Good stuff. I think if Ellen White were alive today she'd be the leader of the progressive Adventists. Thanks for reminding us that there is always more we can learn about God.

I appreciate your emphasis on context -- it takes a little extra work when reading the Bible or White, but it sure can be informative and even fun to apply the principle, not the syntax, to our times. There's little reason to fear the future when truth is always, already present.

Hi Johnny,

Much, but not all, of “progressive Adventism” is embedded in the “historical critical” method. If you said as the Reformers, “Always Reforming”, I can accept that. What I can not personally accept is the deconstruction of scripture by the skeptical method incorporated in the HC method that undermines the concept of sola scriptura.

Since you refer to EGW, this is what she ALSO SAYS in regards to that “method” as it relates to the inspired Scriptures. I find many twist as a wax nose her writings, as also scripture, to get the meaning they desire.

This is part of the problem in the SDA church and why I see Scripture is indeed necessary and essential as our final authority...and not only as interpreted by EGW either.

"Christ's servants are to do the same work. In our day, as of old, the vital truths of God's word are set aside for human theories and speculations. Many professed ministers of the gospel do not accept the whole Bible as the inspired word. One wise man rejects one portion; another questions another part. They set up their judgment as superior to the word; and the Scripture which they do teach rests upon their own authority. Its divine authenticity is destroyed. Thus the seeds of infidelity are sown broadcast; for the people become confused and know not what to believe. There are many beliefs that the mind has no right to entertain. In the days of Christ the rabbis put a forced, mystical construction upon many portions of Scripture. Because the plain teaching of God's word condemned their practices, they tried to destroy its force. The same thing is done today. The word of God is made to appear mysterious and obscure in order to excuse transgression of His law. Christ rebuked these practices in His day. He taught that the word of God was to be understood by all. He pointed to the Scriptures as of unquestionable authority, and we should do the same. The Bible is to be presented as the word of the infinite God, as
the end of all controversy and the foundation of all faith." {COL 39.1}

"There are some that may think they are fully capable with their finite judgment to take the Word of God, and to state what are the words of inspiration, and what are not the words of inspiration. I want to warn you off that ground, my brethren in the ministry. "Put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou standest is holy ground." There is no finite man that lives, I care not who he is or whatever is his position, that God has authorized to pick and choose in His Word." {7BC 919.2}

"The warnings of the word of God regarding the perils surrounding the Christian church belong to us today. As in the days of the apostles men tried by tradition and philosophy to destroy faith in the Scriptures, so today, by the pleasing sentiments of higher criticism, evolution, spiritualism, theosophy, and pantheism, the enemy of righteousness is seeking to lead souls into forbidden paths. To many the Bible is as a lamp without oil, because they have turned their minds into channels of speculative belief that bring misunderstanding and confusion. The work of higher criticism, in dissecting, conjecturing, reconstructing, is destroying faith in the Bible as a divine revelation. It is robbing God's word of power to control, uplift, and inspire human lives. By spiritualism, multitudes are taught to believe that desire is the highest law, that license is liberty, and that man is accountable only to himself." {AA 474.1}

From that 'ole “literalist, fundamentalist, conservative” Pat who does however recognize the various genres of scripture and appreciates sound exegetical method.

Regards

pat

Pat,

I'm hearin' you!

Frank

Pat,
Your assessment of progressive Adventism or, considering the thrust of my post and lack of clarification in your comment, present truth misses the mark. Some people who do define themselves as progressive Adventists are happy assigning specific views to this label. You'll also find that seemingly everyone who isn't a progressive Adventist and wants to criticise their conception of what it is wants to assign us particular views while most theologians who discuss the ethos which I argue is the core of progressive Adventism do so with broad strokes. You can see this being done more directly by Julius Nam and alluded to in more general terms in his presentation of Adventist theologising by Fritz Guy.

That is an intentional acknowledgment of the fact that what we confront always changes, how we confront remains constant. So this outlook, method and attitude is our defining characteristic. It remains constant across internal divisions within progressive Adventism (which do exist) and without in the church at-large.

A presentation of progressive Adventism should rightly be centered on its enduring quality as to do otherwise would confuse a method for its application. Thanks!

In the old days it was called "new light" now it is just old humanism. There is more Plato than Paul in the whole lot. Tom

Johnny,

All I am saying is that there can be no Unity of "the faith" that all be as one, if there is no ultimate authority...because all can "legitimately" create their own understanding of "the faith."

If scripture as ultimate authority and as God's inspired word is not assummed then what hope of unity other than polar groups that accept it or denying it?

This by no means is saying that we can not disagree on a legitimate scriptural exegesis of a specific passage and be brothers and sisters in Christ. It does say that scripture can not be deconstructed to our liking and then reframed to get the outcome we desire.

Regards

pat

Pat,
If "unity of the faith that all may be as one" means uniformity, no. Diverse perspectives united in pursuit of truth, yes. Indeed, new light must be tested against authority and do see this is not an individual task but a corporate pursuit undertaken by the church as a whole. Speaking about my own views, I think you may be assuming incorrectly as I agree with you that scripture is our standard and I do see it as an inspired text- the authority against which new light is tested.

I am interested in hearing you characterise "always reforming" with an eye on how that is or isn't present truth and what it was that made you think I was suggesting that " scripture can not be deconstructed to our liking and then reframed to get the outcome we desire." Honestly I felt the first EGW quote suggested that was exactly what we shouldn't do.

Johnny, I happily concede that I may be simple-minded, but how does one accomnplish this: ”Each day we need to learn more of Jesus Christ” which clearly implies that there is no end to learning new truth about God and how God relates with us.

Where do we go to learn more of Jesus. The last I checked there are NO original sayings OR writings of Jesus. People wrote as the remembered stories of him, and they vary in a great number of ways. It is futile attempting to try consistency in the reports of him. Where does on go to "learn" more of Him? There are thousands of books written about him. Are they good sources? They are still only one's personal opinion, based on studies that probably have been made.

Do we go to Schweitzer's "The Historical Jesus"
or "Who is Jesus" by Crossan? Or, if we limit it only to the Bible, is that the end of our learning? Or, does it imply meditation, prayer and "thinking about Jesus"?

These questions have been raised before. The common expectation is that people should be able to learn more, but for some, there is also a danger that they will discover what leads to skepticism.

Specifity would help when this advice is given.

Johnny,

I think both of our previous posts were erased...I received your email that yours was sent by accident.

I am all for seeking unity and I truly don't know your personal meaning of "progressive" unless it just means change and that is not all bad as related to strict "adventist" conservatism that views EGW as equal to scripture in practical application.(Under what circumstances is she allowed to be wrong as regards scriptural interpretation?)

On the other pole, I repeat that Many adventist "progressives" view scripture though the lens of historical criticism. In my view this method gives to much subjective lattitude to the interpreter and emphasis is on the writers cultural setting rather than the Spirit conveying a message to the biblical writer that is not limited by that temporal cultural understanding. It does not have to conform to analogy or correlation to known events or writings of that time or later.

In lower criticism many SDA and other religious "progressives" doubt the accuracy and possibility of a faithfully transmitted scriptural text presently for faith and practice.

You may not share that view exhibited in HC...but to expect unity of "the faith" when some "progressives" suppose that view is simply fruitless. I suggest we rather would be adopting a humanistic cultural interpretation for supposed "unity."

