The Shaking of Adventism

[guibox]

I was wondering how many of you have read this book by Geoffrey Paxton. From what I have read so far, I am quite impressed with it. Paxton is very unbiased in his critique.

I really found his analysis of the Reformation principles of justification by faith easy to understand. Without him even going into the SDA aspect of it, it is pretty easy to see where the SDA church falls short in the understanding of justification by faith as understood by the Protestant Reformers.

It also reinforced in my mind the errors of the doctrine of sinless perfection that too many in our church espouse.

The most ironic thing is that for a church that is supposed to be the remnant of the Reformation, the carriers of the forgotten torch, the crusade against Rome, our doctrines and our methodologies fall more in line with the Catholic Church than they do the Protestant reformers.

I'm looking forward to reading the rest of it.

[John317]

I read it when it was published in 1978.

At this point, I would just encourage you to keep reading and studying widely, and not think that Geoffrey J. Paxton is the last word on the subject.

Have you read Face To Face With the Real Gospel, (2008), by Dennis E. Priebe?

[guibox]

No,I haven't read it. However, from my understanding, Dennis Priebe is one of those that I call 'quackventist'. I don't have any tolerance for blind apologism that so many like Korantang-Pippin, the Standish brothers, Larry Kirkpatrick and Vance Ferral promote.Most of the time it is depressing, thick-headed, elitist, soul destroying, legalism and it just plain old makes me tired.

If Priebe's book basically says "salvation is by faith and works and sanctification is part of being saved" like so many sinless perfectionists believe, I wouldn't be interested. I'm not interested in the 'justification by sanctification' philsophy that is rampant in our church. If I want to read that I'll get a Catholic book instead.

[John317]

It's best not to label people. You could be cutting yourself off from some real blessings and insights into Bible truth. I suggest reading before making up your mind about Priebe. Look seriously at what he has to say, the evidence and the reasoning, etc. Approach them with an open mind.

[Woody]

Legalism is a very dangerous teaching that we do need to avoid at all cost. I do understand your concerns. No need to read authors who are known to be legalistic. God would not have that.

Quote:

"Christ for our sakes became poor, that we through His poverty might be made rich. And any works that man can render to God will be far less than nothingness. My requests are made acceptable only because they are laid upon Christ's righteousness. The idea of doing anything to merit the grace of pardon is fallacy from beginning to end. "Lord, in my hand no price I bring, simply to Thy cross I cling." FW 24

[Taylor]

It is true that we shouldn't label people but some mentioned above, while they may be "theologically sound" they do have a focus that is unhealthy of unbalanced. I am not speaking of Dennis Priebe as I haven't read any of his books but I am familiar with some of the others mentioned.

[guibox]

It's best not to label people. You could be cutting yourself off from some real blessings and insights into Bible truth

Why not have labels? What other option do we have with such a diverse set of beliefs in the SDA church that is not recognized by many in each other? In this day and age there is way too much diversity to be considered just a 'Seventh Day Adventist'. The facts are that the conservative element feels that the more liberal type are not true 'Seventh Day Adventist' but simply an appendage of 'Babylon'.

It is is just a logical fact that there are different factions in our church and should be identified as such.

I am a progressive-SDA. There are the liberal SDAs, the progressive SDAs, the conservative SDAs, then there is the uber-conservatives, or quacks. It's a fact that there are different types and categories of believers in our church and always will be.

I don't believe that dialogue or frank and civil discussion shouldn't go on amongst them all, However, from my experience, both sides of the element refuse to find a middle ground. The middle ground is its own faction. If we could learn that being an SDA covers all areas, then we wouldn't have a problem. However, for those who feel that any deviation from pre-1888 theology is tantamount to 'blasphemy' 'compromise' and 'omega of apostasy', it's pretty hard to do.

Anyways, back to the topic at hand.

Any comments on Paxton's book?

[Bravus]

Still seems to me that there are (at least) two major schools in Adventism - call them the 'pure grace' and 'sanctification' schools to be confusing but as fair as possible - who see the shaking of Adventism as the vindication of their position and the elimination of those opposite.

Or, as I put it yesterday, "the problem with this church is those not like me".

And while I appreciate all the posts about it being all about being like Jesus, and agree, unfortunately that tends to boil down to the same thing, since their view of Jesus is modeled on their particular theological emphasis.

[Gail]

I think we are ALL going to be shook up! No sense looking at who's been shaking where- that's the time when we need to kneel often and talk to Jesus.

Gonna be lots of surprises, I have a feeling!

[Bravus]

Whole lotta shakin' goin' on.

[Peace]

How about that! I have Priebe's book right here on the desk.

