What Is A "Progressive" Adventist?

[AlbertaBoy]

I would be curious to know from those who are committed Progressive Seventh-day Adventists just what they are all about? What makes you different from the rest of the Church? How do our beliefs compare? How did you start, and where are you going?

[Bourbaki]

The term Progressive Adventist is a very modern invention. I don't think it's a useful label. It simply means considering oneself to be theologically progressive relative to the denomination's mainstream. From my reading of what's on the internet, it seems that most Adventists that say they belong in the Progressive category of Adventists don't believe that Ellen White was progressive at all and distance themselves from her. I believe that Ellen White was remarkably progressive.

[sentipente]

I believe that Ellen White was remarkably progressive.
Absolutely true, but those who use her most tend to ignore most of what she wrote that brings this out. They ignore her statement that the fact that something has been believed for a long time does not mean it is true, for example.

[Bourbaki]

Absolutely true, but those who use her most tend to ignore most of what she wrote that brings this out.

But that faction in the church that call themselves the Progressives also dismiss EGW's testimonies that they don't want to hear.

They ignore her statement that the fact that something has been believed for a long time does not mean it is true, for example.

And those quotes are often cited by the "Progressives" because they want to dismiss Ellen White's prophetic authority. The important bottom line is that the "Progressives" want to distance themselves from that authority because they don't believe it.

[AlbertaBoy]

The term Progressive Adventist is a very modern invention. I don't think it's a useful label. It simply means considering oneself to be theologically progressive relative to the denomination's mainstream. From my reading of what's on the internet, it seems that most Adventists that say they belong in the Progressive category of Adventists don't believe that Ellen White was progressive at all and distance themselves from her. I believe that Ellen White was remarkably progressive.

I believe too that she was remarkably progressive; and I have learned, and continue to learn, much about the Bible from her writings.

I do not yet understand just what "Progressive Adventists" really mean by the word "Progressive." I wonder why they cannot/will not tell us? Do they have an official web site?

[AlbertaBoy]

Well; they say on their web site (http://newprotestants.com/sda.htm)that they are "Dedicated to helping SDAs change the church for the better."
I have to say in all honesty that this site appears quite like the many Anti-Adventist Sites that have invaded the internet. I can name several sites or individuals where they appear to get their information from.

I am not sure, at this point, why they call themselves "Seventh-day Adventist;" given the nature of the materials on their site.

What does that word "Progressive" really mean to them?

[Bourbaki]

I do not yet understand just what "Progressive Adventists" really mean by the word "Progressive." I wonder why they cannot/will not tell us? Do they have an official web site?

I don't believe that there is any organized group that call themselves "the Progressives." I think that the term was invented by the blog progressive adventism dot com. Progressive Adventist is a fairly recent entry on Wikipedia. On this forum, a progressive has been defined as an Adventist not agreeing with all 28 fundamental beliefs. But on the Internet elsewhere, I've seen Spectrum and Atoday often labeled or referred to as Progressive Adventist magazines.

[sentipente]

Maybe you should read the archives to understand the use of the term Progressive Adventists on foru.ms. I don't care for labels but I am progressive in my thinking on all subjects. I doubt there is anyone here who belongs to an organization called Progressive Adventists.

[sentipente]

The important bottom line is that the "Progressives" want to distance themselves from that authority because they don't believe it.
Or that they hold to a higher authority.

[StormyOne]

But that faction in the church that call themselves the Progressives also dismiss EGW's testimonies that they don't want to hear.



And those quotes are often cited by the "Progressives" because they want to dismiss Ellen White's prophetic authority. The important bottom line is that the "Progressives" want to distance themselves from that authority because they don't believe it.
well good to see you here too Bourbaki.... your statements about those who consider themselves progressives might be your opinion, but that opinion is suspect.... looking forward to your continued sharing.... should be interesting....

[Bourbaki]

What does that word "Progressive" really mean to them?

I think they mean that they are superior to traditional Seventh-day Adventists.

[sentipente]

I think they mean that they are superior to traditional Seventh-day Adventists.
Why do you think that?

[Bourbaki]

Or that they hold to a higher authority.

