Why do you consider yourself a Seventh Day Adventist?

[Windmill]

Hi there

I am 17 years old, and struggling a little to understand the church as a whole in many regards. Please, do not let this question be considered as an attack on you.

When we ask someone, is that in the corner a chair, we must stop and think for a moment. Does it meet the requirements of a chair?

Now if we see in the corner this;

We will see that it doesn't meet the requirements, the definition, of a chair, so we will say no. Instead, it meets the requirements on a TV. It is something different, something new.

So when people say "I am a progressive Seventh Day Adventist" or something like that, I must wonder...

When do you go over the boundary? When, like how the TV isn't a chair, when in your theology can you not be classified as a Seventh Day Adventist anymore technically?

Why do you consider yourself a SDA, even if you don't follow/believe in the fundamentals? This is esepcially where my thoughts are lying here. If you do not believe in the very fundamentals, then how can you still be a Seventh Day Adventist?

I'm not saying you can't think/call yourself one, but I am saying that there must come a point where you are, no matter what you call and think, are no longer a SDA. So what stops you from tipping over the edge as a progressive/moderate etc.

 

[Mankin]

Take a look at the Baptist denomination. You can have everything from Anabaptists to Free will baptists. They share some similar beliefs but they share theological differences. Yet they are called Baptists. The same thing could be used to apply to Adventists. The problem is Adventists have so many doctrines it is almost impossible to agree with or hold the same interpretation of every single doctrine.

The same question could be applied to the conservative and liberal catholics.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

When people stop trying to define others in their own terms, they often find the answers to these sorts of questions spontaneously, without needing to be told. Likewise when they start listening and stop judging.

 

[VictorC]

So when people say "I am a progressive Seventh Day Adventist" or something like that, I must wonder...

When do you go over the boundary? When, like how the TV isn't a chair, when in your theology can you not be classified as a Seventh Day Adventist anymore technically?

Why do you consider yourself a SDA, even if you don't follow/believe in the fundamentals? This is esepcially where my thoughts are lying here. If you do not believe in the very fundamentals, then how can you still be a Seventh Day Adventist?

Not a bad question, actually.
I'm not an seventh-day Adventist at all, but an outsider who has taken an interest in this particular sect because of a lot of experience with Adventists motivating my interest in them.

So it is in my opinion as an outsider that the progressive Adventists have held to many of the theological underpinnings of the SDA fundamentals, but they have recognized the glaring problems contained in some of them - namely, they have usually come to recognize that the unique doctrine of the Investigative Judgment relies on Ellen White, the SDA "pen of inspiration". A Scriptural basis for such a doctrine is absent, and many progressives have recognized it to be a replacement for the earlier 'shut door' doctrine, itself concocted as an apology for an event in 1844 that never transpired, in order to defend the date itself.

For me, a Biblical understanding of a finished atonement that is 100% sufficient for our salvation finds the IJ doctrine a stark contrast against that finished atonement. The SDA fundamental #24 asserts that there was a "second and final phase" added to that perfect atonement in 1844.
Something that is perfect needs nothing added to it.
Yet the gymnastics Adventism goes through to hold onto 1844 is endless, as it is the "pillar" of Adventism, as Ellen White claimed in precisely that word.

I hold to the opinion that progressive Adventism has unpeeled some of the layers of the smelly onion, but they simply haven't removed enough of the layers to see the foundational problems that lie inside.

Victor

 

[Sophia7]

Hi there

I am 17 years old, and struggling a little to understand the church as a whole in many regards. Please, do not let this question be considered as an attack on you.

When we ask someone, is that in the corner a chair, we must stop and think for a moment. Does it meet the requirements of a chair?

Now if we see in the corner this;

We will see that it doesn't meet the requirements, the definition, of a chair, so we will say no. Instead, it meets the requirements on a TV. It is something different, something new.

So when people say "I am a progressive Seventh Day Adventist" or something like that, I must wonder...

When do you go over the boundary? When, like how the TV isn't a chair, when in your theology can you not be classified as a Seventh Day Adventist anymore technically?

Why do you consider yourself a SDA, even if you don't follow/believe in the fundamentals? This is esepcially where my thoughts are lying here. If you do not believe in the very fundamentals, then how can you still be a Seventh Day Adventist?

