Opinions on the ratio of 'traditiona' vs 'evangelical' Adventists?

[Joshua-]

I am just curious, not having been raised a Seventh-Day Adventist myself.

What is your opinion on the ratio of 'traditional' Adventists to 'evangelical' Adventists?

To clear up any possible confusion I will give you the definitions I have arrived at through my studies-- and please feel free to correct me if my definitions are incorrect.

'traditional' Adventists appear to typically believe a few things that evangelical Adventists do not:

1. The Spirit of Prophecy was manifest in the ministry of Ellen White and therefore her writings when on the topics or issues involving theology in any sense of the word are not only beneficial for devotional use, but are as authoritative as the Bible itself (seeing as it was the same Holy Spirit that inspired the writing of both).

2. In 1844 Christ moved into the Most Holy Place in the Sanctuary in Heaven to being the work of atonement (generally referred to as the Investigative Judgment).

3. Christ assumed fallen human nature when He was born as a man on earth. The incarnation was a merging of both the nature of God and the nature of man, several thousands of years after the fall, with all of the internal propensities towards sin that sinful fallen man has.

4. The righteousness offered by Christ is both imputed and imparted. The experience of Righteousness by Faith is more than a legal declaration of the forgiveness of past sins, it is the power of God in the life to bring about a lifelong transformation of character in the life of those who submit to Him.

In my experience it has seemed that most typical lay members of the Church believe the above.

Most seminary educated members do not.

But by and large the vast majority have never really given much consideration to any of the issues listed above, aside from the first one.

[phkrause]

I am just curious, not having been raised a Seventh-Day Adventist myself.

What is your opinion on the ratio of 'traditional' Adventists to 'evangelical' Adventists?

To clear up any possible confusion I will give you the definitions I have arrived at through my studies-- and please feel free to correct me if my definitions are incorrect.

'traditional' Adventists appear to typically believe a few things that evangelical Adventists do not:

1. The Spirit of Prophecy was manifest in the ministry of Ellen White and therefore her writings when on the topics or issues involving theology in any sense of the word are not only beneficial for devotional use, but are as authoritative as the Bible itself (seeing as it was the same Holy Spirit that inspired the writing of both).

2. In 1844 Christ moved into the Most Holy Place in the Sanctuary in Heaven to being the work of atonement (generally referred to as the Investigative Judgment).

3. Christ assumed fallen human nature when He was born as a man on earth. The incarnation was a merging of both the nature of God and the nature of man, several thousands of years after the fall, with all of the internal propensities towards sin that sinful fallen man has.

4. The righteousness offered by Christ is both imputed and imparted. The experience of Righteousness by Faith is more than a legal declaration of the forgiveness of past sins, it is the power of God in the life to bring about a lifelong transformation of character in the life of those who submit to Him.

In my experience it has seemed that most typical lay members of the Church believe the above.

I agree

Originally Posted By: Joshua-

Most seminary educated members do not.

I disagree

Originally Posted By: Joshua-

But by and large the vast majority have never really given much consideration to any of the issues listed above, aside from the first one.

I agree

[CoAspen]

1.

Quote:

but are as authoritative as the Bible itself (seeing as it was the same Holy Spirit that inspired the writing of both).

Not true-Never taught by the church

Quote:

3. Christ assumed fallen human nature when He was born as a man on earth.

Not true-much debated by the fringe- but not taught by the SDA church. Body, yes not no propensity to sin. IF he had propensities to sin, not 2nd Adam.

Everyone has a different definition of 'traditional' and 'evangelical' depending on who a person want to have the other viewed.

Quote:

But by and large the vast majority have never really given much consideration to any of the issues listed above, aside from the first one.

Such a statement speaks to your little knowledge of the .org. It is also a rather presumptuous statement. Me thinks you may just not be what you claim to be? What are your motives for these questions you ask? You seem to have already arrived at a conclusion based on the above quote which means you are not really questioning.

