What makes a "true traditionalist" and what makes a "true progressive"?

[NightEternal]

However, if you came across a SDA who believed in evolution, worshipped on Sunday, believed E.W. was a false prophet, rejected the health message, felt the sanctuary had no importance for our times, and believed that the dead are in heaven; is it so ridiculous to question whether that person is really adventist? The beliefs are just too contradictory with what Adventism stands for.

Obviously, I concur with this. Unfortunately, it's the grey areas and non-salvation issues that too many focus on as the be-all end-all criteria for 'true Adventism'.

You would be suprised how many fundamentalist SDA's I have come across who have only one gauge to decide who the wheat from the tares are in the church: Whether they eat meat or not. I am not joking. These are not independent ministry types either, we're talking mainline SDA.

I remember in his book Raising The Dead, Russell Burrill (of Seeds conference fame) told the tale of a church board he met with in order to plan for an evangelistic series. The board informed him that even though the conference wanted a series to be conducted for thier church, the church itself was against evangelism. Russell then asked the board why they felt that way. They replied that any new people who were brought into the church would have to go through the stringent, time-consuming pefection process, and those still in thier church were already perfect. Therefore, they did not want more imperfect people to join thier fellowship and delay the return of Christ. They were quote proud of the fact that they had effectively separated the wheat from the tares in thier own church.



This church went from an attendance of 200 down to 20 in only 7 years.

 

[sentipente]

However, if you came across a SDA who believed in evolution, worshipped on Sunday, believed E.W. was a false prophet, rejected the health message, felt the sanctuary had no importance for our times, and believed that the dead are in heaven; is it so ridiculous to question whether that person is really adventist? The beliefs are just too contradictory with what Adventism stands for.

If such a person ever existed you would never know it. The individual would be there only for the fellowship and would keep his/her mouth shut. That kind of person leaves or blends in.

 

[sentipente]

This church went from an attendance of 200 down to 20 in only 7 years.

And they were probably proud of it.

 

[Endium]

Obviously, I concur with this. Unfortunately, it's the grey areas and non-salvation issues that too many focus on as the be-all end-all criteria for 'true Adventism'.

You would be suprised how many fundamentalist SDA's I have come across who have only one guage to decide who the wheat from the tares are in the church: Whether they eat meat or not. I am not joking. These are not independent ministry types either, we're talking mainline SDA.

I remember in his book Raising The Dead, Russell Burrill (of Seeds conference fame) told the tale of a church board he met with in order to plan for an evangelistic series. The board informed him that even though the conference wanted a series to be conducted for thier church, the church itself was against evangelism. Russell then asked the board why they felt that way. They replied that any new people who were brought into the church would have to go through the stringent, time-consuming pefection process, and those still in thier church were already perfect. Therefore, they did not want more imperfect people to join thier fellowship and delay the return of Christ. They were quote proud of the fact that they had effectively separated the wheat from the tares in thier own church.



This church went from an attendance of 200 down to 20 in only 7 years.

Lol now that is sad but I believe every bit of it. There are definitely radical and misguided people in the church.

No we shouldn't take it upon ourselves to determine who is a true adventist and who is not. However there are some cases in which we do have to make some decision.

For example, it's not such a bother to me if a fellow member of my church scorns the health message. However, if my pastor scorns the health message, it is more of an issue. This is because the pastor is the one leading the church, and it is important for me to recognize whether he is adhering the the principles that I believe in.

Blind tolerance can lead you into some deep water. If I did not make any conclusions about a pastor based on what he preached and how he lived, then I could be deceived into following error.

So while we want to guard against falsely labeling others, we must use our eyes, ears and brain to figure out whether a person's beliefs contradict what we know to be true. If I did run across that member who denied 7th day sabbath, denied E.G.W etc... then it is in my best interests to keep this in mind if I were to discuss a topic with him that I did not have a sure foundation in. Otherwise, my tolerance of his views could lead me into deception.

 

[NightEternal]

I, for one, have no issues if a pastor wants to have a Big Mac or a steak now and then. SDA doctrine does not forbid the eating of clean meats, nor does the Bible.

Then we get the parishoners who meet the pastor and his wife in the grocery store and pretend to be carrying on a conversation, while what they are really doing is inspecting his grocery cart and taking mental notes on the chicken filets present there for the next batch of fresh gossip.

I have seen it happen. It's not pretty.

