Am I traditional or progressive? - Moved from Traditional SDA Forum

[kat8585]

I am SDA, but I think way too much emphasis is placed on E.G. White. It's almost as if her writings are equal with the Bible. She has some beautiful writings, but they aren't that big a part of my spiritual life.

The other issue I have is I think SDA's should wear wedding rings, even if just to show they are married, so someone doesn't embarrass themself by thinking someone is singlw. It can just be a band, it doesn't have to be expensive. I don't consider this jewelry,it is a symbol.

[icedragon101]

I am SDA, but I think way too much emphasis is placed on E.G. White. It's almost as if her writings are equal with the Bible. She has some beautiful writings, but they aren't that big a part of my spiritual life.

The other issue I have is I think SDA's should wear wedding rings, even if just to show they are married, so someone doesn't embarrass themself by thinking someone is singlw. It can just be a band, it doesn't have to be expensive. I don't consider this jewelry,it is a symbol. [/quote you are most definately NOT a tradidionalistis, the wedding ring and EGW are 2 pillars of Traditional adventism, weather you are a progressive or not depends on how you define progressive. I define progressive as those who don't belive in the literal 7 day creation /c.6000 years ago who don't accept the the jesus and the scripture as binding and the final authority and those who don't teach the need to be born again, and those who do teach discipleship.

I believe evanglical Adventism is a better discription of what you are. if you belive
1. The world was created, c.6000/7literal days
2. Jesus is the savior and Lord his word is binding on all
3. The scripture contains his word
4. Unless you are born aging you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven, unless you are born of water (baptizm) and the spirit(the word of God ). I will give you a new heart and an new spitit will I put inside you.
5. Baptizm - the world is broken and sick. God had provded a means to be healed and made well. baptizm is the key to obtaing the new heart and premission to give you a new spirit. behold I stand at the door and know if anyone here my voice I will come in and eat with him.
6. fellowship. The perpose of being born agian is to have a realationshsip with christ. the fellowship we have is with God and with one another.(1jn) God desires to be with us, in Gensis he relaxed and enjoyed us, in exouds he want to dwell with us. is immanuael God with us. in revelation finally his dwelling place is with man
7. discipleship - you are my disciple if you DO what I say. If you listen to my words you will have eternal life. My words they are SPIRIT & LIFE
8. Spritual Gifts - |God desides who works where in his kingdom. And HE gave some to me apostles, prophets, preachers, teachers, healers, administrators ect. for the building up of the chruch


These are the basics of Evanglical adventism. if you agree with these you are problly an EA[/quote]

[RC_NewProtestants]

I define progressive as those who don't belive in the literal 7 day creation /c.6000 years ago who don't accept the the jesus and the scripture as binding and the final authority and those who don't teach the need to be born again, and those who do teach discipleship. This is a good example of why you don't let people who are not something define what something is. If labels have any value at all it has to be that someone feels the label fits their beliefs or practices. Otherwise a label is merely used as a derogatory term. Progressive SDA's, they don't believe in Jesus, they don't believe in being born from above. All this does is try to make their view seem more acceptable. It is not an attempt to represent reality.

The description given above seems rather like fundamentalism to me. The assumption that one must be baptized to enter God's kingdom, which frankly leaves out most all of the Old Testament peoples.

To insert the 6000 year old earth is something that the Bible itself says nothing about, it is just based upon an assumed complete genologies. Why that should even be part of the list I am not sure.

[icedragon101]

This is a good example of why you don't let people who are not something define what something is. If labels have any value at all it has to be that someone feels the label fits their beliefs or practices. Otherwise a label is merely used as a derogatory term. Progressive SDA's, they don't believe in Jesus, they don't believe in being born from above. All this does is try to make their view seem more acceptable. It is not an attempt to represent reality.

The description given above seems rather like fundamentalism to me. The assumption that one must be baptized to enter God's kingdom, which frankly leaves out most all of the Old Testament peoples.

To insert the 6000 year old earth is something that the Bible itself says nothing about, it is just based upon an assumed complete genologies. Why that should even be part of the list I am not sure.


this is exactly what I mean:

Jesus Himself said "unless you are born again you CANNOT enter into the kingdom of Heaven" John 3. As far a the old Testment people go, christ was baptized for them, In order to fulfill all righteousness.

The 6000 years can be reasoned from the scriptures and is a fair conclusion and if you have seen my post in the main SDA section on Noah I have give solid evedience show that there is a connection to 6000 year.