Likewise important is the meaning of words. In early Barth for example God is so transcendent that He can not convey meaning and thought though human words. Therefore subjective encounter takes precedent over the objective meaning of words and scripture. Is there an objective/propositional truth to be found in scripture or is it just subjective?

"Always reforming" is allowing for a "possible" better understanding of the original inspired text of God through sound exegesis individually and through a community which is led of God's Spirit (present truth). God's Spirit will not speak contrary to the recorded previous words spoken in Spirit inspired scripture by revising and reframing them however as He was the original conveyer of the inspired thoughts through chosen writers who could best and accurately convey those thoughts.

As you suggest, Unity does not mean uniformity but it will and must recognize the whole of scripture to be the inspired word of God as its presupposition if we are to be one in the Spirit...at least that is my view...For there is but One Lord, One Faith, and One Baptism to God's glory.

Does that view exist among "progressives"?

pat

I find much delight in reading through honest, candid, amicable threads. Something within seems to beat in unison. Julius and I have bounced back and forth in the attempt to express clearly what is meant by "progressive." Labels numb discussion. In politics, "progressives" most identifies the political "left,"and that too often leans toward the bureacratic state with the government as the source of benevolence, sort of the moral embodiment of the collective desire to bring about social justice as a practical reality. And thus those who disagree are mean-spirited reactionaries. Granted, both groups don't always behave winsomely and appropriately. But the so-called constitutionalists, or conservatives see, with good reason, the bureaucratic state as increasingly tyrannical,etc.

In religious circles, we something almost a mirror image. Both sides can quickly dim the image of God within. It seems to me the bottom line is the definition of sin and what God wants to do about it in the grand scheme of things. Truth is forever unfolding and will so do throughout eternity.

But truth is like the unfolding roses in my garden. I enjoy the bud, the growing petals, and full-spread of the rose--but all that takes time--the unfolding is surely progressive. But progress in the unfolding rose does not "deconstruct" the rose in fulfilling its destiny. Of course, we could try to add adventiously (in some kind of biological experiment) an attempted improvement on my beautiful rose and the experimenting gardener may be called "progressive" but nothing really has been "progress."

I guess it all ends up in defining what we mean by "progress" and "progressive" and "unfolding." Cheers, Herb

Pat and Elaine,
Before I said that a proper presentation of Progressive Adventism should rightly be centered on its enduring quality as to do otherwise would confuse a method for its application. But you are asking how the work of Progressive Adventists looks like presently.

To quote a friend who emailed me,

Progressive Adventism is an attitude toward change and a set of methods for dealing with it before it is a set of ideas or doctrines. But those who are willing to acknowledge and applaud the reality of constant change will always be less traditional in their actual teachings than those who aren't.

I don't know how the church will look like in 150 years but I'm sure their theological discussions will sound different than ours. And talking about current theologising within Adventism is fair and good but we do that all the time on the Spectrum blog don't we. My own views and those of many others are readily accessible if anyone is curious.

However I still think it is interesting in and of itself to ask what worldview informs this work.

So yes, I have chosen to focus on the ethos which funded the work of Ellen G. White and her contemporaries, funds Progressive Adventists presently and will hopefully continue to fund the theologising of our Seventh-day Adventist church in the future!

Herb,
"Truth is forever unfolding and will so do throughout eternity." Wonderful.

Thanks Johnny--I really appreciate your post. Thank you for continuing to emphasize that this mindset is an ethos, a method, an approach--it's not just a particular doctrine or belief. Your friend says it well, "Progressive Adventism is an attitude toward change and a set of methods for dealing with it before it is a set of ideas or doctrines. But those who are willing to acknowledge and applaud the reality of constant change will always be less traditional in their actual teachings than those who aren't."

Herb--love the rose metaphor! What a beautiful concept.

Try my version of the first paragraph:

Ultimately I see myself as a [human being] full stop. But how can we all be [human] when we have so much diversity within our [species] from our faces to our worship, the challenges we're confronting and the joys we experience?

Life is about variation. Those who seek cookie-cutter existence are seperatinig themselves from this reality.

Johnny and Herb,

I appreciate Herb's Metaphor, " But progress in the unfolding rose does not "deconstruct" the rose in fulfilling its destiny."

There are always continuities along with discontinuities. The Holy Scripture is the constant...remove proper exegesis of scripture and the continuity of "Redemptive History" focusing on Christ and then I suggest one has made the rose into a fruit smelling like Durian.

Some do that Johnny (not suggesting you do) for the concept of change and inclusivity.

Regards,
Pat

Pat is simply dead wrong in identify "progressive" Adventists with higher criticism or the "HC" method. Look at the official biography of Ellen White. She is identified as part of the progressive wing of Adventism and she certainly did not accept higher criticism. The notable progressive leaders of the 1950s-1980s did not accept higher criticism. All of these progressive Adventists were solid in their conservative approach to the Bible.

Pat are you trying to say that progressive Adventists do not believe in inerrancy? That is likely true. In fact, historically Seventh-day Adventists have not believed in inerrancy. It is only in recent decades that this concept has begun to worm its way into the Adventist Church.

Look at the Spirit of Prophecy references to "progressive." They are all positive. Look at the Spirit of Prophecy references to "conservative." They are all negative. What does that tell you?

Monte

Actions speak louder than words. In the context of Spectrum--Progressive means permissive: Review of Novels, Movies, Dining out on Sabbath, Open letters to the President of the G.C. on Homosexuality, Process Theology, everything but touching the third rail directly. Just get into the magnetic field.

Progressive was the Book "Answers to Questions on Doctrine"
Name one who's name is still intact that contributed to that work! Progressive was Des Ford's paper--name anyone with their career still intact that found any "light" in it!
Progressive is calling Sunday "keepers" brother and sister.

Tom

Tom,
Actually Julius Nam identifies two responses to QOD with the dominant view seeing QOD as placing us within Biblical Christianity/ Evangelicalism and a second response which sees QOD as the beginning of endtime apostasy. David Larson identifies a third response which saw the entire thing as a squabble amongst fundamentalists.

It is true that QOD was a dialogue between ourselves and evangelicals and that some groups are today also building bridges between Adventism and some Evangelicals but your associating that push (past or present) with Progressive Adventism is quite interesting to read indeed!

Johnny

You were (are) very kind. My point is not that novels, movies, eating out are bad. I just don't think they represent progressive ventures. Of course, you know, my position on homosexuality and the issue of membership.

I was urged to stay within Adventism and work for change from the inside. Such a possibility waas (is) hopeless in the deep South. I know that Calif. is different. But I think the mind set at the G.C. is parallel to that of Augusta, Ga.

My thoughts on classic or orthodox Process Theology is that it challenges or denies every point of the Apostles Creed--it has its roots in Hellenistic thought not Pauline Theology.

I think the scholars who engaged in dialogue with Barnhoue and Martin were solid Christians and loyal Seventh-day Adventists--The first wave in reception was very positive.

The backlash is still wounding the Church. Refer the G.C. president's remarks.

My interests are bound with my roots within Adventism, but from a viewpoint that we all are kin--church identity has nothing to do with salvation. Good Luck on Progress--go slow on permissiveness! Tom

Hi Monte,

I recall deliberately saying "Much, but not all, of “progressive Adventism” is embedded in the “historical critical” method.