The purpose of this thread was to define the meaning of a Progressive Adventist. As I said before, the phrase is ambiguous. There is no such group unless you want to define such a body with an arbitrary definition. Google for the phrase Progressive Adventists and see that the term is virtually unheard of in the general public. I think the term was invented by one Adventist blogger and is used repeatedly by only a handful of Adventist dissidents on the internet. The term Progressive Adventists is well outside of general use.

[sentipente]

The term has already been defined in the context of this forum. If you do not fit the description then you are not one. There is nothing more to it.

[Bourbaki]

Why do you think that?

I think it's arrogant for a faction within the Seventh-day Adventist church to call themselves The Progressives. Don't you think that?

[StormyOne]

I think it's arrogant for a faction within the Seventh-day Adventist church to call themselves The Progressives. Don't you think that?nope.... no more arrogant for people to say that they are car lovers, or pet owners, or computer geeks... it is a descriptor, don't over think this one....

[Bourbaki]

The term has already been defined in the context of this forum. If you do not fit the description then you are not one. There is nothing more to it.

There are many Adventists that reject the Trinity doctrine and therefore some of the 28 fundamental beliefs because they believe strongly in what the anti-Trinitarian Adventist pioneers had to say. Isn't it silly to call Regressives progressive?

[StormyOne]

There are many Adventists that reject the Trinity doctrine and therefore some of the 28 fundamental beliefs because they believe strongly in what the anti-Trinitarian Adventist pioneers had to say. Isn't it silly to call Regressives progressive?
you have a point? or will you spend the day debating the merits of a name? Just asking....

[mva1985]

you have a point? or will you spend the day debating the merits of a name? Just asking....
Stormy you have a point.

Bourbaki - I don't see this thread making much of a difference do you?

[Bourbaki]

nope.... no more arrogant for people to say that they are car lovers, or pet owners, or computer geeks... it is a descriptor

I don't question the loyalty of pet owners for their animals if they say they have great love for them. I simply think it's silly to label Korah, Dathan and Abiram in Numbers 16 progressive just because they said they were at the beginning of their rebellion.

[Bourbaki]

you have a point? or will you spend the day debating the merits of a name? Just asking....

Forgive me for asking a trivial question that has no answer. Is it really that impossible to be consistent?

[Bourbaki]

Stormy you have a point.

Bourbaki - I don't see this thread making much of a difference do you?

If you mean that I'm being neutral, that is correct.

[StormyOne]

Forgive me for asking a trivial question that has no answer. Is it really that impossible to be consistent?
the question is trivial, consistency is not.... however you will read into this what you will.... the name of this sub-forum is progressive sda, plain and simple, no bells, whistles, manifestos, mission statements, or profound explanations of our reason to be.... as I said, there is really no need to overthink this one... unless you have the time and that's what you wish to do......

have a good day...

[mva1985]

If you mean that I'm being neutral, that is correct.
Bourbaki,

Just so you know I would be considered a traditional by those that consider themselves progressives. Some of them have stated that they really don't like labels - if I remember correctly.

Because of the rules that they have come up with they allow me to post in this sub-forum.

And from your posts so far - no I would not consider you neutral.

[tall73]

Forgive me for asking a trivial question that has no answer. Is it really that impossible to be consistent?

To answer your question we had these sub-forums imposed upon us. At first we were called reformed Adventists, but that is the name of an actual movement that is not the same.

Therefore we at some point selected another name.

The definitions are not real-world ones, but practical ones that were imposed by outside mods. We have just embraced them for lack of a better "fence."

Some things develop historically, and might not make much sense to an outsider.

[Bourbaki]

the question is trivial, consistency is not.... however you will read into this what you will.... the name of this sub-forum is progressive sda, plain and simple, no bells, whistles, manifestos, mission statements, or profound explanations of our reason to be.... as I said, there is really no need to overthink this one... unless you have the time and that's what you wish to do......

have a good day...

Are there or are there not Adventists that strongly disagree with the Trinity doctrine in the 28 fundamental beliefs because they think the church should be following the doctrinal beliefs of the Adventist pioneers of the 1880s? By the accepted definition, they are Progressives. It that true or not?