I'm not saying you can't think/call yourself one, but I am saying that there must come a point where you are, no matter what you call and think, are no longer a SDA. So what stops you from tipping over the edge as a progressive/moderate etc.

It's a good question. I struggled with it myself for several months before finally deciding that I couldn't be a Seventh-day Adventist anymore.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Windmill,

I have been talking with the Seinor Pastor of a Large College Church, and he was telling me that he believe we need to reevaluate what is at the core of SDA teaching. besides normal christianity, here is the core

you must have the following.

1. Sabbath
2. state of the dead
3. View of Hell
4. visible advent
5. historicist view of prophecy

that is non negotiable

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

I hold to the opinion that progressive Adventism has unpeeled some of the layers of the smelly onion, but they simply haven't removed enough of the layers to see the foundational problems that lie inside.

Problems like ... you keep peeling and peeling, crying the whole time, only to discover there bes no center after all?

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

As soon as the toxic soteriology stronghold got neutralized, and Moriah had its first taste of what it really meant to walk in the Spirit, it knew it could no longer identify as SDA.

 

[StormyOne]

Belief in the second coming and choosing to rest on the 7th day is enough IMO for a person to be a sda.... keep it simple...

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

I wrote an article for Adventist Today on this subject, I don't know if they will publish it, they did not even acknowledge receipt of it, but I will still give them first chance at it before I put in out on my blog and website. Anyway here is an abbreviated version:

Why I am a Progressive Seventh-day Adventist; Am I a Dreamer or just a Fool​

By Ron Corson​

[FONT=&quot]Several years ago I wrote an article for Adventist Today on the differences between Traditional Seventh-day Adventists (TSDA’s) and Progressive Seventh-day Adventists (PSDA’s)[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. The question that is still often asked of me is why, if I don’t agree with the TSDA’s views, I am still an SDA. That question is not restricted to being asked by the TSDA’s; it is asked by former Adventists and even other PSDA’s. To most it appears that the default position of Adventism is the TSDA viewpoint. Frankly I ask myself the question far too often.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]When you look at the things the TSDA’s believe it is easy to see that there are significant areas of disagreement. My description of a PSDA was:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]--A differing view of what the Investigative Judgment is or acknowledgment that the Investigative Judgment is not Biblical. (And as such a differing view of Christ Activities from His ascension to His Second Coming.)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]--An inclusion of other Christians into the category termed the "Remnant".[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]--A less rigid understanding of the role of Ellen G. White, ranging from acknowledging that she was not always correct in her teaching and understanding to the denial of Prophet status.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]--The Seventh day Sabbath is for our benefit, true Christians can and do worship on Sunday and it is not now, or latter, to become the Mark of the Beast, or the Seventh day Sabbath to be the Seal of God.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Those things are but a small part of my differences with TSDA’s but then many of my concerns would be differences with many other Christian denominations. I would have a problem with the literalism of the Genesis stories of Creation and the Flood, huge problems with the ideas of inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible and major disagreements with the Penal/Substitution theory of Atonement. Right there I have disagreed with two points of the five points that made up Fundamentalism at the beginning of the 1900’s. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] With such a powerful document refuting modernism and higher criticism it is little wonder that the Adventist church plunged into fundamentalism from the early part of the twentieth century. Yet Adventism today does not teach the inerrancy of Scripture or the idea of verbal inspiration. Even though if you look at the beliefs of many Churches in your community you will often find this idea included in the churches belief statements. The Adventist church also rejects the idea of eternal torment of the wicked in Hell. You can see that just with these two issues Adventism has some real advantages.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Unlike many denominations the Adventist church has had to deal with the idea of inspiration in ways that most Christians don’t have to consider. The myth of the all powerful and all knowing prophet was dashed along with the idea of verbal inspiration. Now whether she was or was not a prophet is still debated but what it did to Adventism was to open our minds to ways that God could work rather than merely holding to the fundamentalist tradition.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]As a Progressive SDA I am the byproduct of all that information and experience, the questions raised and the methods employed to arrive at answers. What I have found is that the answers don’t always work and there is a whole range of opinions on a whole range of subjects. My Adventist heritage taught me I don’t have to accept what someone says Christianity is. I can examine and study and come to my own conclusions. In fact that heritage makes it incumbent on me to try and search harder for what works and what the truth really is. [/FONT]