May I qualify that by saying as I understand "progressive" of say the last 20 yrs in the church. Help me as everyone is entitled to say what they mean by words.Would you say in your own "nomenclature" that Des Ford was a "progressive"...or what classification as regards SDA church?

How about Froom and Questions on Doctrine? How do you classify them?

As I stated if part of "progressive" is to move "conservative Adventist" away from... in practical application making EGW equal to scripture then that is good.(i.e.Can you demonstrate where she had an error or "possible" error regarding scriptural issues acknowleged openly by the church?)

In that sense "progressive" in Adventist culture is good in my view. I find Calvinist and Methodist able to say that Calvin and Wesley were not without possible error in regards to their scriptural understanding yet they remain highly esteemed and are often referenced.

Am I answering you?

PS. Is a "conservative, evangelical" understanding of scripture and exegetical method acceptible in today's "progressive Adventism"?

regards,

pat

Tom,
Likewise, of course you know my views on the issues you outlined. And of course I am trying to emphasise that while we are talking about lunch at Olive Garden on Sabbath afternoons today, in EGW's time it was that sinful contraption, the bicycle.

And speaking theologically, early Adventists would react quite harshly to a conference by an Adventist theological society at one of our schools asserting that the trinity is a mark of Seventh-day Adventist identity.

Progressive Adventism is talking about homosexuality, origins, women's ordination and the rest because it is Adventist to believe we have more to learn. It seems ridiculous to me for people to argue that all truth has been received and that it is not being presently revealed.

Of course rejecting the idea that truth is to be defended and embracing the idea that it is to be continually tested makes us less traditional. If there is anything being rejected by "present truth" it is fundamentalism not conservative or liberal.

We need be careful as Progressive Adventists that when discussing our present views we don't confuse an approach for its application. That we don't make our present concerns the definition of what it means to be a Progressive Adventist. Doing so would take away our most timeless quality and the ethos which can be our lasting and greatest contribution to the Seventh-day Adventist church. Challenge the church today, yes. Change the way we approach challenges now and in the future, absolutely. Yes, yes and yes again.

I've got another quote for you from "Labourers Together With God" p. 297 by EGW.

Whenever the people of God are growing in grace, they will be constantly obtaining a clearer understanding of His word. They will discern new light and beauty in its sacred truths. This has been true in the history of the church in all ages, and thus it will continue to the end.

I understand what Tom means when he says, "just don't touch the third rail."

It actually seems safer in Adventism to be progressive about such issues as homosexuality and membership, abortion, the openess of God, and to discuss such matters openly. But just begin to openly question our views on the prophetic status of EGW, or the viability of the IJ doctrine in the name of progressive thought and revelation, and I wonder what would happen? Would it be any different than 25-30 years ago?

Or do progressives in the church today look at these issues as largely irrelevant, things that will simply shrivel up and die over time for lack of water?

Just thinking out loud...

Frank

Johnny

I am 100% in favor of the ordination of women. I am 100% in favor of Christian fellowship with homosexuals and 100% against granting them membership status while remaining active homosexuals. I think where, when, and what you eat or drink is strictly your business.

Another Zwemer story: While Associate Dean of the School of Dentistry at the Medical College of Georgia, I recruited eight Seventh-day Adventists dentists to join the faculty.
Each were very active in the local Church all holding at one time or another Eldership positions. Every seven years the School of Dentistry underwent a comprehensive accreditation review. This was a week long affair. On the final Friday afternoon, the dean had a beer party in one of the labs for students and faculty. Of course soft drinks and snacks were provided also.

Early in the festivities, the dean poked me in the ribs and pointed across the room. There was an SDA faculty member stuffing cans of beer in his lab coat, and one under each arm and then sneaking out the back door of the lab to drink his beer alone. The dean said, I don't care if he drinks beer or not but if he is going to drink my beer he better @#&*@ drink it with me.

So I am with the dean and with Paul. What ever you eat or drink or where or when you do so do it unto the Lord. Tom

P.S. I am awhere of the Trinity issue in early Adventism.
As you know I have serious doubts about some of the current 28 also. If you mean to be progressive in exegisis then a long hard look at Dan. 8: 14 and Rev. 14: 6- are very good starting places. A correct reading of those Scriptures would crmuble the primary pillars of the Church. It is so plainly writen that no Scripture is of any private interpretation. Challenging isn't it?

Tom,
Really, an excellent reply. And a great story whose moral is appreciated.
Thanks,
Johnny

Pat, I think Des Ford is better classified as an evangelical Adventist instead of a progressive Adventist. Most progressive Adventists are not focused on changes in doctrine, but in seeing the church advance in its mission, engage new generations and adapt to changes in society. Froom was definitely among the progressive leaders of his time and retired as a GC officer. From my perspective the reason why QOD appears somewhat sloppy in its theology is because it was not an attempt to do theology, but an attempt to end the sectarian nature of Adventism in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s, to open communication with other conservative Protestants. Most of the progressive leaders and thinkers in the Church today, so far as I am aware, do not use any significantly different approach to scripture than is used by other conservative Protestant Bible scholars, that is those who do not buy into inerrancy.

Hi Monte,

Classifying Des Ford as evangelical as opposed to progressive seems a way of using labels and classifications to get around the reality of his actions. He was questioning one of the main teachings of Adventism and advocating a move forward, as he saw it, in our view. Isn't that by nature progressive?

Which brings the issue back to what is safe and unsafe to be openly progressive about in Adventist circles. If one advocates advancing mission, engaging new generations, adapting to cultural changes, that is safe. If one honestly challenges long held doctrinal views such as the IJ or EGW, in the name of scriptural and scholarly investigation, does one still "take ones life into one's hands?"

Thanks...

Frank

Monte,

If I were Des, I would take that as a compliment..."an evangelical" Adventist! I agree, but... What does that make the rest of our official church today? "... Non-evangelical?

I am often referred to as a "literalist" on this "progressive" blog by Alex and others due to "conservative Protestant evangelical exegetical assumptions and method."

So what you are saying that most of the "progressive" leaders in the church today are using "conservative Protestant scholarship" and therefore by association on this blog would be called "literalist?"

I would check that out Monte! You see, I would truly like to see today's "progressive" honestly defined in relation to their view of scripture and exegetical method. If they don't share the conservative position ok but openly say so and don't call those who don't share their view "literalist" with a pejorative meaning.

Des Ford was/is to my understanding a "conservative Protestant 'evangelical' Bible scholar."

Regards,

pat

Frank

Des Ford wasn't trying to undermine a primary doctrine of the SDA church. He was trying to give the Church a firm foundation for its unique exegesis. He was treated in a very unchristian manner for his efforts. Des wasn't challenging the IJ. He was attempting to give it credence to biblical scholars beyond SDA borders.

Now the SDA church stands alone without an exegetic leg to stand on! And it was their own doing! Tom

Pat,
In October 2006 I wrote a blog entry asking what was meant by SAU's statement that their School of Religion faculty have "solid conservative Adventist credentials".

It would be a mistake to characterise Fritz Guy's project in "Thinking Theologically" as presenting a Progressive Adventist perspective. Of course he is presenting a historically Adventist way of approaching the theological task but are all Adventists as comfortable with present truth as he is? I don't think so.

