I still am curious why someone would want to be an SDA if they didn't believe in a 6 day creation, the Investigative Judgement, etc. I am not knocking anyone. I wouldn't belong to a church which had BIG beliefs that i disagreed with. 7th Day is right up there in the name.

Their interest for John Paul lies in the element of opposition to him that they present. . . . the opposition is virulent and has a long history. Despite the mutual differences, for instance, between the Advent Christian Church, the Church of God of Abrahamic Faith and the Seventh Day Adventists, they are at one in the opposition to Rome as the "Red Whore of the Mediterranean".... (286)
They are destined to undergo a series of sever shocks and mutations as, willy-nilly, they adapt themselves to the new globalism emanating from more powerful groups. There is no way that any one of them will be able to maintain itself in any vibrancy and progressive strength unless it allows -- or suffers- its provincialism to be enlarged beyond the confines it traditionally observed. Individuals among them may for a while maintain themselves within those confines but inevitably, as groups they will have to face dire alternatives. Either they will become thoroughly and realistically globalized and therefore capable of collaborating in the building of a geopolitical structure. Or, as groups, they will remain in place, diminish in numbers and influences and finally loss their identity as operative parts in a new world order. (p. 291-292)

Dedication gave a pretty good answer. Basically we have two sets of "traditional Christianity Fundamentalists" While both sides would strongly deny my next comment, and insist that they believe that Jesus is both our example and substitute, one side does more of a focus on Jesus is our example and the other side has more of a focus on Jesus is our substitute. The more" Jesus is our Substitute" side wants to show that we are typical evangelical Christian churches. The other side is more focused on maintaining traditions and enforcing traditions, and as my college professors used to say "For some reason Adventists have a neurotic need to prove to the world that we are good Baptists". Both have their favorite quotes that they use as the proof of their beliefs.

A big problem I have with both is that they don't want to admit the existence of the rest of the tapestry of Adventism. I consider myself "progressive" however, I am not a Fordite (the side that is more focused on Jesus is our substitute and trying to be more evangelical).

1. I am a strong believer in the Investigative Judgment.

2. I believe that Mrs. White is a prophet, but that she does not fit the fundamentalist picture of a prophet. I try to follow the advice she tried to give to people such as Stephen Haskell and the more militant fundamentalists as to how she saw her inspiration and how to study her works that the church rejected in 1922, and why some people printed flyers in the first decade of the 20th century accusing her of apostasy.

3. I believe that we are the remnant church, and that the

4. Sabbath/Sunday issue plays a role in the last days, but we have built traditions that fill in the gaps of Mrs. White's writings. Mrs. White also writes about the last day events on two levels, a specific application in the Sabbath/Sunday issue, but also a larger principle on liberty of conscience. We Adventists tend to have an "auto-correct" between our eyes and ears to our brain where we automatically correct the larger principle to the specific Sabbath/Sunday application.

5. I believe in the special 7 twenty four hour day creation week. But many who accept this also believe that the 6,000 years is equally as important. I am a firm believer in the creation week, but I am not a stickler on the 6,000 years. (The text is first of all so old and updated over the centuries that they are hard to translate. The different possibilities get us from 6,000 years to 10,000 years. In Jesus' day the popular reading had the idea that the 7000th year was to start in what we call 31 AD. Genealogies where it was strict father-son, every generation included was started in classical Greece. Ancient genealogies, first, but probably not important to us, did not always mean a genetic relationship, but any sort of relationship such as holding the same office. But two important to us is that they tend to include the more important people in the line and skip some generations. And often in different cultures we have the tradition of naming the first born son after the paternal grandfather. Thus there are two names that keep repeating themselves for generations, but in ancient genealogies the names appear once. Also, like what some rabbis were doing when they thought that the 7000th year was about to come around and compared the thousand years with the days of creation. I'm sorry, but Leviticus 23 and 25 and places in Deuteronomy tell the comparable cycles, and day-thousand year is not one of the options that these texts give us. The verses that is used for this has a different context and need to be taken out of context to be used that way. God is not twiddling his thumbs waiting for 7,000 years to end. He has a oneness of freedom of choice, yet seeing the end from the beginning sees the best time to come. He has given different generations possibilities on how they could have spread the gospel to the world in their day. A bit part of Bible study is to first ask what it meant for the original audience, including how the Kingdom could have been set up in or soon after their day. Then we can ask what it means for us in our day and how to apply the text for us. But if we get stuck in things like thinking God's waiting for a set time to pass we miss this step in Bible study.