I know of many pastors who have to eat thier meat in secrecy, clandestine midnight hours in the Dairy Queen drive-thru. How ridiculous. But we have perpetuated this atmosphere of paranioa and fear in the church by forcing petty expectations in the area of non-essentials upon them that they have to live under.

Pastors are human. The clergy should not to be placed upon a pedastal and elevated above the lay person. That is a Catholic concept.

 

[StormyOne]

I, for one, have no issues if a pastor wants to have a Big Mac or a steak now and then. SDA doctrine does not forbid the eating of clean meats, nor does the Bible.

Then we get the parishoners who meet the pastor and his wife in the grocery store and pretend to be carrying on a conversation, while what they are really doing is inspecting his grocery cart and taking mental notes on the chicken filets present there for the next batch of fresh gossip.

I have seen it happen. It's not pretty.

I know of many pastors who have to eat thier meat in secrecy, clandestine midnight hours in the Dairy Queen drive-thru. How ridiculous. But we have perpetuated this atmosphere of paranioa and fear in the church by forcing petty expectations in the area of non-essentials upon them that they have to live under.

Pastors are human. The clergy should not to be placed upon a pedastal and elevated above the lay person. That is a Catholic concept.

agreed NE.... I am enjoying your posts.... oops should I have said that out loud?

 

[sentipente]

Pastors are human. The clergy should not to be placed upon a pedastal and elevated above the lay person. That is a Catholic concept.

The problem is that the pastors like the prestige they get from the artificial division between the clergy and the laity. There is always a price for interfering with nature.

 

[reddogs]

If such a person ever existed you would never know it. The individual would be there only for the fellowship and would keep his/her mouth shut. That kind of person leaves or blends in.

Or they join my bible study group and find love and kindness while I preach and teach and hope the Spirit can make a difference. I never give up on my brothers and sisters, why am I that way, I havent figured it out yet.......

 

[Endium]

I, for one, have no issues if a pastor wants to have a Big Mac or a steak now and then. SDA doctrine does not forbid the eating of clean meats, nor does the Bible.

Then we get the parishoners who meet the pastor and his wife in the grocery store and pretend to be carrying on a conversation, while what they are really doing is inspecting his grocery cart and taking mental notes on the chicken filets present there for the next batch of fresh gossip.

I have seen it happen. It's not pretty.

I know of many pastors who have to eat thier meat in secrecy, clandestine midnight hours in the Dairy Queen drive-thru. How ridiculous. But we have perpetuated this atmosphere of paranioa and fear in the church by forcing petty expectations in the area of non-essentials upon them that they have to live under.

Pastors are human. The clergy should not to be placed upon a pedastal and elevated above the lay person. That is a Catholic concept.

Ok perhaps I used the wrong topic to illustrate my point (pastors following health message is important to me, but perhaps not to you). You can replace my use of the topic "health message" with 7th day sabbath, EW, sinless perfection or whatever you hold to be important.

If I knew the pastor in my church didn't believe Saturday was the sabbath, I couldn't just blissfully ignore that fact. Now I am not saying that I will label him "false adventist," but I will definitely at least make some sort of distinction in my mind concerning how he is.

 

[sentipente]

Endium, you'd probably be surprised and shocked if you could read each person's mind and discover exactly what they really believed on every subject.

 

[Endium]

Endium, you'd probably be surprised and shocked if you could read each person's mind and discover exactly what they really believed on every subject.

Very true. I don't know someone's heart and it isn't my job to judge. I'm starting to get away from my original point, which is that a person if a person disagrees with certain fundamental points they can be rightly considered a "false adventist."

Now whether considering a person a "false adventist" is a right thing to do or not, it is not a false or incorrect view.

 

[NightEternal]

If one rejects the Sabbath or the second coming of Christ, there is pretty much no point anymore! If an Adventist pastor rejects either of these things it's clear he is in the wrong line of work! I have never encountered such an extreme, blatant case. Usually, as in Tall's case, it's questions regarding EGW, the IJ, Heavenly sanctuary or 1844.

I don't suspect anyone would even want to carry on in the SDA church if they had questions regarding the Sabbath. That wouldn't even make sense.

 

[Endium]

If one rejects the Sabbath or the second coming of Christ, there is pretty much no point anymore! If an Adventist pastor rejects either of these things it's clear he is in the wrong line of work! I have never encountered such an extreme, blatant case. Usually, as in Tall's case, it's questions regarding EGW, the IJ, Heavenly sanctuary or 1844.

