Talk:Seventh-day Adventist eschatology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Seventh-day Adventist eschatology is within the scope 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:

Contents

[edit] New page structure

Please note that I have restructured the page. The main outline of Adventist eschatology is now restricted to the mainstream or traditional understanding. There are new sections for "radical interpretations" and "modern/progressive interpretations" which we can hopefully expand further. I have some stuff to add to the radical section at some stage (from independent ministries), but the resources are at my parent's home so I won't have access for a while. The modern/progressive section should ideally be expanded to give a range of current scholarly views -- for instance, those of Jon Paulien. I have read somewhere that Des Ford claims Adventist scholars no longer support the traditional interpretation of Lisbon earthquake, dark day and 1833 meteor shower -- is that true? (But these are still included in 2005 edition of SDAs Believe, so he could be wrong). Also, we need some scholarly opinions about the 1260 day period and whether it starts and ends in 538/1798. Tonicthebrown 18:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all that work, Tonic! Those citations from Seventh-day Adventists Believe are helpful. I believe it represents the more conservative POV, which is a notable POV nonetheless. I am no expert in Adventist eschatology, but my understanding is that modern moderate/mainstream views tend to question numerous of the "little" details. A certain (moderate) lecturer of theology teaches that history does not consist of events at isolated points in time, but of broader ebbs and flows; hence but we can observe a general rise and fall around those times but should not be dogmatic about 538 and 1798 specifically. Regarding the dark day etc, Stefanovic and the Adventist Bible Commentary say that historicists "have" interpreted it this way, or that such and such is "a" fulfillment - perhaps I am reading into the text, but I do not see dogmatic statements that these are the only fulfillments. Colin MacLaurin 08:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I was aware of this and therefore careful to say "a fulfillment" rather than "the fulfillment"! FYI, I remember being taught from my childhood about the dark day and falling stars... back then everyone seemed certain about these things. Perhaps it's different now. (BTW I hope you don't mind me dividing up your text with my responses) Tonicthebrown 12:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I was very interested to find this comment by Raymond Cottrell, which I added to the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary article about which it applies. I believe it confirms my hunch as stated above:
"In instances where our collective judgment could not conscientiously support a particular traditionally held interpretation, we sought in an inoffensive way to present the evidence and give the reader an opportunity to make up his or her own mind. At times the expression 'Seventh-day Adventists have taught that...' or its equivalent was our ironic way of expressing collective editorial judgment that the interpretation so characterized is not exegetically valid. Accurate exegesis was our primary concern."
(This comment also inserted asynchronously!) Colin MacLaurin 07:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I recall the lecturer above doubted or was at least cautious about this interpretation. A different moderate lecturer/scholar shared his belief before a class of theology students that exegetically speaking, the mortal wound referred to Jesus' defeat of Satan on the cross, and linked back to the prophecy in early Genesis about the serpent's head being crushed; not the pope's capture in 1798! He chose to allude to this right at the end of class before promptly walking out of the room! :-)
Progressives vary amongst themselves, but many seem to throw out a lot of ideas, such as the year-day principle, IJ, historicist method (there are probably some historicist progressives I imagine), identification of the beasts, and indeed probably most traditional interpretations relating to the time before the Second Coming. I imagine they typically retain Adventist beliefs from the Second Coming onwards (millennium, annihilation of the wicked, Earth recreated etc.) Many seem to believe in some combination of preterism (popular in the Christian scholarly world, I understand) and idealism. Many support the majority Christian interpretation of Antiochus Epiphanes as the little horn. Alden Thompson, who is on the more progressive end of the spectrum, sees (idealist?) fulfillments in Antiochus, Rome, certain actions of the medieval church etc. This sounds similar to Ford's apotelesmatic principle of multiple fulfillments (quite a debate among Adventist scholars - should be mentioned). Do a search for Jon Paulien's articles - many are online. He is respected across the spectrum of Adventists, and is mainstream (dead center or not, I don't know). Colin MacLaurin 08:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
It would be good to get some of these views into the article eventually, with appropriate citation. Tonicthebrown 12:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Just trying to get some ideas together. I would appreciate further comments and feedback from informed people or experts regarding what is "mainstream" on this topic. Meanwhile in the real world, I desperately need to do some study for College, and shouldn't really spend much time on Wikipedia for a while... Colin MacLaurin 08:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
My impression is that "mainstream" -- if by that you mean the majority of educated, lay, adult Adventists in North America (i.e. probably a sizeable minority of the world church numerically!) -- is pretty much what is taught in SDAs Believe. Of course, I'm sure that most scholars privately disagree with or question many of these traditional ideas, as you have alluded to above.
Speaking of study, I've done most of my recent Wikipedia editing while procrastinating from my own essays. However, I have now finished 2 out of 3 essays for the semester... hopefully that's an inspiration to you! Good luck, and happy easter :-) Tonicthebrown 12:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
That is an inspiration - thank-you, and happy Easter to you too! In regards to first paragraph, you might be surprised! For examples, two major books by Jon Paulien which I just checked are published by church publisher Review and Herald, and disagree with many traditional details. He has also published with JATS, which is more conservative. It is not just a private disagreement, but out there. I am saying this somewhat a priori ("before considering the evidence"), but I am confident it will bear out. I have already cited some examples in articles currently, of Rodriguez, Bacchiocchi and Paulien. Colin MacLaurin 13:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV, Sources and Ellen White

