In what group would you place The GC President, Elder Ted Wilson?

It seems that putting people into these supposed three "groups"isn't really fair.

Evangelical traditionalists, basically throw out everything that doesn't fit into the evangelical way of thinking. Though they hold the Sabbath (in much the same way evangelicals hold Sunday), they strip it of Adventist beliefs, etc. They aren't "progressive Adventists", they are retreating back and limiting themselves to reformation theology.

A.F Ballenger is an example of that type of reasoning. I'm sure he would say he was still holding the "pillar" sanctuary doctrine, but his misguided Bible study brought in changes that undermined that pillar. The theological foundations for our "pillars" were NOT haphazardly built by our pioneers. Brother Ballenger, even with his perceived discoveries of Bible facts, wasn?t wise to step off it. Though some might think he was "progressive".

EGW wrote: Brother Ballenger: "You are bringing in confusion and perplexity by your interpretation of the Scriptures. You think that you have been given new light, but your light will become darkness to those who receive it" (Manuscript Releases 760, p. 10).

Adventist Traditionalists?

Anyone who is a true seeker of God's Word will EXPAND their understanding. The Bible continually brings new insights and depth to our understanding.
That is as it should be.
Yet these advances should not challenge the pillars and should be advanced into only with much prayer and bible study. We see Jones and Waggoner expanding the churches understanding of righteousness by faith. This was sorely needed. We see the church moving from a "pagan" understanding of the "continual" in Daniel 8, to seeing the "continual" as Christ our high priest continually mediating for His people. Thus bringing verse 14 more fully into the context with the whole chapter speaking of the sanctuary. We also see the earlier concept of Christ as a created divine Being changing to a realization that Christ is fully God, One with the Father.

Yes there are some who resist these ideas. But these ideas don't undermine the pillars or change the pillars, they enhance them and make them more precious.



But what do you mean by "accepting the pillars" yet apparently redefining them.

Of particular concern is redefining the prophecies, especially the ones upon which the pillars are built.

There are in fact two basic hermeneutics (the science of biblical interpretation) in the Adventist Church, but both of them can be useful, it is not a matter of right and wrong. One of these is sometimes called the ?proof-text method.? More people today think of it as taking the Bible as it reads, or taking it literally. It involves using a concordance to select passages from all over the Bible that seem to address a particular topic and attempting to understand their collective weight in light of current questions and concerns. At its best this method is a form of biblical theology, gathering everything the Bible says on a topic and seeking to learn from that data how to understand the mind of God on that topic. This method has been used within the Adventist Church from its very beginning and is quite efficient in quickly exposing biblical evidence related to a topic. At its worst, however, it is a powerful way to pick and choose one?s evidence and confirm preconceived opinions. The selective method without exegetical (careful understanding of the original context) controls makes it too easy for one?s personal biases to determine what texts count as evidence and which ones don?t.

The other hermeneutic is grounded less in concordances and more in broad reading of Scripture. One explores the Bible as a whole, taking it book by book and seeking to understand the questions the Bible writers were addressing and the issues they were facing. The interpreter recognizes that God meets people where they are (there is plenty of Scriptural evidence for that assertion? see the opening chapter of my book Everlasting Gospel, Everchanging World), so the teaching at any given point in the Bible may not be a final word on all related issues, but may be a specific answer to a specific issue in that time and place. Understanding the meaning of each text in its context is crucial to developing a biblical theology that can address today?s issues. At its best this method takes the whole Bible and its original contexts into account. It helps us discern what is clear in God?s revelation and what is not. It avoids the selectivity of the proof-text method and provides safeguards against our natural human biases. But this method also has its limitations. Few people have the desire or the time to master the Bible as a whole. Even for those who do, the process is lengthy and subject to human forgetfulness. In addition, understanding the context of each biblical story and message is best served by knowing the biblical languages and a great deal about ancient history and culture. This makes it easy to leave deep Bible study to the experts, who may become our authorities on what the Bible says rather than allowing every member to do their own diligence in the Word. In addition, projecting the ?trajectory? of what God is doing in this world is often necessary, but it too introduces a human element into the process that can project trajectories God Himself might not recognize. So this method is not a fool-proof answer to all questions when the church is divided.

I have used both methods and see that there are strengths and weaknesses in each. A healthy church will not be limited in its approaches. But the outcome of my decades of study in hermeneutics indicates to me that God has not chosen to satisfy our curiosity about all matters in His Word. At creation God granted human beings intellect, reason and considerable freedom. Such freedom is best exercised when we don?t know the answer to everything. God calls us to sharpen our minds by wrestling with the difficult issues that He has chosen not to settle. So when the church, after years of study, remains divided on a question, humility and kindness are the appropriate response. Everyone agrees that the Bible is clear on how we should treat one another. What a shame it would be if we hammer others on things that in the Bible are not truly clear, while transgressing those teachings of the Bible that all agree are clear.

But the natural human tendency to see what we want to see means that people will tend to gravitate to one or another of these methods and end up disagreeing on what the Bible is actually saying. We become more in love with what we think the Bible is teaching than with the Bible itself. Is there a way to study the Bible that bypasses some of our natural prejudices and helps us seriously learn from the Bible itself? Is there a method that is simple enough and clear enough for all to understand and follow? Stay tuned.

I was shown a platform, braced by solid timbers--the truths of the Word of God. Someone high in responsibility in the work was directing this man and that man to loosen the timbers supporting this platform. Then I heard a voice saying, "Where are the watchmen that ought to be standing on the walls of Zion? Are they asleep? This foundation was built by the Master Worker, and will stand storm and tempest. Will they permit this man to present doctrines that deny the past experience of the people of God? The time has come to take decided action." {1SM 204.1}
The enemy of souls has sought to bring in the supposition that a great reformation was to take place among Seventh-day Adventists, and that this reformation would consist in giving up the doctrines which stand as the pillars of our faith, and engaging in a process of reorganization. Were this reformation to take place, what would result? The principles of truth that God in His wisdom has given to the remnant church, would be discarded. Our religion would be changed. The fundamental principles that have sustained the work for the last fifty years would be accounted as error 1 SM 204.2.

Those who try to bring in theories that would remove the pillars of our faith concerning the sanctuary or concerning the personality of God or of Christ are working as blind men. They are seeking to bring in uncertainties and to set the people of God adrift without an anchor (Manuscript Release 760, pp. 10