By the way, one would have to call EGW, traditional and she never put herself on par with the Bible, but rather the opposite.

[Kevin H]

I would not call the group you described as "Traditional Adventist" but rather a subgroup that calls themselves "Historic Adventists" and is a subgroup that is basically a reflection of the thoughts of an Elder Washburn and Elder Wilkinson, among others, and then editing those beliefs to appear nothing like the book "Questions on Doctrine" Mrs. White had a lot of letters to Elder Washburn and Willie White had very similar letters to Elder Wilkinson where Mrs. White would say that despite massive quoting of her words, that they did not understand her message and misuse her writings.

Traditional Adventists are more main line Adventists and not either of the extremes of the so called "Historic Adventists" nor the "Evangelical Adventists"

[M. T. Cross]

I think Joshua, that the only really traditional things you will find in the SDA community about any of these issues is that Adventists will argue about them. Each side will be sure that they are totally right and at one point one side will say that the other is dangerous and corrupt.

[Kevin H]

Adventism is basically a movement that appealed to people of a wide background. But in understanding today's Adventism there are basically the groupings of more of a Baptist/Lutheran approach to Adventism, which on the conservative side would include the Adventist Theological Society, middle is the traditional Adventists, and liberal the Evangelical Adventists.

The other big group would be those who have more of a Methodist approach to Adventism. On the conservative side of this group is the so called "Historic Adventists" in the middle would be the beliefs of say Lynn Harper Wood, What was taught by the theology department at Atlantic Union College in the late 1970s early 1980s, what Graham Maxwell ACTUALLY taught, Paul Heubech, Alden Thompson etc. and on the liberal side what Graham Maxwell has been accused of teaching and those who have been building their theology on what Maxwell has been accused of teaching.

[Joshua-]

Not true-Never taught by the church

[Joshua-]

reflection of the thoughts of an Elder Washburn and Elder Wilkinson, among others, and then editing those beliefs to appear nothing like the book "Questions on Doctrine" Mrs. White had a lot of letters to Elder Washburn and Willie White had very similar letters to Elder Wilkinson where Mrs. White would say that despite massive quoting of her words, that they did not understand her message and misuse her writings.

This is fascinating. Could you provide me with any of the references to the writings of Washburn and Wilkinson? I'd like to see what they were claiming

[Joshua-]

I think Joshua, that the only really traditional things you will find in the SDA community about any of these issues is that Adventists will argue about them. Each side will be sure that they are totally right and at one point one side will say that the other is dangerous and corrupt.

lol sounds like life in general =)

[Joshua-]

Adventism is basically a movement that appealed to people of a wide background. But in understanding today's Adventism there are basically the groupings of more of a Baptist/Lutheran approach to Adventism, which on the conservative side would include the Adventist Theological Society, middle is the traditional Adventists, and liberal the Evangelical Adventists.

The other big group would be those who have more of a Methodist approach to Adventism. On the conservative side of this group is the so called "Historic Adventists" in the middle would be the beliefs of say Lynn Harper Wood, What was taught by the theology department at Atlantic Union College in the late 1970s early 1980s, what Graham Maxwell ACTUALLY taught, Paul Heubech, Alden Thompson etc. and on the liberal side what Graham Maxwell has been accused of teaching and those who have been building their theology on what Maxwell has been accused of teaching.

as soon as i can get my brain untangled i'll try and research that lol. Adventism sure is complex. I don't use this phrase around non Adventists, but as soon as I began to understand the depth of understanding SDAs had, I just had to call it "Christianity for grown-ups", in the sense that there is so very much more to it than anything I heard in any other denomination/nondenominational church.

the only thing I can recall hearing about any of the people you have mentioned is Maxwell. If memory serves me correctly I remember hearing he taught that God doesn't kill anyone, but rather, removes His hand of protection and allows the enemy to destroy them?

Is that even the same person or am I totally off? And is that a teaching that is out of harmony with what he actually taught?

[Gail]

That would be he.