I placed the POV tag because the page does not reflect current Adventist scholarship. It is my observation that if leading scholars mention Ellen White at all, they will mention her only occasionally or in an appendix, whereas the article in its current state is based almost solely on her quotations.

I would prefer to see a spectrum of modern Adventist scholars cited. It is my impression that Jon Paulien is the leading Adventist scholar on Revelation, and hence end times (eschatology). He is the chair of the New Testament Department at Andrews University. I would like to see him referenced more, perhaps some articles from the Biblical Research Institute (which is a little more conservative), from JATS (the Journal of the Adventist Theological Society - note that they do not represent any "official" view more than anyone else), and from some more progressive sources as well. Then, of course, Ellen White's view is highly formative as well and deserves citing. This is not a personal criticism, as I assume good faith, and note as above that contributors may have been unsure of good references to use. Colin MacLaurin 11:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to request that the NPOV tag be removed. I do not think it is necessary anymore. Here are my reasons -
  1. I think the NPOV dispute only ever related to the "Time of Trouble" section. The rest of the article is clearly in line with mainstream teaching.
  2. EGW is now only quoted twice in the "Time of Trouble" section (the rest has been moved to the appendix). The EGW quotations are balanced by the quotes from QOD and the official church statement on Catholicism.
  3. I feel that the "Time of Trouble" section is more-or-less reflective of what the SDA church has taught for most of its history, and continues to teach today (albeit in a more muted way).
  4. The "Progressive Adventists and eschatology" section helps balance things.
Thanks for your consideration. Tonicthebrown 04:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Tonic, firstly I would like to say thank-you for the improvements you made to the page in line with my earlier suggestions. The sources are highly notable, including an official statement, but I still believe that certain progressive positions are underemphasized relative to their notability within Adventist scholarship. I am particularly thinking of "Sunday law", but other points also. I will make some changes within the next few days, before I leave in one week's time (for two months). I will then remove the POV tag if it still remains. Please read and reply to my proposed guideline or policy "Sourcing Adventist theology" which I will add to the WP:SDA talk page shortly. Thanks for your editing work on Wikipedia, Colin MacLaurin 12:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments Colin. I agree it would be good to include a progressive position on the time of trouble. I hope that we can eventually represent both the historic position and progressive positions equally and fairly. Tonicthebrown 10:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I have now split the "time of trouble" section into 2 sections, reflecting the traditional view and modern/progressive views. Hopefully this helps resolve the NPOV situation. I look forward to further material from the progressive POV, particularly from scholarly sources. Tonicthebrown 16:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, please replace at least some of the Ellen White quotations in the appendix with a footnote reference to the book and page number instead. I suggest the creation of a section "Ellen White's view/comments", and condense the quotations to a short summary, referenced with the sources so that they are not wasted. Colin MacLaurin 12:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

This page has improved. I know we are time limited, but I would like to suggest some sources which should be consulted for their point of view. This is particularly to assist editors who may not know where to look, but also for more experienced editors to discuss the major Adventist points of view. The following journals are either barely or not at all currently mentioned.