One thing I did not put in my article that I should have is that Adventists have placed much more emphasis on defending the Character of God then other Christians have It is true that it is only a segment of Adventism that does this as our current weeks Sabbath School lesson makes clear many Adventists are content with traditional explanations even when they don't make much sense. So there are a lot of layers to be discarded from Adventism to use Victor's analogy but there are also a lot of layers from Christianity in general which need discarded, the results of too many years of accepting religion because someone in power says that is the way it is. Seventh-day Adventism has fought against that from the beginning, it is only fitting that when it becomes the authoritarian it will have it's own members revolting.

 

[Moriah_Conquering_Wind]

One thing I did not put in my article that I should have is that Adventists have placed much more emphasis on defending the Character of God then other Christians have It is true that it is only a segment of Adventism that does this as our current weeks Sabbath School lesson makes clear

Yes, and those who do tend to get "persecuted" or at least severely marginalized by the .org itself for their troubles. And when legalistic errors or human "will-worship" gets invoked into the mix they end up inadvertently doing more to cloud the waters with mud than to clear them with truth, IMO. An omnipotence rendered utterly impotent (conceptually) by the whims of humanity does not make a very compelling argument for investment of the intensity of trust and faith that would permit one to walk therein confidently without sight.

many Adventists are content with traditional explanations even when they don't make much sense. So there are a lot of layers to be discarded from Adventism to use Victor's analogy but there are also a lot of layers from Christianity in general which need discarded, the results of too many years of accepting religion because someone in power says that is the way it is. Seventh-day Adventism has fought against that from the beginning, it is only fitting that when it becomes the authoritarian it will have it's own members revolting.

Wanting to be like the noble Bereans bes one thing, but when it leads to accepting toxic soteriology and self-serving eschatology in place of sound doctrine, which in turn bear twisted and poisoned fruit, something has gone severely askew. Most likely the focus -- self. Self's effort, self's purpose, self's glorious destiny, perfection of SELF's character, etc. -- people begin to seek God's hand instead of His face. And it shows. Many SDAs can be as cutting, cruel and consumed by schadenfreude with their precious annihilationism notion as any fundy would be with his precious eternal-conscious-torment-ism. But ...
Galatians 5:6
For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

 

[JonMiller]

For several reasons:

1. I was raised in the SDA church and am still a member.

2. I still think that we should keep the Sabbath, and beleive in Christ's soon return.

3. I do consider myself a Christian much more than a SDA.

JM

 

[VictorC]

Problems like ... you keep peeling and peeling, crying the whole time, only to discover there bes no center after all?

Something like that

 

[DRL]

When I found I could no longer accept EGW as the Spirit of Prophecy, I bought a concordance to study SDA beliefs. What I read in the Bible, with all the texts in context, blew my mind and I could no longer stay SDA. Now I am a Christian, who has been born again.
DRL

 

[moicherie]

Belief in the second coming and choosing to rest on the 7th day is enough IMO for a person to be a sda.... keep it simple...

ITA consider that being a Seventh day Adventist, First day Adventist or a member of the Midweek Adventists does not guarantee anyone a first place or even last place in the kingdom. Denominational names are for legal and tax purposes, to God they are irrelevant. I find questions like this 'Why call yourself a _____ ? veer off into an inqiusiton. People are free to call themselves whatever they like, so don't worry about it.

 

[Byfaithalone1]

Why do you consider yourself a SDA, even if you don't follow/believe in the fundamentals? This is esepcially where my thoughts are lying here. If you do not believe in the very fundamentals, then how can you still be a Seventh Day Adventist?

Windmill, you have asked questions that portray a wisdom beyond your years. Because I was for some time a progressive SDA, I wanted to share my perspective on your question.

SDAism has established 28 fundamentals. In using the word "fundamental," SDAism has communicated something about the way in which it views the importance of its beliefs. Although SDAism might successfully claim that its beliefs aren't necessarily fundamental for everyone, it does seem clear that it views its beliefs as being fundamental for membership in the denomination. Further evidence of this fact can be found in the baptismal vows adopted by the denomination.