I am not decided on that one- at the moment I am still of the understanding that since God is the giver of breath and life that He can withdraw that (or cease supporting that) when in His wisdom there is a time. And everyone has their time eventually... So I still understand that God can cause the death of people (ie- the destroying angel in the land of Egypt or in the case of Ananias and Sapphira) and am not in agreement with Maxwell.

But you never know- I have found that when I study a topic out deeply it usually gets BIGGER and spurs more questions and puts me in awe of God's wisdom and knowledge. And that is what I love about Him.

[Kevin H]

Sadly much of it is letters that I read between the parties at the White Estate when I was working on my masters degree which minored in the writings of Mrs. White. But the so called "Historic Adventists" quote them a lot, and also if you Google the 1919 Bible conference and also Benjamin G. Wilkinson.

Graham Maxwell said in a Sabbath School class that Elder Wilkinson's children wanted nothing to do with God when they became adults, which made him re-examine his life and teachings and that he renounced his views when he was old. Wilkinson's doctorate, according to Maxwell, was in modern languages and he got into administrative positions in our schools. He and Washburn were very much against the views of inspiration that Mrs. White was teaching towards the end of her life, and were very much against the views being presented by A. G. Daniels, W. W. Prescott at the 1919 Bible conference and instrumental in the next General Conference (1922 or 1923) where Daniel's got thrown out of office. Prescott demoted, and Willie got to keep his job, but it was striped of all power (basically Willie White was fired, but allowed to spend his day at his office and get his paycheck).

Historic Adventism and Evangelical Adventism tend to be more on the edges of the church. I see both of them as teaching truth, however I understand them both to tend to use part of the truth against the truth. Although I see both wrong on the nature of Christ. I have to go to work so have to say more here later, but Jesus had his own unique nature, unlike Adam's before nor ours after the fall.

[BobRyan]

the only thing I can recall hearing about any of the people you have mentioned is Maxwell. If memory serves me correctly I remember hearing he taught that God doesn't kill anyone, but rather, removes His hand of protection and allows the enemy to destroy them?

Is that even the same person or am I totally off? And is that a teaching that is out of harmony with what he actually taught?

Yes that was Maxwell. Wrong on many points - but still there were a few that he got right. That is not one of the points he figured out correctly.

in Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

I am just curious, not having been raised a Seventh-Day Adventist myself.

What is your opinion on the ratio of 'traditional' Adventists to 'evangelical' Adventists?

To clear up any possible confusion I will give you the definitions I have arrived at through my studies-- and please feel free to correct me if my definitions are incorrect.

'traditional' Adventists appear to typically believe a few things that evangelical Adventists do not:

1. The Spirit of Prophecy was manifest in the ministry of Ellen White and therefore her writings when on the topics or issues involving theology in any sense of the word are not only beneficial for devotional use, but are as authoritative as the Bible itself (seeing as it was the same Holy Spirit that inspired the writing of both).

2. In 1844 Christ moved into the Most Holy Place in the Sanctuary in Heaven to being the work of atonement (generally referred to as the Investigative Judgment).

3. Christ assumed fallen human nature when He was born as a man on earth. The incarnation was a merging of both the nature of God and the nature of man, several thousands of years after the fall, with all of the internal propensities towards sin that sinful fallen man has.

4. The righteousness offered by Christ is both imputed and imparted. The experience of Righteousness by Faith is more than a legal declaration of the forgiveness of past sins, it is the power of God in the life to bring about a lifelong transformation of character in the life of those who submit to Him.

In my experience it has seemed that most typical lay members of the Church believe the above.

[Joshua-]

Very interested in hearing more about this-

It would make sense that Christ had a 'nature' different than ours in one aspect-

He was God manifest in the flesh, so He would have combined both the nature of God and the nature of man in one (Ephesians 2:15? it seems EGW referenced this idea a number of times in places like FW 30.2).