6. I don't know what Dedication means by fragmenting the great controversy into acceptable and non-acceptable parts. So I don't know how to address this.

I consider myself progressive because I try not to be a fundamentalist, I don't want to blindly cling to tradition, and I like to study what archaeologists and linguists discover about the text. I like to know the historical, geographical and cultural background to the text.

The two traditional groups we find I understand to be, as mentioned earlier, people who both cling to approximately half the truth that they use against the rest of the truth.

Satan is today working on rounding us up into camps. He has a camp for the more conservative and for the more liberal. Whether it is politics, or religion or other groupings, he is leading us into two camps where he will use both to deceive us.

I don't know what Dedication means by fragmenting the great controversy into acceptable and non-acceptable parts. So I don't know how to address this.

"For Seventh-day Adventists, the GCT is the core concept that brings coherence to all biblical subjects. It transcends the age-old divisions that have fractured the Christian church for centuries. It brings peace to theological adversaries who suddenly see in a new harmony the truths that each had been vigorously arguing for. Herein lies the uniqueness of Adventism."
"This "mutually supportive cluster" of ideas that marks Adventist eschatology exists today because the GCT informs all areas of Adventist thought. Every area, because it unfolds from this organizing principle, is coherent and interactive with all other areas."

Anything progressive that attempts to destroy any of the pillars of the SDA Church is actually regressive.

The third group are very accepting of our pillars, but approach them from newer discoveries in say archaeology and linguistic studies. They have different understandings of the nature of hell fire from the traditions. They support our pillars, but don't necessary support our traditions. Both of the above groups are critical of this third group. As one of my college professors used to say "If you preach the truth everyone hates you, everyone just wants to hold on to their partial truths."

Who, for example, are the known people promoting this group's type of thinking?

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

If this is what Progressive Adventism is trying to accomplish, then I would stay clear of them, as we seem to be doing to those caught up in the teachings of Shepherd's Rod.

The problem with labels is that not all who consider themselves "progressive" fall into that camp.
We all need to study to find deeper and fuller meanings in scripture, which progressives say is their goal.
However, it is a sad fact that many "progressives" do undermine, and weaken the pillar doctrines.

We both seem to agree that in classical prophecy we use the principle of local application (and seeing how God could have finished the work in their days?) ... and thus to use the principle of historism to apply the text over history. However, while I still see this as the method to use for Daniel and Revelation, dedication appears to see them as different from the other books, and that using this principle on them is to fall to the errors of preterism

Our pioneers came from many different churches. Many were kicked out of their churches for believing ideas beyond their narrow creeds. They came together and formed a church that only had a handful of "Landmark" or "Pillars" and as long as they were not fanatical they had the freedom to study and follow the dictates of their conscience.

To clarify some we would from time to time have a list of beliefs, but they differed from creeds by a creed being a definition of what was believed. Our list of beliefs were more of a generalized neighborhood where most of us basically hung around. And traditionally the list of beliefs would be written in fairly vague language to include as many as possible.

As we were approaching 1888 we had a conservative publishing house (The Review and Herald) and a more progressive publishing house (the Pacific Press). This upset many members and many wanted the Review to take over the Pacific Press and to bring it into an orthodox line. Mrs. White stopped this and said that we need both views and listed the landmarks and said that the complaint of the progressives removing the landmarks is not true.

In the late 1800s Fundamentalism became popular in Christian churches. Our church has struggled with this. (See books such as Knight's "The Afterlife of Ellen G. White" the biographies on W. W. Prescott and A. G. Daniels, the two books by Campbell on the 1919 Bible Conference and on the 1922 General Conference.)