[tall73]

Are there or are there not Adventists that strongly disagree with the Trinity doctrine in the 28 fundamental beliefs because they think the church should be following the doctrinal beliefs of the Adventist pioneers of the 1880s? By the accepted definition, they are Progressives. It that true or not?

In a strange twist, yes, they are, for the purpose of this forum.

Sorry if that bothers you. Again, this fence developed historically.

The major divide here has been among those who insist on adherence to the 28 and those who don't in every particular. Our definitions and rules have developed around that.

Truth be told the traditionals would probably be fine with such a person as you have described. In fact we are aware of at least one tri-theist in the traditional camp now.

[Bourbaki]

To answer your question we had these sub-forums imposed upon us. At first we were called reformed Adventists, but that is the name of an actual movement that is not the same.

Therefore we at some point selected another name.

The definitions are not real-world ones, but practical ones that were imposed by outside mods. We have just embraced them for lack of a better "fence."

Some things develop historically, and might not make much sense to an outsider.

Hi Tall. I can accept an arbitrary definition. And I even think it's a good idea to separate dissidents from the main Adventist forum. Technically, the Progressives are just Adventist dissidents, are they not?

[tall73]

Hi Tall. I can accept an arbitrary definition. And I even think it's a good idea to separate dissidents from the main Adventist forum. Technically, the Progressives are just Adventist dissidents, are they not?


If that works for you.

People can look at something and call it different things.

For instance, some look at us and call us Jesuits :)

For my part I didn't want this label. I am a pastor who is currently on a sabbatical because I am struggling with two of our beliefs. Until this time I considered myself quite traditional.

But since I am doubting, though I don't like the label progressive, I am what I am by the definition.

No sense arguing with it. It is just for practical purposes.

[Bourbaki]

In a strange twist, yes, they are, for the purpose of this forum.

I'm just testing this forum to see if anyone around here fits my definition of being reasonable. I sincerely appreciate your simple direct answer. By any chance, are the moderators of the Progressive Adventist forum as reasonable as you?

[tall73]

I'm just testing this forum to see if anyone around here fits my definition of being reasonable. I sincerely appreciate your simple direct answer. By any chance, are the moderators of the Progressive Adventist forum as reasonable as you?

We don't have any yet!

And don't worry, you don't know me enough yet to assess me as reasonable.

We all have our moments.

But in general the progressives have chosen to allow folks to discuss. Don't worry about being officially warned for theology. Only personal attacks, etc. are an issue in our forum.

The only exception is on voting on our policy. This is again for practical reasons.

[StormyOne]

I'm just testing this forum to see if anyone around here fits my definition of being reasonable. I sincerely appreciate your simple direct answer. By any chance, are the moderators of the Progressive Adventist forum as reasonable as you?
define reasonable.....

[tall73]

Eugene? Is that you?

Someone just informed me that might be you.

Now you could have just introduced yourself, since I am already on your forum :)

I have had some changes in my life lately, since I was actively posting on your board.

But I still enjoyed the time I spent there.

Welcome.

[StormyOne]

Eugene? Is that you?

Someone just informed me that might be you.

Now you could have just introduced yourself, since I am already on your forum :)

I have had some changes in my life lately, since I was actively posting on your board.

But I still enjoyed the time I spent there.

Welcome.
when i was a member there it took about 2 or 3 posts and I found myself in jail or something....

[tall73]

when i was a member there it took about 2 or 3 posts and I found myself in jail or something....

Hey, I got a three pip rating there!

Yeah, well Eugene likes categorizing :)


Besides, all progressives are by default intoxicated (and enjoy going to clubs) right? haha

[StormyOne]

no doubt.... check out this list....

http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=15073

[tall73]

Just to refresh your memory :)

Jail (http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewforum.php?f=21)
If you are dangerous, appear intoxicated or are a public nuisance, you can only post here.

[RC_NewProtestants]

Actually Progressive Adventist is a real world definition and it has been in use for over 20 years. Like any new word or term of course it is adopted by a subgroup first as they are then ones who find the term useful. From there it moves into the wider vocabulary.