In that respect, yes, His nature is different- but I thought that by Him bridging that gap we were supposed to be partakers of the divine nature through Him, in that respect, being transformed by His victory- in which case, we would have the same nature as Him not by nature but by inheritance?

[Kevin H]

the only thing I can recall hearing about any of the people you have mentioned is Maxwell. If memory serves me correctly I remember hearing he taught that God doesn't kill anyone, but rather, removes His hand of protection and allows the enemy to destroy them?

Is that even the same person or am I totally off? And is that a teaching that is out of harmony with what he actually taught?

Right person, but totally off. There are people who teach the "God does not kill" theory that you have described above; people like Mike Clute and a more balanced approach in the book The book is called Light on the Dark Side of God by Marilyn Madison Campbell.

Unfortunately, Dr. Maxwell has falsely been classified with them. Most Adventists have a view of hell where at the end there is a fire of the same nature as when we light a match or a volcano, or something of that nature that kills the wicked, where they burn as long as they deserve then die (basically the traditional Catholic-Baptist hell only shorter.)

Since Dr. Maxwell did not hold to that view of hell, and uses a lot of the same quotes from the Bible and Mrs. White that Clute and Campbell use, and that Maxwell feels that Campbell's book is useful in helping us see parts of the truth that the traditional view avoids; Clute and Campbell definitely see something, but is again using part of the truth against the rest of he truth.

Dr. Maxwell indeed saw God as active in the flood, the deaths caused by the plagues, especially the 10th plague (I have to admit I understand the 10th plague as the blood inviting God to pass over or a visit, but no blood was telling God to pass on through without stopping, and if God is not welcome in the home, death is welcome.), but the fire that killed Aaron's sons etc. And he (and I) unlike Clute and Campbell see God as passive in the destruction of the wicked, both Graham and myself see God as very ACTIVE in the destruction of the wicked.

Where we disagree with the traditional view is that we do not understand the Bible and Mrs. White to teach that Hell Fire is of the same nature as say a match, a burning building, campfire or volcano. But rather hell fire is the bright glory of the physical, visible, tangible presence of God in person, seeing the divinity as well as the humanity in Jesus. It is not where God does something nice for you and something not so nice to someone else, doing some kind of divine spanking. God treats us all the same way. We, all of us get to do what Moses was not able to do, he needed to wait in the cleft of the rock and see the back of God because seeing God's face would have killed him. And even after seeing the back of God the glory reflected off of his face so he needed to wear a veil. This glory is hell fire. Hell fire is not a what or a where but a WHO. It is Seeing the unveiled glory of God. It is getting to see not merely the back of God but also God's front as well!!! When the prophets saw God in vision they felt like they were being burned alive. However as time went by they found that they could not only live in that fire, but found that they thrived in that fire and hated to be out of that fire in coming out to minister to us. At the end God is doing this to all of us.

For some this event is heaven, like the prophets we thrive to be in this fire and to burn in it forever and ever and we do not want to be any place else. It is NOT God being nice to some and having a barbecue to spank the others. It is NOT God being nice to some and passively allowing the others to simply die, but it is one event that is life to some and death to others. If you were to put a ceramic clay sculpture and an ice sculpture into a kiln and turn up the heat the ceramic sculpture will become a work of art that can last, however the ice sculpture will be destroyed. The Kilm is not doing one thing to the clay and a completely different thing to the ice. Nor is it doing something to the clay and passively ignoring the ice. It is doing the EXACT SAME THING to both the clay and the ice, but the clay and ice have very different outcomes from the exact same event.

So with the saved and lost, God does the exact same thing. God treats Judas exactly the same as he treats Peter. He treats Lucifer exactly as he treats Abraham. But while this is heaven and eternal life for Peter and Abraham, it is horror and eternal death to Judas and Lucifer.

I hope you understand the difference between Dr. Maxwell, or myself (I don't see eye to eye with everything with Maxwell, but here we are in the same ball park), and see how we differ from the God does not kill view.