Jon Paulien is the leading Adventist Revelation scholar - much of his stuff is available online; and the complete collection of his books is cheaply available on a CD. The most well respected book is possibly Revelation of Jesus Christ by Ranko Stefanovic.

The book Seventh-day Adventists Believe... already has good representation, and is available online. The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary is cited a bit, but perhaps a few more citations would be good. There is also historic and liberal/progressive points of view, but for now attention particularly needs to be given to the above journals. Colin MacLaurin 10:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

One more, SDAnet AtIssue, which consists of theological research papers. This is a great site - it is unofficial, yet contributors are established authorities; and also there is a range of POVs. Colin MacLaurin 18:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Revelation seminar - the current one. Will give an insight into popular-level approach, and indeed this would be a first contact point for many people with the church. There is a new one being developed by Jon Paulien and Graeme Bradford.[1]

[edit] Convoluted section

The "Time of trouble" section is convoluted. It is long, and mainly consists of block quotations. I suggest that it be shortened and simplified. Perhaps write a short summary of Ellen White's view, with no more than a few quotes. --Colin MacLaurin 15:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Good suggestion, I'll have a think about how this section can be rewritten. The reason I did it this way at first was because it was hard to find much "official" teaching about the time of trouble, so I resorted to quoting relevant sections of The Great Controversy. BTW, by saying "Ellen White's view" are you implying that some in the church disagree with her end times teaching? Tonicthebrown 09:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank-you for your consideration. The Søren Kierkegaard page might be a good example for us, because it is a featured article about an author. While there are a few block quotes in the article, much more frequently a brief summary with an appropriate reference is used. This way, all the references could be preserved this section of our article, whilst reducing the length to a third.
In response to your second question, I understand many notable mainstream scholars prefer to base their theology directly on the Bible, and not on Ellen White. This means that they might have less to say on some points. See (and/or contribute to) the stub I am working on, Prophetic gift of Ellen White. --Colin MacLaurin 05:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Allow me to suggest a good resource for this article: Jon Paulien is arguably the Adventist church's best authority on the book of Revelation. He teaches at Andrews University, the flagship Adventist place of learning. He is very "mainstream" in my judgment - both fresh, original thinking and also a traditional background are discernable. I own his book End Time which is very good. It does not attempt to cover every area, so one may need to consult other books of his as well. --Colin MacLaurin 05:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 666, Vicarius Filii Dei not traditional Adventist view

In the section: the Time of Trouble, modern and progressive views; I found the misleading implication that the interpretation of 666 as Vicarius Filie Dei is a traditional adventist interpretation; which in-fact, it is not. THis is actually an innovation found in the mid 20th century which most adventists agree is not founded on solid exegesis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.197.240.149 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC) (Copied from article rating comments page by Colin MacLaurin 05:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC))