For those who would like a definition you can read the following:
http://newprotestants.com/traditio.htm

[StormyOne]

Just to refresh your memory :)

Jail (http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewforum.php?f=21)
If you are dangerous, appear intoxicated or are a public nuisance, you can only post here.
yeah, that seems about right... was suppose to ask for help to get out or something....

[tall73]

Actually Progressive Adventist is a real world definition and it has been in use for over 20 years. Like any new word or term of course it is adopted by a subgroup first as they are then ones who find the term useful. From there it moves into the wider vocabulary.

For those who would like a definition you can read the following:
http://newprotestants.com/traditio.htm

Agreed. But ours may not be the same in all respects, so consistency is not required.

Our definition is our definition.

[AlbertaBoy]

Agreed. But ours may not be the same in all respects, so consistency is not required.

Our definition is our definition.

Howdy tall73

I just wanted to clarify; are you classing yourself as a "Progressive Adventist?" It seemed so from the posts, but i wasn't too sure. Also, are you saying that this forum has it's own definition of same, distinct from the one that has been in use for many years?

The reason I am asking is that I am trying to get those who are PAs to discuss with me a bit what they believe and why.

You mentioned that there are two of the "traditional" beliefs which you have trouble with; I would be very interested in hearing about that. I have studied lots about "Creation Adventists;" "Reformed Adventists;" etc., but I have yet to study the Progressives.

I do agree with the one poster here who expressed the thought that the term progressive seems ambiguous in the way it is used; and it is definitely not used consistently the same way by various camps.

I am finding it hard to determine just who they are, and what they believe.

[StormyOne]

Howdy tall73

I just wanted to clarify; are you classing yourself as a "Progressive Adventist?" It seemed so from the posts, but i wasn't too sure. Also, are you saying that this forum has it's own definition of same, distinct from the one that has been in use for many years?

The reason I am asking is that I am trying to get those who are PAs to discuss with me a bit what they believe and why.

You mentioned that there are two of the "traditional" beliefs which you have trouble with; I would be very interested in hearing about that. I have studied lots about "Creation Adventists;" "Reformed Adventists;" etc., but I have yet to study the Progressives.

I do agree with the one poster here who expressed the thought that the term progressive seems ambiguous in the way it is used; and it is definitely not used consistently the same way by various camps.

I am finding it hard to determine just who they are, and what they believe.
forget the label and talk with the person... its not as if everyone who uses a certain label believes the very same thing....

[tall73]

Howdy tall73

I just wanted to clarify; are you classing yourself as a "Progressive Adventist?" It seemed so from the posts, but i wasn't too sure. Also, are you saying that this forum has it's own definition of same, distinct from the one that has been in use for many years?


I am only because I seem to fit the definition we are using.

As to the definition, that was given to us by outside mods, and we have accepted it. The name was actually chosen later. Read above for info.

So it could be different. It doesn't really bother me.



The reason I am asking is that I am trying to get those who are PAs to discuss with me a bit what they believe and why.


They believe different things, because of their personal convictions. Essentially what we share is rejection of a creed, or a creed like device, and we likely reject at least one of the 28.

The 27 were formed in the 80's, and a number of the progressives actually pre-date them in the church.



You mentioned that there are two of the "traditional" beliefs which you have trouble with; I would be very interested in hearing about that. I have studied lots about "Creation Adventists;" "Reformed Adventists;" etc., but I have yet to study the Progressives.


Check the thread started about me in this forum.



I do agree with the one poster here who expressed the thought that the term progressive seems ambiguous in the way it is used; and it is definitely not used consistently the same way by various camps.

I am finding it hard to determine just who they are, and what they believe.

I don't think I can help you with that.

They believe different things.