Conservative has many connotations and I would suggest that it would be difficult to believe in both present truth or truth as progressive or envision that new truths can be found today and still posses "solid conservative credentials".

Yet words are political in that they send messages and that statement does two things. The first is broadcasting its uniform perspective- a political statement. The second is to identify what they conceive the theological task to be- the world view and ethos of their theological faculty.

I would suggest that a good Adventist theologian would see his task not as preserving and defending beliefs but as engaging new light and constantly seeking to have all truth tested. I see Ellen G. White in the quotes in the article itself as directly suggesting that a "solid conservative" perspective isn't Adventist at all. That a conservative and/or fundamentalist posture stands against the entire Seventh-day Adventist project. Such Adventism has two parts, its ethos and the beliefs it articulates.

This takes us back to the definition offered by Julius Nam. This is where Progressive Adventism is beyond liberal and conservative. I would suggest that the key to understanding this is fundamentalism. The defining characteristic isn't the views you hold but your attitude towards other views and your openness to seeing your views tested and receptivity to diverse perspectives.

Seen this way Progressive Adventism can, on top of promoting a presently relevant agenda of women's ordination etc., seek to reaffirm the Seventh-day Adventist ethos (towards truth and new light) that is currently found most often within Progressive Adventism.

Progressive Adventism does indeed have two parts also, its ethos and its articulations. Now we can debate beliefs and that is exactly what we should be doing but a doctrinare stance could hardly be said to be Seventh-day Adventist- we would have to re-imagine our roots and re-invent the Adventist story to portray ourselves as fundamentalist.

I would like to hear that it is a mistake to characterise Southern as having a doctrinare world view. That present truth is alive and well there. There are liberal Adventists- it just seems to me that they're far more comfortable with our Progressive Adventist origins than our conservative brothers and sisters are. That is why I feel reaffirming and spreading this historically Adventist ethos that is present truth is the best enduring contribution Progressive Adventism can make to the world church.

Tom,

I feel you are wrong on this particular issue. Des was challenging the vaildity of Dan.8:14 and 2300 days ending in 1844. Des is not opposed to the "concept" of a "pre-advent" judgment in the sense that "who will be destroyed with the brighteness of His coming" if our pre-millenial and heavenly millenial concept is correct without having a momentary judgment proceeding His appearing but not an IJ beginning in 1844.
He was trying also to use various writings of EGW as best He could to show that Christ entered the M.Holy place at His ascension...not later in 1844. He was also trying to show the possibility of multiple "applications" to prophetic verses such as Mk.13:14 as they
applied in similar situations in later history.

You are correct in that I believe He was making a sincere legitimate effort to reconcile our teachings with conservative Protestant scriptural exegesis. The church denied it and perhaps thereby created "modern progressivism"
in SDAdventism.(Just talking aloud)

Regards my Friend...perhaps Des may choose to clarify?

pat

Hi Johnny,

You State, "I would suggest that the key to understanding this is fundamentalism. You can have a "liberal" and "conservative" fundamentalist just as you can have a "liberal" and "conservative" Progressive Adventist. The defining characteristic isn't the views you hold but your attitude towards other views and your openness to seeing your views tested and receptivity to diverse perspectives."

Johnny, I see it as a more basic issue and that is ones view of scripture. EGW was clear on her view of scripture in regards to, "As in the days of the apostles men tried by tradition and philosophy to destroy faith in the Scriptures, so today, by the pleasing sentiments of higher criticism, evolution, spiritualism, theosophy, and pantheism, the enemy of righteousness is seeking to lead souls into forbidden paths. To many the Bible is as a lamp without oil, because they have turned their minds into channels of speculative belief that bring misunderstanding and confusion. The work of higher criticism, in dissecting, conjecturing, reconstructing, is destroying faith in the Bible as a divine revelation. It is robbing God's word of power to control, uplift, and inspire human lives."

That is a "challenge" to "modern SDA progressivism's" method...wouldn't you say in all honesty?

pat

PS. To anyone interested, J.Gresham Machen described these current issues concerning "progressivism/modernism" in 1924 in His book, "Christianity and Liberalism" as regards to the meaning of The Bible, Christ , salvation, and the church.

Machen left Princeton due to the influences of higher criticism and helped form Westminster Theological Seminary over the nuances of these issues.

Pat,
I'm sorry but I just don't agree with the idea that there is a single progressive Adventist Biblical hermeneutic. I don't share your fear of various ways of reading Scripture or your characterisation of "higher criticism" (a term far more significant to those who oppose it).

Instead of presenting my view of Scripture why don't I tell you how I think we should respond to Process Theology and its view of natural revelation. Currently we prefer Scripture in formulations of beliefs
a. any suggestion to the contrary needs solid Biblical support
b. such a position belongs within the Adventist conversation
c. preferring natural revelation to scripture in the formulations of beliefs is something that can be done if scripture can be said to allow such a move
d. that this task should be undertaken by the community as a whole
e. we have such voices within our church
f. we should listen to them and give them careful consideration
g. it would be un-Adventist to dismiss them off-hand
h. what process theologians and others are doing is Adventist precisely because they are in conversation with the wider community submitting themselves and their work to scrutiny and consideration
i. the above is precisely what is happening now and it's not a threat
j. if it's compelling and the church agrees, wonderful. if not, we keep on talking.

I would argue that the NT church's response to circumcision is an example of where the church community as a whole can come together and decide how it should approach a new group, the Gentiles, and how they fit into Christian community in light of established, and scripturally informed, belief. The Holy Spirit was active then and can be active now.

/not a complete articulation of my view of Scripture or how doctrines should be formulated
//Christianity without Scripture makes no sense to me.
///there is something Adventist which cannot be violated. That parameter is defined by the local church which is the highest authority in the ecclesial life of each individual member.

Hi Pat and Tom...

As far as I've understood what Ford was saying, Pat, you seem to encapsulate it quite well.

This leads me to several observations. If Ford was advocating a view of the judgement that was pre-advent, that ties together both justification by faith and judgement by works, that would spur a person to live in gratitude and accountabilty to Christ, the one who is their Savior and Judge, that gives one the assurance that as long as one is in honest relationship with Christ, then one stands in him in his judgement, then the only substantive practical difference that I can see between his views and the views published by official denominational organs today, is the timeframe...i.e. 1844 vs. the 1st. c and a momentary judgement before Jesus' return.

One of the reasons I say this, is that I read an article by Ford, in which he warmly endorsed a paper by Ivan Blazen called 'Justification and the Judgement.' Blazen's paper articulated everything stated above (I've read the paper also). The only quibble that Ford had with it, was the dating and defense of 1844. It seems that our practical view of judgement(meaning how this would impact one's everyday life in Christ) that we now articulate as a denomination, seem far closer to Ford's than say 25-30 years ago.

Also, as far as I know, Ford was not denying the idea that we are standing at the brink of the eschaton. He also put forth the idea that the end time actually began at Calvary, and was announced in the 1st c. gospel proclamation, something that must be reckoned with from the NT.

With all this said, it seems we're left with an argument over a date. My question is, does the denial or affirmation of this date have any real impact on one's relationship to Christ? If one is truly living within the reality of Christ as their justifier and judge as stated above, what practical difference does this date make today? In addition, is what Ford was saying threatening one's relationship to Christ, or was it more threatening to Adventist self-identification and self-understanding?

