressive philosophy sees the world as other then black and white. That there are differences of opinions based upon the differences in people and their experiences as well as their understanding of God and humanity. We don't condemn those who worship on the 7th day sabbath nor those who worship on Sunday or any day. The reason you worship is more important then what day you do it on. The traditions have the philosophy that they have the truth, but progressives see too many holes for them to believe they have the truth and they therefore have to continue to search for the truth. Maybe we will never find the truth in this life but then maybe the search is more important then establishing what we think is the truth. Because frankly the most unloving people are the ones who think they have arrived at the truth and that leaves a bad taste in everyones mouth.

Exactly! THANK YOU.

 

[NightEternal]

Please point out what has been posted that is worthy of 'disfellowship'?

If we are going to disfellowship everyone who disagrees with one of the 28 fundamentals we would disfellowship a lot of people, and many of our founders don't agree with the 28 fundamentals.

Additionally, a lot of people do agree with the 28.. but not your version (interpretation) of the 28. Maybe you are wrong in your interpretation and they are right? And why are we making beleiving the 28 fundamentals so important anyways?

Finally, most SDAs of the world don't beleive all 28 fundamentals in the 'correct' interpreation of the traditionals. In fact, I would think that 90% don't, as most of our missions (where most of our members are) focus on Christ rather than on the 28 fundamentals. Restricting the membership to those who hold the traditional interpreation of the 28 fundamentals would leave you a couple hundred thousand adventists. And really, if they are honest with themselves, many of the 'traditionals' don't beleive in all 28 of the fundamentals either (for example, the trinity).

Since those who interpret the 28 fundamentals in the traditional way, and who beleive in all 28 are in the minority, maybe you should disfellowship yourselves.. rather than try and drive out members of the church.

JM

BINGO!!!!! MJONA NAILS IT!!

 

[NightEternal]

Hi Sophia,

In your last post you said:
It is important to note that it was Night who refueted the basic foundational beliefs of Adventism which in effect he was disclaiming to be a believer in the doctrines of the Seventh-day Adventist church. Without a belief in any church's doctrines and teachings it becomes impossible to be considered a practicing member of that church/denomination.

You and Tall have at least been honest enough to admit that you are no longer Seventh-day Adventst.

Respectfully, your brother in Christ,

Doc

Please point to anywhere in my post where I 'refuted' any foundational SDA beliefs! Please point to anywhere in my post where I proclaimed any disbelief in any SDA doctrines!

Here, I will even quote it again for you:

Daryl, your attempts to pigeon-hole and box us all neatly into categories will not work. There are a variety of different schools of thought in Progressive Adventism. We do not all think alike nor believe the same things. Unlike the Trads, there is no pre-determined, programmed destination to the search for doctrinal truth with us. We do not take comfort in scores of people believing in the exact same thing like you guys do-we delight in variety and individuality in regards to our spiritual journeys. We know it infuriates and frustrates you guys that we are not confined to the SDA box limitations, and that fact is what brings us joy.

Even if you could get us all to agree on the Sabbath doctrine, there are still so many varying ideas amongst us Progs in regards to it's nature, how binding it is, how it is to be observed, New/Old covenant issues, Moral/Ceremonial issues, Christ the True Sabbath Rest, seal of God/mark of the beast, etc.

You cannot, it is not there. Therefore you are bearing false witness against me and falsely slandering my Adventist integrity and good name in the church. You are unfit to be a mod, because you have blatantly violated a forum rule which stipulates you cannot declare anyone of us who are a baptized members in good standing as not SDA by your own personal standards and criteria. Period.

Frankly I find it amazing that this post has sparked so much controversy. I have denied NOTHING in it anywhere. I was merely providing an accurate assessment the Prog landscape for Daryl. RC does not hold the exact same beliefs as I do. Senti does not hold the exact same beliefs as I do. Stormy, Ice, Mjona, Moicherie do not hold the exact same beliefs as I do. Is that not a correct assessment of things!?

It seems to me that this is all just the Trads reading into my words what they want to find and looking for any ammunition they can to tear us out of the church savagely like the disgusting tares they charge us to be.

I have repeatedly posted on this site where I stand on ALL of the 28 of the fundamentals. I am not hiding a thing and I can reference that post here again if need be for anyone to analyze!

So, save the fear tactics. They do NOT work with me and never have.

 

[NightEternal]

Doc provided no evidence of Night breaking the Sabbath.

Exactly. But who cares, right? As long as you have assumptions and pre-conceived conclusions, why should facts get in the way?

Disgusting!

 

[NightEternal]

Where I stand in regards to the 28 fundamentals:

http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=34128034&postcount=2

Please note the ABSENCE of concerns I have with the Sabbath fundamental! NONE!!

Where I differ with TSDAism:

http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=34625286&postcount=116

I hope this is the LAST time I have to post these links!!

 

[mva1985]

Oh please. I suppose you consider it the height of respect to charge a person with denying the Sabbath and being a false Adventist?

Yeah okay. If you had even remotely addressed Doc's infractions in this matter I might have given your admonishment some credibility. As it is, it's clear you have no plans to call him on his inquisitional post and have chosen to lay all of the blame on me.

BTW, someone has reported me for that post. Big suprise. So, I will report one of thiers. A report for a report, that is how this will work until they stop. This was between me and Doc, so I really don't know why someone has to stick thier nose in here and report me for 'attacking a mod' as they put it. So now mods are above reproach? Psh, not likely!

What a farce. My response was not even close to attack mode. It was straight-forward, matter-of-fact and calm. It is also completely accurate and I stand behind it.

Deal with it wretched reporter. Your juvenile attempts to rid this place of my presence have failed again.

I find the tone of a lot of your posts distasteful.

By the way this has really been bothering me their is spelled "ei" not "ie". Wow, that is a load off my chest.