[NightEternal]

LIBERAL ADVENTISTS: This group is mostly centralized in southern California, but they can be found almost anywhere in the world. These are Adventists who have accepted the liberal Christian concepts where just about anything goes. Do not hold to literal interpretations of Scripture from Genesis through the Gospels as well as the remainder of the New Testament. Scripture is regarded as a collection of myths or stories and historical exaggerations used to teach moral lessons. Some may hold other Gnostic ancient books as on the same level of importance as the Bible. They do not believe in the literal creation account, world-wide flood, or miracles, including the resurrection of Jesus. Many have accepted evolution in some form into thier belief systems. Beliefs can range from no after-life to Universalism. Homosexuality is accepted as another lifestyle alternative and impulse that God created people with. Ellen White means nothing to them and they have all but discarded most of the distinctive fundamentals as well as orthodox Christian fundamentals. They are often 'cultural' Adventists who still enjoy the oppourtunity to discuss with others philosophical ideas concerning the Sabbath. They may enjoy church services of various kinds or none at all, from high church to celebrationn services. Will often call themselves Christian Agnostics or Agnostic Christians. In fact, the only SDA feature many liberal Adventists have retained is the Sabbath. Almost all attend movies of any sort, wear jewelry, eat meat, drink coffee and caffeinated pops, some partake of unclean foods, many drink alcoholic wine, especially in the areas of California where vineyards are found. Women's ordination has never been a question and the SCC implemented it years ago against the official stand of the conference.

Key Adventist Figures: Steve Daily

PROGRESSIVE ADVENTISTS: Highly regard science, logic, reason and the historical-critical method. Will adopt any modern means of Biblical interpretation available. Want to do away with many of the fundamentals, especially the IJ/1844/Heavenly sanctuary doctrines. Believe Ellen White is a woman of her times whose works may contain inspirational material that may be used in a pastoral way. Do not believe she has doctrinal authourity. Some hold to a literal creation account, world-wide flood and miracles. Others see the Genesis story as non-literal and consider other methods of creation possible. The post-modern movement can also be traced to this group. In understanding post-modern philosophy, they desire to have the church be relevant in the present time and do not regard the history and legacy of the Adventist pioneers as the embodiment of religious truth. Some have adopted the views of the moral influence/larger view Adventists and rejected penal, legal atonemt. Others hold to such atonement theories as Christus Victor, Federal Head and Recapitulation. There may be an amalgam of several atonement theories. A credo would probably be reason over tradition. Spreading like wildfire in many European countries.

Key Adventist Figures: Riendeer Bruinsma, Alden Thompson, Richard Rice, Fritz Guy, John McLarty (Adventist Today), Spectrum Magazine

MORAL INFLUENCE/LARGER VIEW ADVENTISTS: Also found mostly in Southern California/Loma Linda area, this group denies that God will destroy the wicked in the end. They believe that sin itself will consume them without any intervention on God's part. Absolutely deny legal/forensic/penal atonement. Heavy emphasis on the love and mercy of Christ to the exclusion of His anger and justice. Revere Ellen White, but they only pick and choose that which reflects thier unique views. Heavily influenced by the views of Peter Abelard. You can find many of them on the website Heavenly Sanctuary.

Key Figures: Graham Maxwell (Pine Knoll), Dan Smith, Ty Gibson (Light Bearers), Michael Klute.

EVANGELICAL ADVENTISTS: Champions of Reformation justification by faith and the closest segment to the positions of Luther and the reformers. Bitterly fight against sinless perfection/final generation theology and the belief in the sinful nature of Christ. Consider both full-blown heresy. The most user-friendly Adventism and the one subgroup that presents the most acceptable Adventist face to mainline Protestantism. Believe the atonement was completed at the cross. Stand firmly behind Questions On Doctrine as representative of balanced Adventist thought. Have realistic views of inspiration and completely reject verbal inspiration for both the Bible and Ellen White. Ardent holders to thought inspiration. Ellen White highly regarded, but do not believe she has doctrinal authourity and believe she is subject to the New Testament apostles. Some Evangelical Adventists have abandoned EGW, but not all. Completely reject traditional understanding of the IJ as detrimental to assurance of salvation. Hold to pre-Advent judgment where the salvation of God's people is not under question. Very firm and uncompromising in thier opposition to Rome. Worship services are predominately contemporary with CCM as well as heavily influenced by Willow Creek seeker-services.

Key Figures: George Knight, Graeme Bradford, Hans LaRondelle, H.M.S. Richards Sr. (Voice Of Prophecy), Raymond Cottrell, Desmond Ford (Good News Unlimited), Edward Heppenstall, Frank Phillips

MODERATE ADVENTISTS: The largest subgroup by far, this constitutes the majority in the pews. Standard Adventist beliefs, hold to the fundamentals. Avoids either extreme and and tries to be balanced. High regard for Ellen white but do not hold to verbal inspiration nor elevate her above the Bible. Mainline believers who support official church mission ardently. Stay very close to offical GC policy, mandate and standard Adventist worldview.