As far as lables go lables are not bad, and you seem to use them quite freely,labling people fundimentalist who don't agree with you. smells like double standard to me. I do not accept all the 27/28 fundamentals but I do hold scripture as the rule of faith and conduct. I accept reality as scripture describes it. If that makes me a fundamentalist then let me wear a |BIG LABLE. I am a FUNDIMENTALIST I believe in the bible as the word of God and the basic fundmeantals of scripture. People like bottles need to be labled so you can know what's in them and no how to choose wisely. Poison needs to be clearly labled so we can avoid it. People who do not like lables are usually dangerous. That is my experiance

[icedragon101]

This is a good example of why you don't let people who are not something define what something is. If labels have any value at all it has to be that someone feels the label fits their beliefs or practices. Otherwise a label is merely used as a derogatory term. Progressive SDA's, they don't believe in Jesus, they don't believe in being born from above. All this does is try to make their view seem more acceptable. It is not an attempt to represent reality.

The description given above seems rather like fundamentalism to me. The assumption that one must be baptized to enter God's kingdom, which frankly leaves out most all of the Old Testament peoples.

To insert the 6000 year old earth is something that the Bible itself says nothing about, it is just based upon an assumed complete genologies. Why that should even be part of the list I am not sure.


this post is asking for a lable, define who I am. please. By the way define fundimentalism. since you seem to know what that label is.

[RC_NewProtestants]

this post is asking for a lable, define who I am. please. By the way define fundimentalism. since you seem to know what that label is. Do you know what Fundamentalism is? Is there any reason you should ask for more of my impression of what you said until you know what a fundamentalist is? Maybe you are perfectly happy with the fundamentalist beliefs, if I am inaccurate and you are not fundamentalist then you can explain it, I just commented on my impression of what you had said.

By the way what verse can you point us to that says the Old Testament people were baptized by Christ being baptized for them?

[DrStupid_Ben]

The 6000 years can be reasoned from the scriptures and is a fair conclusion and if you have seen my post in the main SDA section on Noah I have give solid evedience show that there is a connection to 6000 year.



I saw no such solid evidence for a 6000 year old earth in that thread. I find it amazing that one article about archaeological findings can be seen as "strong" evidence against the wealth of scientific geological data. The 6000 years connection really only comes from a reading of the geneology. We really seem to be holding on to Ussher's date, which was made before the scientific data was available.

[Cliff2]

I am SDA, but I think way too much emphasis is placed on E.G. White. It's almost as if her writings are equal with the Bible. She has some beautiful writings, but they aren't that big a part of my spiritual life.

The other issue I have is I think SDA's should wear wedding rings, even if just to show they are married, so someone doesn't embarrass themself by thinking someone is singlw. It can just be a band, it doesn't have to be expensive. I don't consider this jewelry,it is a symbol.

I do not think it is a good idea to place people in boxes and label them this or that.

Where I live most of the folk ware a wedding ring, I do not myself but most do.

As for EGW goes it really depends on the group you get around with.

I know some folk that quote her just like you have suggested and then others who want her banned from being quoted in Church at all.

All living near each other and going to the same Church as each other.

But they all get along OK, at least most of the time.

[icedragon101]

I saw no such solid evidence for a 6000 year old earth in that thread. I find it amazing that one article about archaeological findings can be seen as "strong" evidence against the wealth of scientific geological data. The 6000 years connection really only comes from a reading of the geneology. We really seem to be holding on to Ussher's date, which was made before the scientific data was available.
people see what they want to see.

[icedragon101]

Do you know what Fundamentalism is? Is there any reason you should ask for more of my impression of what you said until you know what a fundamentalist is? Maybe you are perfectly happy with the fundamentalist beliefs, if I am inaccurate and you are not fundamentalist then you can explain it, I just commented on my impression of what you had said.

By the way what verse can you point us to that says the Old Testament people were baptized by Christ being baptized for them?

As far as fundmentalism is it is the beliefs in the fundmentals of the scriptures.
As far as the baptizm one goes. Jesus said to John the Baptist. when the Baptist protested, "premit it in order to full all righteousess." Paul says that the Righteous requirements of the law were fulled in Him (Christ) Christ fullfilled all the requriment of the law and therefore could give his righteous to all who called on him. he was the substutitue in every way,

[RC_NewProtestants]

As far as fundmentalism is it is the beliefs in the fundmentals of the scriptures.
As far as the baptizm one goes. Jesus said to John the Baptist. when the Baptist protested, "premit it in order to full all righteousess." Paul says that the Righteous requirements of the law were fulled in Him (Christ) Christ fullfilled all the requriment of the law and therefore could give his righteous to all who called on him. he was the substutitue in every way,

Ok so you don't have any evidence that Jesus was baptized for all the Old Testament people. Instead you set up a rationalization. Jesus was Baptized, Jesus fullfilled the law, therefore Jesus fullfills the law for all people for all time past present and future. Or have I taken your rationalization too far?