[Kevin H]

Very interested in hearing more about this-

It would make sense that Christ had a 'nature' different than ours in one aspect-

He was God manifest in the flesh, so He would have combined both the nature of God and the nature of man in one (Ephesians 2:15? it seems EGW referenced this idea a number of times in places like FW 30.2).

In that respect, yes, His nature is different- but I thought that by Him bridging that gap we were supposed to be partakers of the divine nature through Him, in that respect, being transformed by His victory- in which case, we would have the same nature as Him not by nature but by inheritance?

Good points and good post.

The church argued the nature of Christ for centuries and finally came to a consensus which I believe was the correct conclusion.

In early Adventism, the doctrine of the trinity was an optional belief, but not a very popular option. Most had accepted the view of the Semi-Arians. William Spicer's father was a Seventh-day Adventist minister but who left the ministry because he was pressured to preach against the trinity, and he was Trinitarian. James White did not say much about the trinity. Gerald Wheeler in doing his book on James White found a study where they interviewed people who had met the Whites to try to learn what James had to say about the trinity. All but one of them, an old man who as a little boy once had lunch with the Whites, said that he was surprisingly quiet on the topic. The old man said that at the dinner he spoke against the trinity. But, while some, there was a drop in articles against the trinity in the Review when he was editor, and towards the end of his life he wrote a letter saying that he had been undecided over the trinity, but was starting to find the arguments for the trinity more convincing than the arguments against the trinity.

With most of Adventism not being Trinitarian at the time, the natural effect was to see God the Father as God not balanced by God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, and thus more focus on the power and control of God and thus more focus on the law, so that we preached the law until we were as dry as the hills of Gilboa. Mrs. White's solution was to balance with moving to a more Trinitarian perspective.

As we accepted this, we moved on to the traditional views of the nature of Christ. Mrs. White tended to quote a theologian (sorry, can't think of his name off hand) who gave a very clear picture of the traditional view of the nature of Christ and she picked some of his best quotes. The church then just took the traditional view of the nature of Christ for granted.

When the discussion for "Questions on Doctrine" was being done, one of the questions was about the nature of Jesus. I wish that they just said "As we accepted the trinity we accepted the traditional view of the nature of Christ" let them read Mrs. White's quotes and the books that she used for her sources. I they did this there would be no problem.

Instead they were caught off guard by the question. Wanted to answer that they knew that Jesus was God, and gave a partial answer. Elder Andresen saw that it was an incomplete answer and wanted to remind them of the rest of the answer. Sadly members then split the truth in half and used one half to fight the other half. Some took the Questions on Doctrine answer as the whole answer, others took the parts that Elder Andresen pointed out was missing in the answer as the whole answer and we have thus ended up in the mess we are in again. I'd love for the church to reprint the writings of that writing who Mrs. White turned to when explaining the nature of Christ and have us read it. Fortunately, from time to time you can find an article in our journals that point this out.

[Gregory Matthews]

SDA Scholars and administrators often see the SDA Church of today as consisting of five (5) distinct groups, instead of the two that you mention. Their problem, however is that they do not agree on what those five groups are.

You have mentioned several of the major issues that do divide the SDA members today and of which people often argue. Those arguments in my thinking have not served to convince a majority. Therefore, I typically refrain from discussing them.

At this point, I guess I will let this subject rest.

[Kevin H]

SDA Scholars and administrators often see the SDA Church of today as consisting of five (5) distinct groups, instead of the two that you mention. Their problem, however is that they do not agree on what those five groups are.

You have mentioned several of the major issues that do divide the SDA members today and of which people often argue. Those arguments in my thinking have not served to convince a majority. Therefore, I typically refrain from discussing them.

At this point, I guess I will let this subject rest.

Exactly!!! And part of the problem is that these groupings have frequently developed in different places independent of each other. Sadly, some of the critics tend to want to make it a two sided issue, show the faults with one sub group and say "Since they are wrong, you have to join us!!!" None of us have all the truth. Jesus was the only place where there was full truth; but even then he would present it to what people in his day was ready to hear, and once you get to the disciples you are getting to their versions and understandings of the gospel.