I don't suspect anyone would even want to carry on in the SDA church if they had questions regarding the Sabbath. That wouldn't even make sense.

Exactly. That response you just had is the same response most other traditionals have with progressives. EW is about as much as a pillar of our church as the sabbath is. And by pillar I mean that historically, EW contributed substantially to the formation of our church, so much so that even non-adventists recognized her as an icon of adventism.

Now whether you agree with whether EGW is inspired or not, you must agree to the position she played in our church. Apply this line of reasoning to other principles that are core to the adventist faith, such as the sanctuary, health message, etc... All of these principles have been just as central to the formation of our faith as the Sabbath was.

Now if historically most adventists have held these principles to be the core of our church, and if presently most adventists still hold this view, then it goes with reason that anyone who disagrees with any of those core principles will get the same response you just gave.

In one persons eyes the IJ and EGW may not be such a critical issue as the sabbath, however you cannot judge by that persons standards. You must judge how critical a topic is to our faith by how prominent it has been historically and culturally.

Regardless of how you feel about it, you must look at it from the position of the neutral historian.

From a proper study of SDA origins and history, it will be easy to see which topics are fundamental and which ones are secondary. From that viewpoint you will be able to see which points are ones in which the Adventist path has already been clearly hammered out and well defined. With this knowledge, you will be able to observe whether someone is actually walking in this path or not.

If a person is clearly walking contrary to this Adventist path, then the obvious conclusion is that this person is not really acting like an Adventist.

Does that mean that you have to stay directly on this path without exploring anything for yourself? Not at all, but in all your exploring you must be aware that if you go so far off the road most people won't acknowledge you as a true Adventist.

Now, whether someone considers you to be a true Adventist or not is not a matter of salvation. The Adventist path is not the absolute path of salvation. It's just the Adventist path.

A person wandering off the Adventist path in a particular area may be coming upon clearer light. Even so, they still must be honest with themselves enough to admit that they are off the Adventist path. It is not necessarily good or bad, but just a fact.

 

[NightEternal]

I don't think we do anyone any favors by denying there are some problems in the areas of EGW, IJ, 1844 and the Heavenly sanctuary. There most definitely are for anyone with two eyes and access to the internet. Not all concerns are valid, but some are.

The Sabbath and the second coming of Christ do not present even one quarter of the problems these other areas have over the years. Even some of our own scholars and ministers are struggling with these things, as we speak. But of course, with the witch-hunt mentality in full swing, who amongst them is ever going to come forward for help on these things?

Ford did, and he was cast out of the ministry and a mass exodus of ministers followed in the wake of Glacierview.

Cottrell waited until retirement before coming forward with his concerns.

Bacchiocchi is getting crucified as we speak for his concerns on EGW's doctrinal authority.

Bradford has been left for the GCO wolves to feed on.

Even Sequiera has had some concerns regarding how the Gospel is misunderstood in much of Adventism.

These are not isolated incidents. This is happening more and more on a wider scale.

 

[sentipente]

News alert. The church is not built on pillars. The church is built on Jesus Christ. Our problem is that too many are looking for pillars to wrap their arms around while Jesus Christ stands on the sidelines largely ignored.

 

[reddogs]

I don't think we do anyone any favors by denying there are some problems in the areas of EGW, IJ, 1844 and the Heavenly sanctuary. There most definitely are for anyone with two eyes and access to the internet. Not all concerns are valid, but some are.

The Sabbath and the second coming of Christ do not present even one quarter of the problems these other areas have over the years. Even some of our own scholars and ministers are struggling with these things, as we speak. But of course, with the witch-hunt mentality in full swing, who amongst them is ever going to come forward for help on these things?

Ford did, and he was cast out of the ministry and a mass exodus of ministers followed in the wake of Glacierview.

Cottrell waited until retirement before coming forward with his concerns.

Bacchiocchi is getting crucified as we speak for his concerns on EGW's doctrinal authority.

Bradford has been left for the GCO wolves to feed on.

Even Sequiera has had some concerns regarding how the Gospel is misunderstood in much of Adventism.

These are not isolated incidents. This is happening more and more on a wider scale.

The problem is that when we try to think it through with our brains and only what is written word for word in the Bible when we have to accept some things from what the Holy Spirit gives us in understanding.

How did all the writers that of the Bible that didnt speak to God, know what was God's truth and what to write, the Spirit came and gave them understanding and they believed in their hearts and accepted it in their minds (and I would add 'by faith'.)