Talk:Historic Adventists
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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)
- 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.
- 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.
- 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)