Now, much of what was originally called Progressive Adventism was the post 1888 writings of Mrs. White, as well as the approach to Adventism as held by people like Willie, Prescott and Daniels. On the other hand people like Elder Holmes, Washburn and Wilkinson felt that these others have gone too far. When I was at Andrews I read many, many letters between those of the school represented by Holmes and Washburn and Mrs. White and/or Willie. Now, while I did not read this accusation in the letters they wrote to Mrs. White, I did find some handbills from their followers. These handbills accused Mrs. White of apostacy in her saying that her writings were not infallible, in teaching the trinity, and in being critical of these "faithful" pastors. They recommended only reading her through those pastors, especially her post 1888 writings, since these pastors knew what she wrote that came from God and what came from her apostasy. Some suggested that a Jesuit had worked his way into her inner circle and was controlling her. One even suggested that she had become a Jesuit and her assignment was to destroy the church where she used to be a true prophet of God to lead the church into following her apostasy.

Elder Andresen developed a way of taking the views of people like Washburn but adding the trinity to it, and his view became popular.

After Mrs. White died, and later with the deaths of Willie, Daniels and Prescott, they somehow changed from being the enemy bringing a progressive view of Adventism to cause apostacy in the church, to making them saints and blaming the ideas they did not like on others.

Now, people such as Holmes and Washburn etc. were faithful Adventists. These were all vialed and useful voices in Adventism, but different threads in the tapestry of Adventism. At the better points in our history our different threads respected each other and learned how to work together. At our lower points we have one subgroup or another decide that they are the ONLY true version of Adventism and that the rest of us are nominal Adventists.

In the 1950s there was a book written. I wish that it wasn't. It is not a very good book, but not a horrible book either. The book was "Questions on Doctrine". But some of our members, especially those of the Washburn and Andresen thread of Adventism, have filtered their beliefs through that book and removed anything that sounds like that book. There was a spirit of "Questions on Doctrine said it, I don't believe it, and that settles it for me."

Justification and Sanctification are two sides of the same coin. Justification is our moment by moment trust in Jesus, and it results in Sanctification. Now, some on the more so called "conservative" side ended up focusing more on Sanctification and this became popular in Adventism in the time between 1922 and the 1940s.

Now, in the 1970s we had the issues of Desmond Ford's who went to the other extreme and had a Justification being the big thing and sanctification only being secondary. Now the one group made things such as the investigative judgment sound very scary, and the needing to do this and that and the other thing. Ford gave peace to those who were struggling with the stress of trying to do just what is right. The truth has pretty much been ripped in about half, but with very, very gagged edges, but between the two schools of Washburn/Andresen on the one side and Ford on the other. They both tend to use their approximately half the truth against the other half. Unfortunately those who are on the Washburn/Andresen side does not respect that there is a strong tapestry of Adventism. They want to picture everything as faithful them (with a Fundamentalist view of their favorite Ellen White quotes, which she and Willie were very unhappy with) and that if you are not fully on their side then the only other option is the Fordites.

It's late and I need to go, but this is a start. You can see more of the history in those books I recommended. Oh, also, there are things that have been discovered in better understanding of the Hebrew, Greek and historical context that show more in the Bible, but which does not always hold on to traditions. Today's decedents of the Washburn/Andresen school (I pick these two names since they are the same idea but Washburn was very anti-trinitarian, while Andresen found a way to include the trinity in this generalized school of thought). want to hold on to church history and not look at what we have learned in the languages and culture, which I do not believe that Washburn or Andresen would pass off so quickly. So there is a mixture of both Adventism and wanting to hold on to all the traditions of conservative Christianity.