This, to me, is the more troubling aspect of this whole episode. If one of the central pillars of our self understanding/identification is a time frame that does not make a substantive difference in the lives of people, if it doesn't practically bring them any nearer to or further from God, then we are left with defending a self focus for the sake of self preservation.

This is what leaves me wondering about the whole concept of 'progressive Adventism.' In theory, it sounds great. It stands in line with our roots, our ideas of progressive truth, etc. But in practice, where do we really stand? EGW, while progressive, brooked no oppositon on the sanctuary doctrine and 1844. She dismissed Ballinger out of hand without ever reading his scriptural analysis on the issue. That's a fundamentalist stance that's been bequeathed by one of our founders to us as well.

It just feels like we can move forward progressively, as long as no one talks about the eight hundred pound elephant in the middle of the living room. And if anyone really dares to, they're asked to leave the room.

Please, feel free to clear up any misconceptions or over-simplifications I may be expressing.

Thanks...

Frank

Hi Frank, Tom, Johnny,

I appreciate the conversation about Des (who I greatly respect) but only in context.
I don't want to completely divert the conversation from the issue of what constitutes Johnny's "progressivism"…as I would appreciate more clarity from him.

This issue is not about Des (for those who would in SDA then call us Fordites) but about what happens to those "such as Ford" who do hold to the Sola's of the Protestant Reformation and how that relates to modern day "progressivism" as well as "traditional SDA" and why as "Adventist Today" recently pointed out Adventist evangelicals feel left out as referred to on this blog.

You see, in my estimation, those Sola's restrain both "modernism/progressivism", "natural revelation" as well as the traditional SDA application of extra-biblical sources such as EGW. Over application of these poles potentially reframes orthodox Christianity and Protestant Christianity.

It is my view that both of these "poles" diminish the final authority of scripture for "faith and practice" and emphasis seems to always be placed on "something else."

So in the "case of Des" who Monte correctly called an "Evangelical Adventist", I suggest He got either "weak" support from the "liberal progressives" of the 70's or complete dismissal from the "traditionalist SDA's."

That's how it appears to me to be the "so what" of application of this issue to real life.

Thus we come to what Tom sees and says : "In the context of Spectrum--Progressive means permissive: Review of Novels, Movies, Dining out on Sabbath, Open letters to the President of the G.C. on Homosexuality, Process Theology, everything but touching the third rail directly. Just get into the magnetic field." ...and... "My thoughts on classic or orthodox Process Theology is that it challenges or denies every point of the Apostles Creed--it has its roots in Hellenistic thought not Pauline Theology."

(Perhaps we could add Open Theism, religious pluralism and inclusivism, pantheism, syncretism, political party preferences, and a tendency towards deep environmentalism…all of which are fair enough conversation and should be judged by their own virtues…"not association" on the site)

But…how often do we keep the focus on the life, death, and resurrection of Christ for the forgiveness of sins? Do these “progressive” subjects and applications tend to diminish or enhance what I believe to be the focus of the NT leading to the blessed hope?

The following articles on the the issue of “fundamentalism and modernism” and Machen are interesting and educational history as they relate to the “progressive” issue in general as well as “historical criticism’s” role.

Machen separated from original “fundamentalism” as it began to incorporate a particular eschatology and this highly educated NT scholar from “Old Princeton” roots preferred to be “conservative” along with the group that formed Westminster Theological Seminary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist-Modernist_Controversy
and more specific of Machen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gresham_Machen

I believe you have a contemporary of EGW in Machen defining the scriptural “higher criticism” she referred to and where in his opinion it would lead...a previously "unknown Christianity."

THE BOTTOM LINE…How do we see Scripture and the picture it paints of Christ who is Christianity...the lamb slain for forgiveness of sins.

I have "family" things to do today but I'll be back later.

Pat

Hi Everybody!

Because it is the only thing I can contribute to this worthy conversation, I would like everyone to know that I am "the friend" of Johnny's who emailed these lines to him:

"Progressive Adventism is an attitude toward change and a set of methods for dealing with it before it is a set of ideas or doctrines. But those who are willing to acknowledge and applaud the reality of constant change will always be less traditional in their actual teachings than those who aren't."

I know I can't do better than that!

Many thanks, Johnny, for your provocative essay and for the sparkling conversation that is continuing!! <:)<[<><><

Dave

Dave,

While change is true my friend Dave, "Constant change" reminds me a bit of country music "philosophy". While doing chores around the house I was listening to the TV Classic country channel and heard Roy Clark's "Between Love and Tomorrow."

You see as Roy tells the story, The gal he fell in love with yesterday... because things were constantly changing was not to be the girl he was in love with as time proceeded towards tomorrow.

May that first "gal" be not the good news of the cross of Christ in our lives as we wait patiently for the bridegroom to come "tomorrow."

:~)

pat

Hi Pat

I think the answer to the question as to whether someone is the same person today that he or she was yesterday depends a great deal upon why we are asking the question and the relevant points of comparison.

If we are granting liscenses to drive cars, it is very important to us that at the relevant point of comparison someone who is eighteen years old is not the same person he or she was at eighteen months.

But if we are distributing the assets of an estate in harmony with a bequest, it is equally important that at the relevant point of comparison the eightteen year old is in fact the same individual he or she was at eighteen months.

So, would it not be acceptabe to say that, at the point of comparions that matters to our salvation, God is the same yesterday, today and tommorrow. But that in many other ways God may be changing a lot.

As to marriage, I think we all do well seriously to ponder the words of that Roy Clark song.

When we marry we know that the one with whom we walk down the aisle will not be exactly the same person decades later. So we make an educated guess that the changes through which we know we will go will bring us closer to each other. Sadly, sometimes it doesn't work out that way.

Thank you, Pat! One can learn a lot about life by listening to country music!

Dave

Pat

For what it may or may not be worth, I think the debates among SDAs about "historical criticism" have been beset by the different ways the respective parties use the term.

Those who don't like it insist that it now means what those who first formulate said. Those who do like it say that for them it doesn't mean that. So round and round we go, never agreeing and never truly disagreeing either.

The word "criticism" for many of us for whom the Old and New Testaments are the religious canon as well as a cultural classic, already has the wrong "ring." Why not use another term?

Meanwhile, my impression from looking over the shoulders of textual scholars of all sorts is that "historical criticism" as typically understood is not as fashionable as it once was.

People seem to think that we have gained as much as we can from breaking the texts down into the smallest possibe units for which situations in life are then found. Increasingly I sense an eagerness to view the document as a single aesthetic whole.

It might be sad if we keep going back and forth about HC when others are moving on to other things.

Thank you!

Dave

Dave,

Fair enough with this caveat,We need to remember HC's "progressive" effects on historic Christianity...all change is not good and it has done much damamge to scriptures "credibility" as God's inspired word...would you not concur?

Another favorite Song of mine.

Come, Thou Fount of every blessing,
Tune my heart to sing Thy grace;
Streams of mercy, never ceasing,
Call for songs of loudest praise.
Teach me some melodious sonnet,
Sung by flaming tongues above.
Praise the mount! I’m fixed upon it,
Mount of Thy redeeming love.