And yet, in some isolated places, SDA churches have broken from the fundamentals. They allow for freedom to acknowldge that the investigative judgment contradicts Scripture. They allow members to conclude that salvation will not one day hinge upon keeping the sabbath. I can understand why the existence of churches such as these can be confusing; it was confusing to me.

So what is an SDA to do if he finds that he is in disagreement with one or more of the fundamental beliefs (and, if that isn't true for you, then this post is for anyone who finds himself in such a position)? Of course there are some who would suggest that the SDA must immediately relinquish membership in the denomination. Even though that was the choice that the Holy Spirit eventually led me to make, that is not a choice I am advocating here.

First and foremost, the questioning SDA needs to pray for guidance and search the Scriptures. I recommend reading entire books of the Bible so that you can gain the entire perspective. I strongly discourage the use of SDA Bible studies (such as the ones printed by Amazing Facts) that ask leading questions and then ask you to read a single text out of its context. I would recommend starting with the books of John and Galatians (followed by Hebrews and Romans). These were eye-opening books for me.

If an SDA finds himself questioning certain things taught by his denomination, I think it is imperative that the questioning SDA be honest with himself and admit that he is at odds with the official positions taken by his denomination. I would hope that the questioning SDA would consider carefully the emotions that this admission creates. Does it create fear; and if so, why? It is not helpful for the questioning SDA to live in denial and to pretend that his denomination is open to his alternate understanding of Scripture.

The next step is to be honest. The questioning SDA should not try to hide his convictions in the interest of maintaining peace in the church he attends. If, for example, the questioning SDA does not believe that he will maintain salvation by keeping the law, then he should raise his hand at an appropriate moment during a sabbath school class and ask how it is that SDAism claims to teach the gospel and yet teaches that salvation is maintained at the end of time by observing the law. Depending on the nature of the SDA church the questioning SDA attends, this might be an uncomfortable question to ask. However, the questioning SDA will learn a lot as he begins to explore the truth, his denomination and his relationship with the truth and his denomination. If SDAism has the truth, then that truth will stand in the light of day.

As the questioning SDA seeks to be honest, he should evaluate whether his church will allow him to be the type of Christian that God is calling him to be. If the questioning SDA publicly admits any doubts with respect to the 28 fundamentals, will he be censured in any way? Will he be treated as though he was a trouble maker? Will he eventually lose the opportunity to hold church offices? Will he be treated like a 2nd class citizen in the family of God?

Admittedly, a number of questioning SDAs have gone through this process and have concluded that the church that they attend will allow them to be the Christian that God has called them to be and that they will not be treated like second class citizens in the family of God. That was not my experience. And, because I have small children, I concluded that it was time for me to look for a church that taught the clear gospel of Scripture and not the confusing gospel presented in my local SDA church.

These are weighty questions to consider.

BFA

 

[AndrewK788]

ITA consider that being a Seventh day Adventist, First day Adventist or a member of the Midweek Adventists does not guarantee anyone a first place or even last place in the kingdom. Denominational names are for legal and tax purposes, to God they are irrelevant. I find questions like this 'Why call yourself a _____ ? veer off into an inqiusiton. People are free to call themselves whatever they like, so don't worry about it.

Agreed. That's the way I see it.

 

[BGMCFAR]

Stormy One my thoughts exactly keep it simple as you stated

 

[Windmill]

Thank you all very much. I've read all of your thoughts, and have taken a lot from them, please feel free to post more.

 

[special00]

I consider myself to be just a plain ol' Adventist. Sometimes I wonder at all the different groups that are in Christianity. If you look in the Bible, they didn't have all these fancy names but were Christians. It would be a lot simpler if it was still like that, wouldn't it? I have a good friend who goes to a Baptist church. He's actually in Africa right now on a mission trip. Anyways, he considers himself a Christian, and although he goes to a Baptist church, believes in one church--the church of Christ. That makes me think, wow. He's on the right track. I think often times we get caught up in this or that, Adventism or Catholicism (pardon the spelling), and we miss the main point.