So you must also have no problem with the Latter Day Saints practice of being baptized for the dead, as in your own view that is what Jesus did. Of course if Jesus was baptized for those long dead in the Old Testament then today if one does not get baptized that should be just fine also because Jesus has also been baptized for them.

The fact is your rationalization just gets you into more trouble.

[Sophia7]

Here is how the self-proclaimed Fundamentalists here on CF define themselves:
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=7887052&postcount=1

The part about verbal inspiration of the Bible rules me out as a Fundamentalist. Also, I lean more toward the Wesleyan view of prima scriptura rather than sola scriptura.

[Adventtruth]

Here is how the self-proclaimed Fundamentalists here on CF define themselves:
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=7887052&postcount=1

The part about verbal inspiration of the Bible rules me
out as a Fundamentalist. Also, I lean more toward the Wesleyan view of prima scriptura rather than sola scriptura.

Just if any would like to read what these terms mean.






Prima scriptura is sometimes contrasted to sola scriptura (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura), which literally translates "by the scripture alone". The latter doctrine as understood by many Protestants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant) teaches that only the Scriptures govern faith and practice, but that the Scriptures' meaning can be mediated through many kinds of secondary authority, such as antiquity, the councils of the Christian Church, reason, and experience.
However, sola scriptura rejects any original authority, other than the Bible. In this view, all secondary authority is derived from the authority of the Scriptures and is therefore subject to reform when compared to the teaching of the Bible. Church councils, preachers, Bible commentators, private revelation, or even a message allegedly from an angel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel) or an apostle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostle) are not an original authority alongside the Bible in the sola scriptura approach.


Prima scriptura is a doctrine in Christian theology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_theology) that says the Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible) is "first" or "above all" sources of divine revelation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_revelation).
Implicitly, this view acknowledges that, besides the Bible, there are other guides for what a Christian should believe, and how he should live, such as the created order, traditions, charismatic gifts, mystical insight, angelic visitations, conscience, common sense, the views of experts, the spirit of the times or something else. Prima scriptura suggests that ways of knowing or understanding God and his will, that do not originate from the Bible, are in a second place, perhaps helpful in interpreting Scripture, but testable by the Bible and correctable by it, if they seem to contradict Scripture


Sola scriptura (Latin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin) ablative, "by scripture alone") was a foundational doctrinal principle of the Protestant Reformation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reformation) held by the reformer Martin Luther (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther). It is the assertion that the Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible) is the sole source—some would assert inerrant source—of all Christian doctrine and is considered the basis on which all Protestant Christian teachings are derived. It is also the assertion that the Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible) as God's written word is self-authenticating, clear (perspicacious) to the rational reader, and its own interpreter ("Scripture interprets Scripture"). The key implication of the principle is that interpretations of how to understand and apply the Scriptures do not have the same authority as the Scriptures themselves; hence, the ecclesiastical authority is subject to correction by the Scriptures, even by an individual member of the Church. (Luther: "a simple layman armed with Scripture is greater than the mightiest pope without it.") The intention of the Reformation was to correct the perceived errors of the Roman Catholic Church (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church) by appeal to the uniqueness of the Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible)'s authority and to reject Christian tradition as a source of original authority in addition to the Bible. Sola scriptura may be contrasted with "Prima scriptura (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_scriptura)," which holds that even though the Bible is the primary source of doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine) it is improved by reference to other sources. Also "Sola Verbum Dei (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sola_Verbum_Dei&action=edit)," (the Word of God alone), which is the Catholic position, constrasts Sola scriptura, as Catholics consider that the Word of God is formed by Scripture and Tradition and when they refer to the "Word of God" it is not only to Scripture that they are referring to as some other Christian groups might. Sola scriptura is now considered one of the five pillars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_solas) of the Protestant Reformation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_Reformation)


Adventtruth

[Adventtruth]

4. Unless you are born aging you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven, unless you are born of water (baptizm) and the spirit(the word of God ). I will give you a new heart and an new spitit will I put inside you.
5. Baptizm - the world is broken and sick. God had provded a means to be healed and made well. baptizm is the key to obtaing the new heart and premission to give you a new spirit. behold I stand at the door and know if anyone here my voice I will come in and eat with him.



These are the basics of Evanglical adventism. if you agree with these you are problly an EA

Hi Icedragon.

I can assure you that most Evangelical Adventist don't believe that water baptism is a requirment for salvation.:) Infact, most Evangelical Adventist don't interpret the passage in John as you do. The Evengelical group that is associated with water baptism for salvation is the Evangelical group "Church of Christ". For the most part, all Evangelicals or Reformed groups hold to spirit baptism for salvation (1 Cor 12:13)

Adventtruth

[Adventtruth]

Ok so you don't have any evidence that Jesus was baptized for all the Old Testament people. Instead you set up a rationalization. Jesus was Baptized, Jesus fullfilled the law, therefore Jesus fullfills the law for all people for all time past present and future. Or have I taken your rationalization too far?