Sorrowing I shall be in spirit,
Till released from flesh and sin,
Yet from what I do inherit,
Here Thy praises I’ll begin;
Here I raise my Ebenezer;
Here by Thy great help I’ve come;
And I hope, by Thy good pleasure,
Safely to arrive at home.

Jesus sought me when a stranger,
Wandering from the fold of God;
He, to rescue me from danger,
Interposed His precious blood;
How His kindness yet pursues me
Mortal tongue can never tell,
Clothed in flesh, till death shall loose me
I cannot proclaim it well.

O to grace how great a debtor
Daily I’m constrained to be!
Let Thy goodness, like a fetter,
Bind my wandering heart to Thee.
Prone to wander, Lord, I feel it,
Prone to leave the God I love;
Here’s my heart, O take and seal it,
Seal it for Thy courts above.

O that day when freed from sinning,
I shall see Thy lovely face;
Clothed then in blood washed linen
How I’ll sing Thy sovereign grace;
Come, my Lord, no longer tarry,
Take my ransomed soul away;
Send thine angels now to carry
Me to realms of endless day.

Regards,
pat

Frank, you wrote:

"If one is truly living within the reality of Christ as their justifier and judge as stated above, what practical difference does this date make today?"

It destroys or negates the forward-looking eschaton as something in the far distant future.
It has no meaning to most of us today, particularly young people, because we have already faced the judgment and when we die, that is the eschaton for us. The first century Christians believed, as preached by Jesus and the apostles, that it was an event that could occur at any time. Two-thousand-years later, it cannot have the same impact, and no amount of preaching on the soon-coming will make it of more importance. Could it be that it was not a literal event to be looked forward to, but the metaphor for an afterlife when we die?

As for the "Historical Criticism" term that has become a fly in the ointment, why not substitute HC=Historical Context. "Criticism" rubs salt into the wounds of many Christians who fear another form of rank criticism is not needed.

Pat

O to grace how great a debtor
Daily I’m constrained to be!
Let Thy goodness, like a fetter,
Bind my wandering heart to Thee.
Prone to wander, Lord, I feel it,
Prone to leave the God I love;
Here’s my heart, O take and seal it,
Seal it for Thy courts above.

Yes!

Dave

Wow--this is quite the conversation to keep up with! I just wanted to affirm a sentence Johnny wrote above: "Progressive Adventism is talking about homosexuality, origins, women's ordination and the rest because it is Adventist to believe we have more to learn."

Now that's something worth being proud of: It is Adventist to believe we have more to learn.

To All of the Above:

In actual practice can not each individual SDA Church create its own persona? Except for the major issues such as the ordination of women and the status of homosexuals?

As the Church becomes more international aren't those two issues likely to remain a thorn for decades?

Instead of being called progressive--might not "inch worms" be closer to the actual movement? My take is Adventism has always sought "Primitive Godliness" not "cutting edge theology". It seems that as we attempt to learn more and more about God we neglect more and more of our relation to each other--that should not be! Tom

Hi Daneen,

Is it possible that saying "Adventist have more to learn" ...which is definitely true of Adventist and everyone on both sides of any dispute... can be used as a "strawman."

If my particular agenda is not met, then we have "more to learn" and "some think they have all the answers."

The reason I say this is sometimes there seems to be a celebration "of the idea" of "what we do not know" when there can also be a celebration of "what we do know."

Some things are well grounded in scripture while others are not. I hope I don't unlearn those things which are good or "learn" to accept and affirm those things which are not.

Tom,
I think we should always pray for a "heart for God and a mind for truth."...and as you said that will also properly frame the two great commandments of improving our relation to God and to each other.

pat

Thanks Pat. Tom

It becomes rather redundant to constantly hear that someone's ideas are "grounded in Scripture."
It is easy to assume that my reading (and interpretation) of Scripture is assuredly the correct one, isn't it? Even supposed consensus by the majority means little because the history of the church shows that many times they have believed and promoted erroneous teachings; teachings that were discarded when newer information was discovered.

While the Bible can be used for broad, very broad principles, to use it for specific conditions that are totally incomparable to today, is to use it as a sledge hammer to promote whatever is wished. We have only past history to realize that the Bible has been used in the past to condone all sorts of situations:
slavery, subjugation of women, not to mention murder and genocide. We need to understand that because the Bible writers said that God ordered murder and genocide, that it was man's justification for what he did, and so recorded it. Otherwise, we end up with a god that good men and women cannot admire and worship.

The Bible should be used with much discretion, and when it disagrees with human rights, as it surely does and has, we should err on the side of treating everyone equally, just as Jesus did and taught.

Whatever label we appropriate for ourselves - progressive, conservative, traditional, liberal, or evangelical – is it not true we all try our best to integrate faith and learning? Do we not all agree with the following statements?

"We have many lessons to learn, and many, many to unlearn. God and heaven alone are infallible." (Ellen G. White, Counsels to Writers and Editors, Pg. 33-42.)

Much of what appears to be religion or spirituality is plain superstition. The best place to integrate faith and learning, especially for our youth, is in our schools. Ellen White and the pioneers of this movement recognized the importance of education and that's why we have Loma Linda and Andrews U, among other institutions of higher learning. This is one good reason why I believe a theological seminary and the health sciences university should be united rather than kept separated. Where else but in our schools can an ideal interdisciplinary conversation take place?

Ever wonder or think about how progressive additudes and positions relate to the last few thousand years?
We improve many things, child labor laws ect. but in the spiritual context things do not improve. Even nations and cultures fall to their own excesses, ie, the "fall or the Roman empire,ect.
The bible is full of things like the statue of diffrent metals representing diffrent kingdoms all of which were in decending order by Gods definition.
2 Tim says;
1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, 4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.

God's physical laws also follow this process as things progress from organized states to disorganized states.

Isnt the process of events and spirituality "Eden to Armageddon" and not the other way around?

Many may hold the viewpoint that we continue to learn and gain deeper insite, but, to the extent that we "learn" ourselves a complete opposite understanding to our previous long held beliefs, wouldnt that only serve to prove that if we only lived long enough we would again "learn" our selves all the way around to where we started?

Among those who believe that the Bible is the Word of God (generally labeled "conservative Protestants" by sociologists of religion) in today's world, there are two basic approaches to exegesis. One is called "inerrancy" and is sometimes referred to as more literal, although that is not always literally true. It is based on the notion that the original autographs of scripture as they came from the pen of Moses, Paul, etc., were perfect, containing no error, no matter how small or irrelevant. The other does not have a particular label but represents the majority view and the view that Seventh-day Adventists have always taken; the view that Ellen White describes in the introduction to "The Great Controversy." Namely, that God used human beings as His medium to construct Scripture. He did not dictate word by word to them, but inspired them with ideas which they communicated as best they could using the knowledge and education (culture and language) that they had at hand. Most Adventist scholars that I have read use this approach. In the last couple of decades a few have tried to bring in the inerrancy viewpoint. Some have tried to argue that it is more "historic" than the other approach, which I think is dishonest and manipulative, whatever the merits of the inerrancy approach.

