Talk:Historic Adventist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Historic Adventist is part of WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Seventh-day Adventist Church and Seventh-day Adventist Church-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church To-do: edit  Expand "Glacier View Controversy" section, to include more background, history, theological issues, and details of the Glacier View meeting itself Add to "Adventist Responses to Criticisms" section, ideally with material from Adventist scholars etc.

Contents 1 Article creation 2 Amazing Facts 3 Definitions of "Historic", "Progressive" etc. 4 Last Generation Theology 5 Possible content to add

[edit] Article creation

I would like to comment that I strongly support the creation of this article! It gives a nuanced, "insider" point of view into the Adventist church (yet the statements are easily verifiable as well). It also simply gives an insight into the people and the theology of the church. Its counterpart which I started, Progressive Adventists has a similar purpose, although I believe it represents a much larger proportion of scholars. For me, this insider, nuanced approach is a good thing - I believe it is a way of being open and including, and not insular. Let's just be careful to keep it as NPOV as possible. Colin MacLaurin 11:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amazing Facts

Does anyone have an opinion about Amazing Facts -- would they be considered a "historic Adventist" ministry? See [1] Tonicthebrown 15:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definitions of "Historic", "Progressive" etc.

We need to discuss the definition of "historic Adventism" and when to label particular people as "Historic", "Progressive" etc. Perhaps to say, "The following prominent Adventists hold to at least one of the beliefs considered historic [/progressive] above: ..." is the best option, because this is easily verifiable if they have published their views. However it is not easily verifiable to label them outright as traditional, liberal etc. (See also the discussion at Talk:Progressive Adventists#Some ideas and thoughts).

I think that "historic SDA" and "progressive SDA" are primarily self-designations, rather than labels applied by others (hence the current opening sentence of this article). For example, historic SDAs label everyone else (including the mainstream church) as "New Theology" believers [2] instead of "mainstream" or "progressive". Meanwhile, mainstreams and progressives are likely to take issue with the term "historic SDA" (see [3]). So yes, we have to exercise caution when applying these labels. It's probably safest to only use a label when the person (or group) in question has already labelled themselves as such. Tonicthebrown 11:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Ron Corson's article Progressive and Traditional Adventists Examined needs debating amongst us. Presumably he is a "progressive" himself, and I wonder if he has slightly overstated his case. He defines "historic/traditional Adventists" primarily as those who believe in the four doctrines investigative judgment, remnant etc, as well as other points. But I consider these four to be "conservative mainstream" today, not to be lumped together with believing in a sinful nature of Christ, atonement not fully completed at the cross, etc. which is a whole other category. Colin MacLaurin 15:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you read Corson's article more carefully, you'll see that he defines historic SDAs as people who "desire to hold to, and continue with, the beliefs that were instituted at the founding of the church, during the mid to latter 1800's", and also reject QOD. He also mentions "moderates" (see paragraphs 1 & 2 of his article) who lie in between historics and progressives. Thus, his definition of "historic SDA" is accurate, and excludes the "conservative mainstream" (as you call them). The mainstream disagrees with the 1800s positions and agrees with QOD. Tonicthebrown 11:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, there are three main groups, which believe:

1. Sinful nature of Christ, atonement not completed at the cross, sinless perfectionism, etc. These may have been significant in the past, but they are a minority today and I do not believe they can be considered "mainstream" Adventism today.
2. 1844 investigative judgment, remnant, Ellen White as significant doctrinal authority, etc. I consider these the conservative end of "mainstream" Adventism today, not to be confused with the above group. You could call it"Questions on Doctrine Adventism"! Presumably the majority among the church worldwide.
3. Ellen White limited doctrinal authority, remnant broader than Adventist church, Saturday not the seal of God and Sunday not the mark of the beast, etc. I consider this also "mainstream", as these ideas are taught by many scholars and lecturers employed by the church. Presumably a minority position worldwide, but a significant portion of scholars I suspect. I believe the scholars' opinion is the most "notable" for Wikipedia purposes, as they are the experts on theology. Colin MacLaurin 15:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Agreed. This is the group that calls themselves "historic". They are virtually absent from official academia, but are still strong in the grassroots and independent movements, and are still prolific publishers. Sadly, they are often the "public face" of the church because of their vigorous media campaigns, the anti-Catholic conspiracy theories etc.
2. Yes. You could also call them "28 fundamentals" Adventism, and therefore "official" Adventism! I think that the overall presentation of Adventist theology has to reflect this mainstream position, rather than leaning excessively in either the historic or progressive direction.
3. I'd be more cautious about calling these "mainstream". They are "progressive". And I disagree that they should be "most notable for Wikipedia purposes", because Wikipedia shouldn't just be about expert scholarship, it should be about what is widely and popularly believed in the church. Tonicthebrown 11:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

See my soon coming "Sourcing Adventist theology" proposal on the project talk page of WP:SDA. Colin MacLaurin 15:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last Generation Theology

I replaced Last Generation Theology as an example of Historic Adventism. Does anyone disagree? (If so, please give a good reason). Colin MacLaurin 02:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I would call LGT a subset or offshoot of Historic Adventism, so I agree with it being listed in the article here. But Larry Kirkpatrick has argued it is significantly different. See [4]. Perhaps that's why someone might want it left off Tonicthebrown 08:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, Tonic, and providing the link (which I read completely)! I have tried to improve the article accordingly. Colin MacLaurin 09:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible content to add

I have some questions. Perhaps someone who knows some of the answers could add them to the article? In Woodrow Whidden's interview with Julius Nam,[5] he mentions the "1888 Message Study Committee" which he implies is conservative and not mainstream, similar to Historic Adventists but not quite the same; what is it? What is "universal legal justification"? Why do some conservative Adventists I know talk so much about the 1888 message? Why is their interpretation different, as asserted in the article?Colin MacLaurin 08:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't have a full understanding of 1888, but here are my observations. The 1888 conference debated the issue of "righteousness by faith". Jones and Waggoner argued that "righteousness by faith" is righteousness imputed by God apart from works (i.e. legal or forensic justification) PLUS the imparted righteous (or perfect) character (i.e. sanctification). However, the church leadership of the time disagreed with them. Today, Adventists squabble over which side Ellen White took. Historic Adventists insist she supported Jones and Waggoner and interpreted righteousness in terms of character; whereas the mainstream/progressives think she did not.

Hence, when Historic Adventists talk about "Righteousness by Faith" they are talking about perfectionism -- not to be confused with Luther's "justification by faith alone"!

If I'm wrong about any of these facts, I'd appreciate correction from someone who knows more. Tonicthebrown 07:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's something else to read, mate: by Woodrow Whidden Tonicthebrown 09:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I assume that there's pastors employed by the official church who are Historic? Are there any academics teaching at official universities or colleges? Thank-you, Colin MacLaurin 08:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)