So you must also have no problem with the Latter Day Saints practice of being baptized for the dead, as in your own view that is what Jesus did. Of course if Jesus was baptized for those long dead in the Old Testament then today if one does not get baptized that should be just fine also because Jesus has also been baptized for them.

The fact is your rationalization just gets you into more trouble.

Ok...I do believe your analogy of what Jesus did for us and the Mormons pactice is a little bit much.:) Icedragon is correct in what Jesus did for us. He had to be baptised as part of His doing all for us. He is the second Adam who had to fulfill all of righteousness that He could bring us to God. It is all of His doing and then His dying to sin that you may live. This is what the doctrine of substitution is all about. All of what He did is imputed to you. Unless you are of the Adventist group "1888 Study Committee Group" headed by Weiland and Short...they teach against substitution.

Those who died in faith under the Old Covenant had all of Jesus righteousness imputed to them during reconciliation just as those under the New Covenant. Otherwise both groups are lost. Jesus satified Gods wrath aginst sin at the cross.

Adventtruth

[RC_NewProtestants]

No, why is it a bit much. In the world of rationalization one thing simply leads to another. So here it is Jesus was baptized, everything Jesus did was substituted for all the stuff I do, so Jesus was baptized for the old testament dead , Jesus was our example of how to live. Jesus was baptized for the dead so we should also baptize for the dead, cause Jesus was only baptized for the Old Testament dead and there are still lots of dead people who need to be baptized.

The fact is that much of our substitutional theory is merely a fiction we have read into the Bible. We understand that people are saved by faith yet we try and make it also that they are saved by some legal transaction that pays off God so that He is no longer wrathful at us. so we have created a strange God who becomes divided against himself. Jesus the part of God that loves and forgives us and the Father who demands payment of the penalty. So Jesus takes the penalty (a concept not found in the New Testament) and God pours out his wrath on Jesus (again an idea not found in the new testament) the penalty is then paid and it is substituted to all those who believe.

Yes Jesus is the second Adam. As the Bible says, as the first Adam brought death into the world the Second Adam brings life, but it is not by substitution.

[Adventtruth]

No, why is it a bit much. In the world of rationalization one thing simply leads to another. So here it is Jesus was baptized, everything Jesus did was substituted for all the stuff I do, so Jesus was baptized for the old testament dead , Jesus was our example of how to live. Jesus was baptized for the dead so we should also baptize for the dead, cause Jesus was only baptized for the Old Testament dead and there are still lots of dead people who need to be baptized.

The fact is that much of our substitutional theory is merely a fiction we have read into the Bible. We understand that people are saved by faith yet we try and make it also that they are saved by some legal transaction that pays off God so that He is no longer wrathful at us. so we have created a strange God who becomes divided against himself. Jesus the part of God that loves and forgives us and the Father who demands payment of the penalty. So Jesus takes the penalty (a concept not found in the New Testament) and God pours out his wrath on Jesus (again an idea not found in the new testament) the penalty is then paid and it is substituted to all those who believe.

Yes Jesus is the second Adam. As the Bible says, as the first Adam brought death into the world the Second Adam brings life, but it is not by substitution.
Yes Jesus is the second Adam. As the Bible says, as the first Adam brought death into the world the Second Adam brings life, but it is not by substitution

Ok...please kindly explan to me how we are saved if its not substitutionary doctrine. I am always open to learning.

Adventtruth

[Sophia7]

This thread has been moved from the Traditional to the Progressive SDA forum.

[GlorifyHim]

You are baptized BECAUSE you ARE saved ... not to BECOME saved.

[moicherie]

I am SDA, but I think way too much emphasis is placed on E.G. White. It's almost as if her writings are equal with the Bible. She has some beautiful writings, but they aren't that big a part of my spiritual life.

The other issue I have is I think SDA's should wear wedding rings, even if just to show they are married, so someone doesn't embarrass themself by thinking someone is singlw. It can just be a band, it doesn't have to be expensive. I don't consider this jewelry,it is a symbol.
In the U.K and West Indies the engagement/wedding ring is not an issue. Probably an American problem? Leftover of the Puritan influence perhaps? They never new how to party lol
As for EGW the way some Adventists use her to people bash, if she was around today she would probably agree with you in fact she did. Get to know her writings for yourself if you so desire, tune out all the myths and 'EGW said this soothsayers' find out for yoruself and consider history, context and the fact some of her books are compilations written way, way after her death.