Key Figures: Mark Finley, Dwight Nelson, Keavin Hayden, Marvin Moore, Roy Adams, Ed Christian, Morris Venden, Jack Sequeira (Vineyard Ministries), Shawn Boonstra (It Is Written), Steven Mosley, Steve Wohlberg, Lonnie Melashenko (Voice Of Prophecy), George Vandeman (Voice Of Prophecy)

CONSERVATIVE/TRADITIONAL ADVENTISTS: Close to moderate Adventists, but with a little more lean to the right. Bitterly oppose women's ordination, CCM, meat-eating, justification by faith as taught by Luther. Very high regard for Ellen White, borderline verbal inspirationists. Revere the law and the Ten Commandments and have sinless perfection tendencies. Many are heavily involved in Jesuit/Catholic/Masonic conspiracy theories. Staunch defenders of the 28 fundamentals and lovers of pioneer, 1800's style Adventism. Major representation in third world countries such as Africa and South America.

Key Figures: William Johnsson, Cifford Goldstein, Doug Batchelor (Amazing Facts), Sam Bacchiocchi (Biblical Perspectives), Sam Koranteng Pipim, Herbert Douglass, Ed Reid, Kenneth Cox, Richard O'Ffill (Revival Sermons), Danny Shelton (3 ABN), Walter Veith (Amazing Discoveries), Jan Marcussen, David Asscherick, Leo Schriven, Bill Tucker (The Quiet Hour), Robert Weiland and Donald Short (The 1888 Message Committee), C.D. Brooks

ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE/TRADITIONAL ADVENTISTS: Historical Adventists who represent the far right. Believe in the sinful nature of Christ, righteousness by works, have a hatred for the Reformation gospel. Sinless perfectionists who believe Christ merely set the example we can follow until we reach the condition of Adam before the fall-all before glorification, which they believe only changes the physical and nothing else. Bitterly oppose Questions On Doctrine, consider it the most hated book ever published in Adventism. Heavy emphasis on IJ, traditional style and making oneself worthy to pass inspection by Jesus. Strict diet reform emphasis, all are vegetarian, most are vegan. Borderline deificaiton of Ellen white, verbal inspirationist leanings. Most regard EGW as equal to the Bible in authourity and the final say in all matters not addressed in Scripture. Many can be found on such websites as Revival Sermons, Great Controversy, Adventist Affirm, SDA Defend, Temcat's House

Key Figures: M.L. Andreason, Kevin Paulson, Larry Kirkpatrick, Joe Crews, Vance farrell, Dennis Priebe, Stephen Lewis

EXTREMIST ULTRA-CONSERVATIVE TRADITIONAL ADVENTISTS/FFSHOOTS/INDEPENDENT MINISTRIES: About as far right you can go in Adventism. The most disturbing, frightening Adventism available. Ultra-strict, unyeilding dress reform, diet reform, mind reform, any reform you can think of. Hyper-vegan, believe diet is a salvation issue and meat-eaters are lost. Heavy, extreme emphasis on historic Adventism and the pioneers. Agenda to purify the Adventist church and get back to 1800 style Adventism. Shepherd's Rod believe they will be the instruments of destruction God will use to cleanse the camp of modern-day Adventism at some point in the future. Have thier own communes, schools, churches, camp meetings, etc. Deify Ellen White, all but have included her in the Biblical canon. Fringe groups who believe that only a literal 144,000 are going through to the end. Hatred for corporate Adventism and conference structure. Believe the GC is the seat of the beast, riddled with Jesuit infiltrators. Hatred for any modern expressions of Adventism, believe they are the only true Adventists and the rest are lost. All believe the mainline church is in apostasy and is fallen Babylon, and so a call for as many as possible to come out is needed. Many use cultish fear-tactics and brainwashing to recruit and retain thier followers.