In the first chapter, "Will the Real Gospel Please Stand Up?" under the paragraph on The Nature of Sin, p. 12, Geoffrey Paxton's book "The Shaking of Adventism" is discussed.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

It's best not to label people. You could be cutting yourself off from some real blessings and insights into Bible truth

Why not have labels?

The problem with labels is that they lead to stereotyping rather than true understanding of someone's position or theology. It leads to name-calling and discarding someone's views on the basis of a label.

Calling some SDAs "quacks" is no more fair than calling another SDA "Babylonish."

My point is that we need to deal with ideas and issues and not call people names and apply labels to them. Too often the name calling is done in order to dismiss the person's viewpoint and discourage anyone from looking seriously at what they are saying.

How many people have been discouraged from studying what Ellen White writes or what Seventh-day Adventists believe simply because of inaccurate and unfair labels?

[Woody]

How about that! I have Priebe's book right here on the desk.

In the first chapter, "Will the Real Gospel Please Stand Up?" under the paragraph on The Nature of Sin, p. 12, Geoffrey Paxton's book "The Shaking of Adventism" is discussed.

Hmmmmmm.

[John317]

Have you read either of these books?

[Woody]

No. I am just giving Peace a bad time. The Shaking of Adventism sounds like a good book.

[Woody]

Right. A good book for a book burning ...

Thanks for the heads up.

[Reddogs]

How about that! I have Priebe's book right here on the desk.

In the first chapter, "Will the Real Gospel Please Stand Up?" under the paragraph on The Nature of Sin, p. 12, Geoffrey Paxton's book "The Shaking of Adventism" is discussed.

Whats his take on Paxton's book.....

[John317]

Both books are worth reading. The Paxton book requires a person to have read a lot of other books, and it's best to have read Paxton's book before reading Dennis Priebe's. They're the kind of books we need to study rather than simply read.

Some of the questions these books deal with:

1) What is sin? Is sin primarily "nature" or "choice"?

2) The place of the historic doctrine of original sin in Reformation theology and in SDA theology.

3) What is the gospel?

4) The Human nature of Christ.

5) Biblical perfection and sinlessness.

6) What is justification?

7) What is righteousness by faith? Does it include both justification and sanctification?

Among many others, Paxton's book looks at the writings of the following people, primarily as they relate to justification by faith--

Ellen White

Robert Brinsmead

Martin Luther

John Calvin

Desmond Ford

A.T. Jones

E.J. Waggoner

Edward Heppenstall

Hans K. LaRondelle

Herbert Douglass

M.L. Andreasen

Roy Allen Anderson

J. W. Lehman

J.L. Tucker

C. Mervyn Maxwell

Russell Standish

Erwin R. Gane

A.G. Daniells

W. H. Branson

LeRoy Edwin Froom

Robert J. Wieland

[Taylor]

Originally Posted By: John317

It's best not to label people. You could be cutting yourself off from some real blessings and insights into Bible truth

I am a progressive-SDA. There are the liberal SDAs, the progressive SDAs, the conservative SDAs, then there is the uber-conservatives, or quacks. It's a fact that there are different types and categories of believers in our church and always will be.

I don't believe that dialogue or frank and civil discussion shouldn't go on amongst them all, However, from my experience, both sides of the element refuse to find a middle ground.

Anyways, back to the topic at hand.

Any comments on Paxton's book?

I had to laugh when I read this. I think that the "conservatives" don't want to "tolerate the liberal views because they are sin" and the liberals don't want to be "tolerant of the conservative views because they are wrong". It is true that finding a middle ground is hard as both sides are intolerant.

However there is also a missunderstanding that says that all truth is ambiguous and that there is nothing that is true no matter the circumstances or the culture etc...i.e. there aren't truths that transcend culture...and that is a real problem as well. The problem on the other side is that people say that everything is "set in stone" and that there is no room for culture no matter how minor the "point" may be.

It is hard to know what to do in that situation as no matter what your stance is you will be labled. But there is truth that is immovable but there are a lot of things that are open to some interpretation as well.

[Taylor]

Both books are worth reading. The Paxton book requires a person to have read a lot of other books, and it's best to have read Paxton's book before reading Dennis Priebe's. They're the kind of books we need to study rather than simply read.

Some of the questions these books deal with:

1) What is sin? Is sin primarily "nature" or "choice"?

2) The place of the historic doctrine of original sin in Reformation theology and in SDA theology.

3) What is the gospel?

4) The Human nature of Christ.

5) Biblical perfection and sinlessness.

6) What is justification?

7) What is righteousness by faith? Does it include both justification and sanctification?