A couple of other resources. This may be difficult to find but in the 1980s a couple from Union College Ralph and Betrice Neal (or Neil?) would travel and give a wonderful presentation on how the two sides have divided Bible truth in half and how to unify the truth. Also, the books by A. LeRoy Moore such as "Theology in Crisis" or "The Theology Crisis" and he had two other books, one on "Questions on Doctrine" gives a good history and balance. And if you can get a hold of the original printing of the book "Sanctuary and the Atonement" by the Biblical Resource Committee of the General Conference, sadly not in the reprints (although you can find much of the same information in the book on where Mrs. White's critics are wrong) but the three chapters "The Mighty Opposites: The Atonement in the writings of Ellen G. White" parts 1 and 2, and "We Must All Appear: The Investigative Judgement in the writings of Ellen G. White".

We are trying to be fair to our understanding of what the Bible teaches, and how we understand Mrs. White to wish her writings to be used. Any and all of these views can be considered progressive adventism, and not just be limited to the extremes of Fordism. I'll try to come back to write more.

Progressive Adventism is a redefining of beliefs related to the doctrines of Seventh-day Adventism.
The doctrines specially targeted are:
1. The investigative judgment
2. The prophetic gift of Ellen White
3. The role of Adventism as a church with a special message and mission for the endtime, as in a "remnant church".
4. The role of the Seventh-day Sabbath as any kind of "test" or "seal" or of Sunday as at some point being the "mark of the beast".
5. Creation, while not totally denied is often modified to fit with evolution in some way.
6. The whole controversy theme is fragmented into acceptable and non-acceptable parts.

Basically, as I see it, it is a movement to progress closer to mainstream, ecumenically acceptable unity in Christendom.
In many ways its a "regression" away from Adventism back into more "mainline" interpretations.

To be "progressive" means to progress --- to increase some kind of understanding
But what is the aim to which one is progressing?
Does our progressing knowledge deepen our understanding of the Biblical truths including those upon which Adventism was built? Or does it move away from what made Adventists, Adventist, into accepting more commonly accepted interpretations.

This debate didn't start due to Washburn/Andresen differences. This debate started in 1888 when the church rejected the righteousness by faith message. The best argument I know of for that pov is that we are still here rather than in heaven as Ellen White told us Jesus could have come in her day not once but twice. I see some movement back to that message, but also see large swaths of the church off in what can only be seen as heresy from the SDA perspective.

The Devil saw the failure and used it to split the church, but Ellen White gently pointed them in the right direction, and took years but the church finally got on track.

I've been trying to think of clearer ways to help understand this. I've been wanting to type when home then cut and paste when I came online. But things have been busy.

A couple of things that came to mind is that on the one hand Seventh-day Adventism is a denomination, but on the other hand we are also a movement that Transends denominations and at times even religions. Our pioneers were from a wide range of denominations. They were kicked out of their beloved churches for their belief in Miller's message. They tried to form a church that had room for different understandings. They had only a handful of landmarks, and beyond these they were free to think and discuss. From time to time we form what we call lists of fundamental beliefs, which looks a lot like a creed. However, they are different from creeds. Creeds define what a denomination believes. To be a member you have to be with in the creed. They are like a walled city. However, our different lists of fundamental beliefs differ from creeds in at least two ways: The first, until 2015, they have always been written in a deliberate vague language that members could understand in different ways. In 2015 there were a few lines that our leadership felt needed to be more precise. Of course there were mixed emotions fearful that this action was trying to change from a list of fundamental beliefs to a creed. Second is while creeds are like a walled city that the members live within. Our fundamental belief lists are more like a generalized neighborhood where most of us live in one way or another. And we are more willing to update and modify the list as we learn more.

Now when we last updated the list with our 27 (later adding one more to make it 28) there was a book published with it. The 27 was our official list of fundamental beliefs, however the book gave to the list ways how some of our church leaders wanted the 27 to be understood and applied.

All of this already makes Seventh-day Adventism more of a tapestry of beliefs.

A second part is that, as some of my professors used to say "For some reason Seventh-day Adventist have a neurotic need to prove to the world that we are good Baptists."