Key Groups/Figures: Shepherd's Rod (Victor Houteff), Branch Davidians, SDA Reform, Remnant Of The Remnant, Our Firm Foundation/Hope International (Ralph Larson), Hartland Institute (Colin and Russell Standish)

Anyone who thinks they can solely lay claim to the Adventist name is in denial. This is only a partial list of the groups that are in existence in 2007.

[NightEternal]

AlbertaBoy, many here don't take kindly to labels. I, however, find them necessary. Perhaps my list above will help you.

If you want to pigeon-hole me, I would fall under the Evangelical Adventist category, though not in the strict sense of the word. For the most part, though, you will find my beliefs in line with what Evangelical Adventists believe. I would say 90%, give or take.

The bottom line, though, would be to, as Stormy advised, talk to the individuals themselves. :thumbsup:

BTW, I will edit, add or take away from this list when necessary. People just have to let me know if they see a category missing.

[NightEternal]

If the Eugene posting here is Eugene Schubert, I am not comfortable with him being in this subforum. He has a hateful agenda against Graham Maxwell/Moral Influence/anti-penal atonement theory, and has proven himself aggressive, beligerent and obssessed with this agenda. Every forum I have seen him participate in has ended in disaster. I believe he was banned from H.S.com, though I cannot confirm that.

But, it's up to you guys. Just know that RC will get the treatment, and it probably won't be pretty when the two collide.

[StormyOne]

If the Eugene posting here is Eugene Schubert, I am not comfortable with him being in this subforum. He has a hateful agenda against Graham Maxwell/Moral Influence/anti-penal atonement theory, and has proven himself aggressive, beligerent and obssessed with this agenda. Every forum I have seen him participate in has ended in disaster. I believe he was banned from H.S.com, though I cannot confirm that.

But, it's up to you guys. Just know that RC will get the treatment, and it probably won't be pretty when the two collide.
if he is polite and doesn't flame anyone then it should be fine... if he is not polite and flames then his actions will have him reported.... no biggie.... he is on another site I am on, and his agenda has been ummmmm sidetracked.... so we will be fine...

[tall73]

If the Eugene posting here is Eugene Schubert, I am not comfortable with him being in this subforum. He has a hateful agenda against Graham Maxwell/Moral Influence/anti-penal atonement theory, and has proven himself aggressive, beligerent and obssessed with this agenda. Every forum I have seen him participate in has ended in disaster. I believe he was banned from H.S.com, though I cannot confirm that.

But, it's up to you guys. Just know that RC will get the treatment, and it probably won't be pretty when the two collide.


Well I think you are right that he has been banned on a number of forums. I am not even sure he denies that.

But we don't ban for theology here. So until he starts making personal attacks he is fine to post.

And yes, he is not a big Maxwell fan.

But I don't think that Maxwell is a member here. Nor is discussing his theology a flame.

[tall73]

if he is polite and doesn't flame anyone then it should be fine... if he is not polite and flames then his actions will have him reported.... no biggie.... he is on another site I am on, and his agenda has been ummmmm sidetracked.... so we will be fine...


I think I should have read ahead :)

Yup, if he is polite, doesn't matter.

[NightEternal]

Pssh. Judging from Schubert's track record in the past for making things personal and the link Stormy provided to BlackSDA and the gong show that thread ended up being, it isn't a matter of 'if' it's a matter of 'when' he makes things personal.

No doubt he will proffer his exclusive 'true Adventist remnant' diarreah here. Bring it on then...

[Sophia7]

But that faction in the church that call themselves the Progressives also dismiss EGW's testimonies that they don't want to hear.

And those quotes are often cited by the "Progressives" because they want to dismiss Ellen White's prophetic authority. The important bottom line is that the "Progressives" want to distance themselves from that authority because they don't believe it.

This is not limited to Progressives. Even many Traditional SDAs dismiss the parts of EGW's writings that they don't want to hear, while still claiming that she was a prophet. Many Progressives don't believe that she was a prophet, or, if they do, they often have a different view of her authority than the TSDA view.

[Sophia7]

If the Eugene posting here is Eugene Schubert, I am not comfortable with him being in this subforum. He has a hateful agenda against Graham Maxwell/Moral Influence/anti-penal atonement theory, and has proven himself aggressive, beligerent and obssessed with this agenda. Every forum I have seen him participate in has ended in disaster. I believe he was banned from H.S.com, though I cannot confirm that.