Even Mark and Luke had some dramatic differences: One glaring one is Mark has Jesus interacting with many people but they all miss the point and don't really know who he is. Finally there is the centurion at the cross who finally understood that Jesus was God, but he was so pagan he expressed the truth in a way that would horrify a good monotheistic Jew "truly this was a son of the gods" which was a pagan expression or a god, a divine being. Luke on the other hand has people knowing who Jesus was from before he was born, and when you get to the centurion all he says is "This was a good man"

As fundamentalists, we tend to not want there to be these problems, and we take the Bible as a list of what we need to do to be saved; the "Historic Adventists" have a longer list, but the "Evangelical Adventists" have a shorter list but still a list and we end up reading the Bible not to learn from it but just for reassurance that our list is right. The problem is when we use our differences to distance ourselves too much from each other and to use our parts of the truth against the rest of the truth. All of us only have parts of the truth, but we can try to be fair to what we understand, share but be willing to evaluate and listen and to understand that we all have things to learn and unlearn.

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

once you get to the disciples you are getting to their versions and understandings of the gospel.

Interesting that you should say that as that would make the Holy Spirit speak "different Truths" to each disciple.

"Above all, you must realize that no prophecy [declared will and purpose] in Scripture ever came from the prophet’s own understanding, or from human initiative. No, those prophets were moved by the Holy Spirit, and they spoke from God."2 Peter 1:20-21 NLT brackets from previous AMP rendering of the scriptures LHC

God cares!

[LifeHiscost]

Quote:

But you never know- I have found that when I study a topic out deeply it usually gets BIGGER and spurs more questions and puts me in awe of God's wisdom and knowledge. And that is what I love about Him

Whenever I consider that God is Love, and never changes, no matter the time or circumstances, I cannot help but accept that even when a life is taken by Him it is out of a sense of Love for all concerned. And after all, the Ten commandments does not say "Thou shalt not kill" in its' original given language". It says "Thou shalt not murder", indicating premeditated malicious intent, inconsistent with this Word below.

"The bed you have made is too short to lie on.

The blankets are too narrow to cover you.

The Lord will come as he did against the Philistines at Mount Perazim

and against the Amorites at Gibeon.

He will come to do a strange thing;

he will come to do an unusual deed:

For the Lord, the Lord of Heaven’s Armies,

has plainly said that he is determined to crush the whole land.

So scoff no more,

or your punishment will be even greater."

Isaiah 28:20-22 NLT

God cares!

[Gregory Matthews]

Quote:

Interesting that you should say that as that would make the Holy Spirit speak "different Truths" to each disciple.

The Holy Spirit leads each person according to what is best for them at that time and leads step by step.

For the purpose of this discussion let us say that both you and I use tobacco, worship on Sunday, earn our living by persuading people to gamble and take God's name in vain.

The HS does not present all that God wants of us at once. It would be too much for our humanity. We could not stand it.

So the HS might decide that the immediate issue that you should face is your use of tobacco and that the immediate issue that I needed to face is the Sabbath.

That is not speaking different truths. It is proceeding step by step but not in the same order. Sooner or later I would face my use of tobacco and you would face the Sabbath.

But it would be all in God's time and in accord for what God wanted for us.

[Gail]

I hear ya, Greg. That is how I've experienced it, too. The Holy Spirit is unifying, but not everyone is a carbon copy of each other. We are led according to His will as to what He sees fit to do in us and that varies from person to person.

[CoAspen]

The only thing I would add to what you said, is, even if the message was the same to each individual, the hearing person 'hears' based on their own life experience. The HS doesn't require us to react the same, impossible, since we all have different levels of understanding. I think life is called a...journey!

[Kevin H]

Greg, Gail and CoAspen: Amen, Amen and Amen!!!