In addition to our wanting to prove to the world that we are good Baptists, there is also the influence from reformation theology and Methodism. These two approaches have also colored how we apply what we understand from the Bible. With in the more reformation theology influence we have those who add the investigative judgment to their beliefs and those who feel that the investigative judgement pulls away from the reformation theology and thus encourages the church to give this doctrine up. Among the more Methodist, we seem to have no problem with the investigative judgement. Our big split are those who believe that last generation perfection is of a different quality than any other generation in history. This is often built on John Wesley's theory about a stage of sanctification that he never saw but felt existed. And those of us who understand the Bible and Mrs. White to teach that last generation perfection is not of a different quality, but a different quantity. That every generation has those who have come to trust God so completely that nothing could shake their faith, and that every generation has those who have so closed off to God and salvation so completely that nothing can cause them to give up their unbelief. Then that most of us are in between these extremes, some who have not accepted the Lord into their lives, but may, and those who had accepted the Lord into our lives, but have not yet reached the deep unshakable trust.

Another issue is tradition vs. evidence. Both the more reformation theology Adventists vs. the more Methodist theology Adventists, with in these two camps you have different reactions to as we learn more evidence about the world of the Bible and Church history, and how we have traditionally understood these ideas.

I hope this helps.

Because there are people, myself included, who tend to approach religion from say a Methodist, or Baptist, or Evangelical direction; and even these can be broken down into further sub groups. These affect our understanding of Rightlessness by faith. for example among the evangelicals, we have those who limit the Bible to the issues that the reformers were dealing with in the 16 century. Some of these are just focused on our legal standing, focused on how we have sins of commission and of omission that we are guilty of; therefore Jesus needed the nature of Adam before the fall to balance everything out legally, and many with in this group scratch their head unable to make sense out of the investigative judgment and therefore want us to throw this doctrine away.

And we have, say our friends at Fulcrum7 and similar groups, among which has one foot in the anti-Jones and Wager group of 1888 and one foot with Jones and Wagner in some form or another. The pre-trinitarian view of Christ looked towards Christ as more our example, and has a view of last generation perfection where it is a different quality of religious experience than any generation before; and (while they do not necessary need this), they want Jesus to have the nature of Adam after the fall. and focused on perfect performance of our Adventist traditions. Also, we often find here people who like to preach the good news of the church going to hell in a handbasket. We also find here people who gives lip service to the ministry of Mrs. White, but want to force her into their views of how inspiration should work, with rejecting her guidance on what visions did and did not do for her.(by the way, with in the first group mentioned here, many have the same mentality towards inspiration, only applied to the reformer's understanding of Paul instead of Mrs. White). And even some who limit their Bible study to Mrs. White's quotes on Bible texts, and that the gospel is to be spread in attacking anything "liberal" and focusing on the pope, the pope, the pope, and willing to accept the methods and problems of the traditional papacy as long as it comes from someplace else besides Rome.

These seem to be the two extremes; frequently about half the truth being used against the rest of the truth, although both are wrong on the nature of Christ. (As we became more trinitarian, the church argued for centuries over this point and finally came to the understanding that Jesus had his own unique nature. Mrs. White would quote some of the best quotes of a theologian who explained this very well. But the two extremes want to either read their view into her words, or if they can't do that to simply throw her out.)

Sadly, these two sides want to ignore the tapestry that is Adventism, and wants to picture the church into either of these two views, and only these two views, and why their view is the one faithful to God and the Bible and the other is demonic. They are either stuck in the understanding of righteousness by faith that the Reformers held, or they want to impose the hypothetical theory of a sanctification experience that Wesley theorized about, but he never reached and never met someone who reached it. The Pentecostals apply this to speaking in tongues, and this thread of Adventism applies it to the reaching .some ideal Adventist tradition goal. (Different people have noted that while she does not name his name, her description of members in the last day generation perfection sounds a lot like different descriptions of John Wesley.)