But, it's up to you guys. Just know that RC will get the treatment, and it probably won't be pretty when the two collide.

But he's allowed to post here under our rules, as long as he doesn't flame people or break any of the other sitewide rules.

EDIT: Oops, should have read ahead, too.

[RC_NewProtestants]

well other than being a royal annoyance we don't have much to fear from Eugene, I have even dealt with him on his own forum which last I knew was closed down. About the worst he could say was that I was a Jesuit. In the main his arguments only work when they are heard by traditional Adventists.

I also usually enjoy the opportunity to discuss the penal atonement theory because I think I can make a very good case against it. I think it is one of those theories like the theory of eternal torment in hell that has to be answered before people can really begin to have a better understanding of God. Then of course I have history on my side as opposed to the brilliance of middle ages theology which produced the satisfaction and the penal theory.
For more see:
What is wrong with the Substitutionary theory of the Atonement? (http://newprotestants.com/Subatone.htm)

(http://newprotestants.com/LUCIFER.DOC)

(http://newprotestants.com/why.htm)

[Bourbaki]

well other than being a royal annoyance we don't have much to fear from Eugene, I have even dealt with him on his own forum which last I knew was closed down. About the worst he could say was that I was a Jesuit. In the main his arguments only work when they are heard by traditional Adventists.

The only persons I know that call self-professing Adventists Jesuits, are legalists. I know myself and I am not a legalist. I am a True Seventh-day Adventist (http://www.everythingimportant.org/gospel/7faces.htm).

I believe that your statements would be more persuasive if they were at least partially factual.

[StormyOne]

The only persons I know that call self-professing Adventists Jesuits, are legalists. I know myself and I am not a legalist. I am a True Seventh-day Adventist (http://www.everythingimportant.org/gospel/7faces.htm).

I believe that your statements would be more persuasive if they were at least partially factual.
a true seventh day adventist? the members here that I have met on this forum are true seventh day adventists.... so what exactly are you trying to say?

[Bourbaki]

a true seventh day adventist? the members here that I have met on this forum are true seventh day adventists.... so what exactly are you trying to say?

Would you like me to call you up and read my paper (http://www.everythingimportant.org/gospel/7faces.htm) to you? The answer is there.

[RC_NewProtestants]

The only persons I know that call self-professing Adventists Jesuits, are legalists. I know myself and I am not a legalist. I am a True Seventh-day Adventist (http://www.everythingimportant.org/gospel/7faces.htm).

I believe that your statements would be more persuasive if they were at least partially factual.
Well that forum is closed now so I can't see who said what. It maybe that I have simply confused you with Ted McMillan. See this link for a discussion from the archives of Atomorrow.com regarding Ted Mac, Eugene and Ulrike (Ulrike is by far the most reasonable of this trio)

You can see Teddy Mac spew at:
http://www.seventh-dayadventism.com/

[StormyOne]

Would you like me to call you up and read my paper (http://www.everythingimportant.org/gospel/7faces.htm) to you? The answer is there.
ummmmm no.... can you give us the readers digest version?

[Bourbaki]

.... he is on another site I am on, and his agenda has been ummmmm sidetracked....

Thanks for almost admitting your participation in the intentional disruptions to my threads on that other forum but please remember that here "Thread hijacking, off-topic posting, and derailment are forbidden."

[StormyOne]

Thanks for almost admitting your participation in the intentional disruptions to my threads on that other forum but please remember that here "Thread hijacking, off-topic posting, and derailment are forbidden."I will do here what I have done in other places... ask questions.... either you will answer them, or you won't..... let the discussion begin....

[BondGirl]

I think of myself as "Progressive" because I am on the constant of pressing forward. I want to know all there is about my church (SDA) while at the same time I'm not blindly following without question/regard.

[woobadooba]

I think of myself as "Progressive" because I am on the constant of pressing forward. I want to know all there is about my church (SDA) while at the same time I'm not blindly following without question/regard.

Does one have to disagree with one or more of our doctrines to exemplify such virtue?