Colin, in my opinion the paragraph about 666 and Vicarius Filie Dei is rather esoteric, since it deals with what is probably an extreme, minority view. It also interrupts the flow of the section. I don't think we really need to include it in this article. What do you think? Tonicthebrown 10:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
It does appear to be largely defunct in mainstream Adventist scholarship (although I think this was news to both of us)! I could find no reference to Vicarius Filii Dei in Revelation of Jesus Christ by Ranko Stefanovic, which is regarded by some (e.g. Bradford, Bacchiocchi, and probably Jon Paulien whose work it is largely based on) as the best Adventist commentary on Revelation. I think that it deserves a mention in the article (to say in the very least, "Common perception that Adventists teach this, but not true...") as I think people will expect this topic to be covered. It would be worth checking the Prophecy Seminar, as I suspect it may teach it. Perhaps this will be phased out, as new ones are being developed, including one by Paulien and Bradford. I have come across several other Wikipedia pages, like Number of the Beast, Vicarius Filii Dei and papal tiara which have some useful information and some which will need to be updated once we reach consensus. Colin MacLaurin 10:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
G'day Colin. I was under the impression that this 666 idea was only espoused by certain "historic" independent groups, and never by the mainstream theologians of the church. Also, my guess would be that it is not an exclusively Adventist idea -- there may be other fundamentalist Christian groups who think it too (in fact, I seriously wonder if the Adventists "stole" the idea from one of said groups). But I agree it is worth making mention of it to address the common perception, as you suggested. Tonicthebrown 07:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I just had a chat to a librarian friend of mine, who is very knowledgeable about these things! It appears Uriah Smith was the chief supporter. He said that W. W. Prescott opposed the view at the time. Le Roy Froom rejected it (see Vicarius Filii Dei). So it appears that you are right about the mainstream rejecting it. However I had not been aware of this - and I suspect that many other lay people or at least non-scholars probably don't know this. As you importantly pointed out, ordinary church members are not always in tune with where the scholars are at. Found this comment on Papal Tiara: "Even some Seventh-day Adventist scholars no longer support the view that the "666" of Revelation relates to any inscription on a papal tiara." (Bacchiocchi is referenced). Wow - if even the Adventists don't believe it anymore, then the evidence must be particularly strong! :P He said he would send me some references by email. I will add them to articles when I receive them. Vicarius Filii Dei is quite clear that the Adventist church has abandoned the claim. Colin MacLaurin 11:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Net 98

Does anyone remember Net 98 (aka NeXt Millennium seminars)? Hard to believe that was 9 years ago! The full text of Dwight's addresses are available here at tagnet. He explains the fulfillment of Revelation 13 beasts in Catholicism and America very well, so I've added his lectures as references for the article. Tonicthebrown 14:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Good Adventist popular cultural reference. I wasn't in the church then! However I have often met people who speak highly of the series. Colin MacLaurin 04:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name change

I propose a name change to Seventh-day Adventist eschatology. As I commented on the talk page of WP:SDA, the disambiguation adder "(Adventist)" is ambiguous (I admit I have used it myself in the past, however!) Colin MacLaurin 07:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that would be fine by me too. Tonicthebrown 08:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Done. Colin MacLaurin 09:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cottrell quote

Raymond Cottrell described that in producing the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, "in Daniel 8 and 9 we found it hopelessly impossible to comply with both of these requirements" of "meet[ing] the most exacting scholarly standards... [and] the meaning obviously intended by the Bible writers", with "what Adventists believe and teach."[15]

Umm, shouldn't this belong in the heavenly sanctuary article rather than here? Tonicthebrown 09:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Catholic Herald news article (by Clare MacDonnell)

A Catholic Herald news article about A. Jan Marcussen's book was recently added to this article. I have found the original article here: [1]. The article shouldn't be quoted in full, but it does provide some interesting and useful information about the issue. Tonicthebrown 10:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:SundayLawTimes01.JPG

Image:SundayLawTimes01.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 16:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed restructure

I suggest another restructure:

Introduction: (1) overview of beliefs, (2) very brief overview of streams of thought, e.g. Revelation Seminar and its prominence, Scholarly views, traditional views [some no longer believed])

Also I propose dividing the article up by Bible section, not by POV. e.g. Have a heading "antichrist", then the POVs in due weight. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 10:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

some kind of restructure might certainly be a good idea. I think the "radical interpretations" and "modern/progressive interpretations" sections could be reworked, probably merged. However, I am strongly in favour of keeping the "Outline of Adventist eschatology" section intact because it represents the relatively uniform teaching of the mainstream church for most of its history, and is still what is currently presented in official literature.
How about a similar outline to the Remnant article: 1 section for traditional interpretation, then a section for alternative views (including radical and progressive). The alternative section can be laid out in topics as you have suggested Colin Tonicthebrown (talk) 12:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prophecy seminars

See:

Other sources; these need integrating into the article:

[edit] The Shaking

What is "the shaking" concept about? I would like this article to mention it, so I can link from Geoffrey Paxton. Is it the same as "The time of trouble" (a section on the page)? Colin MacLaurin (talk) 04:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)