"Progressive" Adventists have always been centerists, not part of the more "conservative" or more "liberal" wings of the Adventist movement. They have been at the front edge of the movement, urging the leadership and membership of the church on toward the future, toward the mission that God has for His church. They have not been all that interested in doctrinal disputes and it is really dishonest to try to cast the "progressive" label as being about change in doctrine. Frankly the labels "conservative" and "liberal" have become useless in helping me understand what is going on in the church today, so I don't use them any more. I prefer a different set of labels to try to sort out the various options that one is offered.

There are "evangelical" Adventists who believe that salvation through the grace of Jesus Christ is the most important doctrine and that all other ideas must get in line with this major idea. They are interested in communication with other Christians and generally not very defensive of the uniqueness of Adventist faith.

There are "fundamentalist" Adventists who think that historic Adventism is the Adventism of the 1920s and 1930s when the Adventist movement was greatly influenced from outside by the American Christian Fundamentalist movement. They see victory over sin through the grace of Jesus Christ as the most important doctrine and think that all other ideas must get in line with this concept. They are interested in apocalyptics and charting "signs" of the soon return of our Lord.

There are "sectarian" Adventists who often seem more interested in what Ellen White wrote than in the Bible and claim more for "the Spirit of Prophecy" than what the church or Ellen White herself has ever claimed. They are most interested in defining and defending a unique identity for the Adventist movement as "the" Remnant Church.

There are "traditionalist" Adventists who try to hold on to things as they were when they came on board. They tend to want to prevent any change from the set of ideas that they learned at a certain point in their life when they became a convert or entered into a serious, adult relationship with the church. The specific ideas that they see as the traditions of the church vary widely from individual to individual and from particular congregation to congregation. There is no one, clearly defined tradition.

There are many "marginal" Adventists who believe that Jesus is going to return and that He wants to find people keeping the Sabbath and loving their neighbors. They are not sure what all this other hub-bub is about, but often find the most passionate partisans behaving in ways that seem somewhat less than fully Christlike or intellectually honest. When the debate gets heated, they tend to edge further toward the margins just in case it becomes necessary to flee for one's life.

The "centrist" Adventists see value in most of the ideas that the other segments are espousing. They also see that each of these segments seems to be blind to yet other Adventist teachings that seem to be equally important. They are most concerned about the fragmentation of Adventism, that the distinct parties with their strong viewpoints are ripping apart the fabric of fellowship that is so essential to a faith movement like the Adventist movement. They would like to see everyone come together in the middle, but this is often seen as compromise by others.

The "progressive" Adventists are perhaps most akin to the "centrist," but they believe that in order for a movement to keep from imploding that it must continue to move forward toward the mission that God has given the followers of Jesus in the world. They see important ideas coming from each of the other segments, but they fear imbalance, fanaticism, and diversions from the mission of Christ. The hear God calling His people forward to engage with new realities, and are most interested in innovation, experimentation and progress. They believe that the theological precision which is so important to many others can also become diversion. They remember the words of Jesus in John 4, when the woman at the well asked Him about one of the burning theological controversies of His day, "Believe me, woman, a time is soon coming when you will worship neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. ... a time has now come when the true worshipers will worship in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks."

Monte,

I would suggest that you consider Berkhof's difference of Mechanical, Dynamical, and Organic Inspiration as more specific.

Mechanical might be an extreme fundamentalist view...Dynamical is more in line with the Historical Critical view and I suggest the Organic view is the "conservative Protestant" view.

pat

PS. If you don’t have Berkhof briefly the "Dynamical" is more after the concepts of Schleiermacher. This view denies the direct operation of the Holy Spirit on the production of the books of the Bible. Instead it substitutes a general view of inspiration on the writers they received by general spiritual development which they convey in their writings. It robs the Bible of it’s supernatural character and power. This opens the door for the historical critical method to limit understanding to a “naturalistic” explanation in analogy, correlation and culture influence.

The Organic view suggests that the Holy Spirit used the writers as He himself had prepared them for the task without in anyway suppressing their personality. He illumined their minds, prompted them to write and guided them in the expression of thoughts and choices of words (not mechanical) expressing those thoughts. Thus the books operate as an organic whole for God’s purposes.

Johnny,
Interesting 10 point list. I can see how a community could use such a process to make radical changes but would that community still be Christian?

Doesn't the adoption of process ontology break beyond scripture?

I agree with Pat Travis and think what Elaine is pushing is for "human rights" to pervert Christian love into justifying something Scripture has no room for. If 'progressive adventism' is about that then I suggest it isn't Adventist at all.

I don't like any adjectives modifying a Christian Denomination. Let the label speak for itself. My roots are in Adventism, my faith is in Christ alone, my fellowship is across the board and my current membership is with Reid Memorial Presbyterian Church in Augusta Ga. The retiring pastor is a true man of God. The Organ is tops, and the choir is excellent. The pews are old world. The members are a little upper crust--one member of my Sunday School Class wealth flucuates between 600 milllion and one billion dollars but he and his wife treat Betty and me like kin.

When I was on the board a Loma Linda and a new member (of the clothe) join they would always ask me at "juice breaks" if I was a "worker". I would usually reply--no-I'm the queen bee! Tom

SDA Guy wrote:

"...what Elaine is pushing is for "human rights" to pervert Christian love into justifying something Scripture has no room for."

Please clarify how pushing for human rights perverts Christian love? Isn't love the fulfillment of the Law according to Scripture?
Does the Golden Rule not support and endorse human rights?

Or, is it your contention that any human rights that does not originate from Christianity is perverted?

I just finished reading the Open Theism book by Clark Pinnock, Richard Rice etc. and was really helped by it. Two weeks ago I read a short introductory book on Process Theology by John Cobb.

I do think it is significant that open theism makes explicit statements that it isn't process theology. I also think it is significant that the ETS voted unanimously to recommend against expelling Pinnock a few years ago. The ETS could hardly be said to have a low view of Scripture and they don't consider OT to be a violation of their signatory statement.

Thanks for the compliment on my list. It also places a high value on scriptural foundations. However I disagree with the idea that Process Theology isn't Adventist quite strongly. The point of my push isn't to establish doctrinal tests but to promote an environment open to and considering of new light.

I strongly believe that Scripture should provide our ontological framework. How does that work or is that even possible? You have to do serious reading to answer that question and frankly I'm far from there and your blanket statement suggests to me that you haven't even looked.

I think that incorporating the much needed correction of OT into Adventist theology is positive. I have read far less Process Theology than I'd like so I am not comfortable owning or disowning something I am not familiar with.

I disagree with the idea that human rights is antagonistic to God's love for us. I think you're misreading the rational for homosexual marriage. Their book hasn't been published yet. I wouldn't feel comfortable talking about something (the coming book by Guy, Larson and others) I have no idea on and don't think much of others who do. So, what are you talking about?

I'd be interested to see some actual scripture-based historical/theological arguments against open theism and human rights by SDA Guy.

I'd hate to think that someone would argue against a theological idea because of one of its applications. Open theology also makes a stronger cause/effect case for intercessory prayer, even Reformed folks concede that. Who wants to construct their theology in light of one issue, and homosexuality at that? Systematics here, please.

Let's not construct a posteriori theology or fallacious slippery slope arguments -- following the Holy Spirit means starting with the facts on the ground, first.