Among many others, Paxton's book looks at the writings of the following people, primarily as they relate to justification by faith--

Ellen White

Robert Brinsmead

Martin Luther

John Calvin

Desmond Ford

A.T. Jones

E.J. Waggoner

Edward Heppenstall

Hans K. LaRondelle

Herbert Douglass

M.L. Andreasen

Roy Allen Anderson

J. W. Lehman

J.L. Tucker

C. Mervyn Maxwell

Russell Standish

Erwin R. Gane

A.G. Daniells

W. H. Branson

LeRoy Edwin Froom

Robert J. Wieland

Why would he even spend time analyzing some of those people?...they are "against mainstream Adventism"....only a few of them mind you but there are some on that list. I suppose one has to "expose the error of their philosophy that almost calls the church babylon etc." (I say almost because they wouldn't come out and do so, simply because EGW says not to but it is a fine line of symantics as they do so on every other way possible without using that word.)

[John317]

Why would he even spend time analyzing some of those people?...they are "against mainstream Adventism"....only a few of them mind you but there are some on that list. I suppose one has to "expose the error of their philosophy that almost calls the church babylon etc." (I say almost because they wouldn't come out and do so, simply because EGW says not to but it is a fine line of symantics as they do so on every other way possible without using that word.)

Paxton, an Angelican cleryman, wrote the book in the middle 1970s during a time when both Robert Brinsmead and Desmond Ford were still very influential. (Desmond Ford's influence, of course, remains strong to this day.) Brinsmead and Ford taught against Ellen White's views on salvation as well as against the Investigative Judgment, the latter being Paxton's primary target. His main thesis is that the true understanding of justification by faith was best expressed by the Reformers, and since the historic Seventh-day Adventist view differs in certain respects from the Reformers, the SDAs are wrong and therefore do not stand in line as heir of the Reformers. (See pp. 18, 38, 39, 147, 148.)

One of the main differences between the Reformers and Seventh-day Adventist is that the Reformers taught the historic doctrine of original sin and Adventists do not. We differ from the Reformers in our understanding of sin. For them, sin is primarily nature, whereas for historic Adventists (to be distinguished from "new theology"), sin is primarily a choice.

[Neil D]

No. I am just giving Peace a bad time. The Shaking of Adventism sounds like a good book.

Redwood,

I know you....and I am having a hard time distinguishing the jokes from who you really are...

please, for our sakes, make your statements more outragious such that it is obvious to us that we know you are joking....for our benefits....

.....k?

[Woody]

Hmmmmmm

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: guibox

I am a progressive-SDA. There are the liberal SDAs' date=' the progressive SDAs, the conservative SDAs, then there is the uber-conservatives, or quacks. It's a fact that there are different types and categories of believers in our church and always will be.

I don't believe that dialogue or frank and civil discussion shouldn't go on amongst them all, However, from my experience, both sides of the element refuse to find a middle ground.

Anyways, back to the topic at hand.

Any comments on Paxton's book?

[/quote']

I had to laugh when I read this. I think that the "conservatives" don't want to "tolerate the liberal views because they are sin" and the liberals don't want to be "tolerant of the conservative views because they are wrong". It is true that finding a middle ground is hard as both sides are intolerant.

However there is also a missunderstanding that says that all truth is ambiguous and that there is nothing that is true no matter the circumstances or the culture etc...i.e. there aren't truths that transcend culture...and that is a real problem as well. The problem on the other side is that people say that everything is "set in stone" and that there is no room for culture no matter how minor the "point" may be.

It is hard to know what to do in that situation as no matter what your stance is you will be labled. But there is truth that is immovable but there are a lot of things that are open to some interpretation as well.

Taylor ... you make some good points. I think that there is truth ... but I don't believe that any one person ... has it all. And I don't think that we are saved by our knowledge ... for it is incomplete and will not be complete until we get to heaven. So, we are not held accountable for a knowledge of all theology. The message of salvation is simple. And that is what we are required to understand. Even with that though God is not limited. He knows our hearts. And that is sufficient for those who were not given a good opportunity to know who God really is.

[Taylor]

True, I don't think any one person has it all either...but there is ultimate truth in God and he can help us understand it piece by piece. We are held accountable of the priority we put into truth and God and in him directing our lives, much more than memorizing the 65th text on a doctrinal topic. However, I also think there is a big blessing in learning all we can about God and the truth that is found in His word. But yes, every human is inperfect and we will continue to get a clearer picture of God throughout all of eternity.

What I do see is that people have a tendancy to say either that "there is no absolute truth" (when God is very specific about a truth and he repeats himself over and over throughout the Bible) or that "everything is absolute" (i.e. there is no "grey area" and no other way to understand even a minute point). Either ditch is a ditch non-the-less. I do think we need to look for principles in things, but we also need to stand for truth when it is something that is very clear and that does apply to all people.

Just my 2 cents. :)