Alex,
Good thoughts. Calvin is a worthy theologian who has a lot more to offer than predestination. His moral thought is quite good. I like his saying that ethics is the work of the spirit, that we're to be completely submitted to God and that one cannot become virtuous without exercise. That is, the life of Christians for Calvin is not passive acceptance of ones election.

But you can't escape lines like saints praying what God wills them to pray, prayer as merely an act of worship acknowledging Gods providence and more. (we're reading huge sections from the institutes this week...)

Open Theists push hard against the notion that extra-Biblical philosophy should have a formative place in our Doctrine of God. A criticism they note is best made by Process Theologians. They also note that the same criticism can be made of Process Thought.

But is it true that Process Theology has no friend in Scripture? That question is important to me but I haven't read any essays or books from process theologians taking on this criticism directly. So, for my part, it remains a question and is not a criticism.

I looked for Adventist takes on Open Theism and found a journal article in ATS comparing classical and open theism. The author argued that the weight lay squarely on Open Theists to argue against the traditional view of God.

Frankly this comes right back to the idea of Adventism as possessing a progressive ethos. Since when do we view tradition as being enough grounds for belief?
Indeed we're to place the burden of proof not only on new ideas but old ones as well.
This is central to Progressive Adventism and it should be true for all Adventists as well.

What ever happened to Micah 6:8?
Is Practical Christianity so boring as to go exploring?

I rank Open Theism and Progress Theology right up there with Steps to Christ none bring me "Nearer my God to Thee."

I retired 17 years ago. I gave up reading my professional journals last year. The health professions have left me behind. In Theology, I think it is the other way around theologians have left God behind. Tom

Johnny,

You observed, " Calvin is a worthy theologian who has a lot more to offer than predestination. His moral thought is quite good. I like his saying that ethics is the work of the spirit, that we're to be completely submitted to God and that one cannot become virtuous without exercise. That is, the life of Christians for Calvin is not passive acceptance of ones election."

Despite some faults the guys "hard drive" and breadth of knowledge is quite amazing. For Calvin the elect are not in possession of direct knowledge of their election.

The evidence of election is that they "persevere" in the faith.By observing that in life and scripture "all who profess Christ" (Heb.6) don't remain in Him, I believe they deduct from that point of observation that the "elect" must have been particularily elected from the beginning and the "reprobate" likewise so that God's Grace was ultimately victorious.This helps "clean up" the messy interplay of the possibility of rejecting the Spirit by the "elect" continuously.

Perhaps OT,Arminians, and Calvinist by logic attempt to define that mysterious "interface interplay" between God's sovereignty and mankinds response "to tightly" and don't realize they don't "define and box God in" but rather themselves to their own finite reasoning.

I do not find that Calvin dwelled on election however and I suggest he is a good starting point of sound theology to disagree with on a "case by case" basis only.

pat

PS. Good observation and a sound warning for consideration Tom

Interesting quote that segues into all this:

"In the annals of human history the growth of nations, the rise and fall of empires, appear as dependent on the will and prowess of man. The shaping of events seems, to a great degree, to be determined by his power, ambition, or caprice. But in the word of God the curtain is drawn aside, and we behold, behind, above, and through all the play and counterplay of human interests and power and passions, the agencies of the all-merciful One, silently, patiently working out the counsels of His own will.

The Bible reveals the true philosophy of history. In those words of matchless beauty and tenderness spoken by the apostle Paul to the sages of Athens is set forth God's purpose in the creation and distribution of races and nations: He "hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after Him, and find Him." Acts 17:26, 27 {Ed 173.2}
-----------
Sounds Arminian and Calvinist regarding predestination minus "particular election and reprobation."

Thanks Pat

I think that theologians always try to put God in a Box. This time they just built a bigger box.

Of course, their's is a difficult task, most people want to make a God just like them!

A family with a small boy sit in the pew just in front of us.
It seems them must have read every sin of Scripture, E.G. White, and Calvin--that kid can't do anything right. He gets it right and left until I want to stand up and hit the father right in the nose. The kid seems very bright. I bet when he grows up he will make Chris Hitchens look like Mother Teresa. Tom

Let's face it brethren, Progressive Adventism is neither truly progressive, nor is it truly Adventist.

If you want truly progressive thought, intellectual journals are the place to go.

If you want truly Adventist thought, traditional Adventist writers or publications are the place to go.

However, if you want to appeal to the one million per year converts that are flooding into the Adventist church, Million Members, then perhaps the term Adventist can be widened to include more than just what has gone before, and what, God forbid, may disappear just as mysteriously as it began unless it evolves as any living organism must do to stay alive.

Raul,

The problem is everyone wants to define Adventism their way!
Is it Scripture only? Is it Scripture plus E.G.White, Is it E.G. White over Scripture? Has modern scholarship made prior doctrine obsolete. The millions you speak of could not pass a test on the 28 fundamental beliefs let alone trace the history of the Church from 1843 to Answers to Questions on Doctrine.

What do the numbers mean. I think the Scriptures tell us:
"This Gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached into all the world and then shall the end come." I don't see number attached. Salvation is not in what you know but in whom you believe! I believe Jesus Christ is the very Son of God who died that I might have everlasting life. I believe having that assurance, I should carry that saving message to all I have contact--in word and in deed. It is not my duty to keep a eye on the level of the Sun but to keep my eye on the reality of the Son! TJZ

After reading most of George Knight's "A Search for Identity" (somehow chosen for our next SS class discussions) I am even more impressed of how convoluted and twisting the Adventist doctrines originated. Men, who believed they had the absolute theological ability to parse and decode scripture, set the church on a course from which it still has not recovered. From one position to the opposite, they floundered, never settling long on any position until the beginnings of a creed emerged. Even then, the creed (Fundamentals) is all man-made and then, as today, the great majority of professed Adventists could not in all honesty accept all or even some of the expressed doctrines.

If the originators of Adventism changed positions so frequently, what is it that seems to demand that the positions adopted today are sacrosanct?
Yet they have become the sacred cow which no one dares touch. Just as many well-known preachers of that early time were excommunicated, or left on their own for questioning positions, it is still occurring today. Status quo and tradition has become set in tables of stone and is worshiped, calling it the "Truth." E.g., if anyone dares question the position on the Sabbath, in spite of many NT texts that it should not be required of new Christians, it still is the preeminent SDA doctrine: touch it and you play with fire. Ditto the SOP or Three Angels interpretation and the IJ, for fear of losing its uniqueness among the Christian world. The price of being different and unique has come at what cost?

I don't pretend to define Adventism in this post. In fact it presents "Progressive Adventism" as one of several "Adventisms". Monte has a good list there. My push as a Progressive Adventist is to show what we have to contribute. This could hardly be said to deny the contribution of other "Adventisms".

We are a diverse church and our goal should not be theological uniformity but theological unity within diversity. That is, the theological task isn't to merely postulate "truth" but to constantly test current belief and new light always seeking present truth. Moreover, I suggested that ones being Adventist is defined by ones local church which for our denomination is the only body that can disfellowship a member.

For whom is it to say that theology or theologian xyz aren't Adventist or don't belong with Adventism? Our theological faculties have, to different extents, implemented various ideological tests like IBMTE. North American colleges and universities however have together decided to review their own faculty for fitness outside of that structure.

I would, Raul, appreciate more substance to your assertion that Progressive Adventism isn't progressive or Adventist.