God requires at this time just what He required of the holy pair
in Eden?perfect obedience to His requirements. His law remains
the same in all ages. The great standard of righteousness presented
in the Old Testament is not lowered in the New. It is not the work of
the gospel to weaken the claims of God?s holy law but to bring men
up where they can keep its precepts.
The faith in Christ that saves the soul is not what it is represented
to be by many. ?Believe, believe,? is their cry; ?only believe in
Christ, and you will be saved. It is all you have to do.? While true
faith trusts wholly in Christ for salvation, it will lead to perfect
conformity to the law of God. Faith is manifested by works. And
the apostle John declares, ?He that saith, I know Him, and keepeth
not His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him? (1 John
2:4).
It is unsafe to trust to feelings or impressions; these are unreliable
guides. God?s law is the only correct standard of holiness. It is by
this law that character is to be judged. If an inquirer after salvation
were to ask, ?What shall I do to inherit eternal life?? the modern
teachers of sanctification would answer, ?Only believe that Jesus
saves you.? But when Christ was asked this question He said, ?What
is written in the law? how readest thou?? And when the questioner
replied, ?Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, ...and
thy neighbour as thyself,? Jesus said, ?Thou hast answered right:
this do, and thou shalt live? (Luke 10:25-29).

In many ways pretty much all of Adventism is progressive. Since the deciphering of the Rosetta Stone in the 1820s and Edward Robinson's trips to the Middle East (late 1830s and book out early 1840s) we have lived in an age of increased understanding of the Bible as well as the ancient world in general and ancient languages. As archaeologists find more ancient writings we get better and deeper understandings of possible translations of the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic words. We learn more about historical events or when things were being done.

Seventh-day Adventism has been up to date and involved in this research. And we have formed quite a tapestry of growth. The problem lies as I see it as we have three subgroups that are entrenched within traditions that limit their willingness to grow, and who, instead of sharing what they understand and allow the rest of us to evaluate and apply or not apply as we see useful from our study of the Bible and Mrs. White, these tend to want to force their views onto the rest of the church.

One subgroup is so stuck in the 1500s and the issues that the reformers were facing, that they have a hard time grasping the further development starting with Wesley. These people frequently have a hard time with seeing how the investigative judgment fits in (they tend to be focused on the question "How do I get God to let me into heaven instead of sending me to hell" and focus on the legal status and apply Jesus' substitutionary death to the balancing out the legal status, and with their focus on the balanced legal status, they tend to minimize a victorious life.

A second seems to be at the opposite extreme, and holding views that were held by those who rejected Jones and Wagner in 1888, but then worked out some sort of coming to terms with Jones and Wagner. These tend to be focused on traditions and while they see victory over sin, it seems to me that they limit the victory to the traditions they seem attracted to.

A third is not as intense as the second group, but there are some who have grown out of some of our leaders who said that they understand the mission of the church is to reject anything that they see as "liberal" and were upset that the church developed a full seminary and a Bible Commentary and what was in the 1950s a recognized by scholars of many faiths, a world class Bible Dictionary. They made some comments that seem to indicate that if you want to know what a verse means to read what Mrs. White said about it and that's the final word on the topic, and that we just need to convert as many as we can in our basic Bible Study and Evangelistic meetings.

Each of these, in their own way, seem to want their version of Adventism to be the definitive form of Adventism and to be come THE Adventist creed. We are to be God's witnesses, not his attorney. Read Acts 18 then read Acts 19. Both stories repeat a story with the geography and ending changed. In Acts 18 Paul was teaching in the synagogue in Corinth. Eventually some came who opposed Paul's teaching, and he left with some very sharp words and vowed to only go to the gentiles. He found someplace else to teach, but several from that synagogue, including the rabbi, wanted to continue to study with Paul. We find Paul devastated and God had to give him a dream to continue his ministry. In Acts 19 Paul is in Ephesus. and broke his vow as he is again teaching in the synagogue. Once again he was opposed, but this time instead of leaving in a huff, his attitude was that if people were uncomfortable with him teaching in the synagogue, he will teach elsewhere and anyone who wants to continue to study with him was welcome. We later find a riot by those making the image of Aramis, and it was pointed out that Paul did not rob from her temple, and that he never even blasphemy her name. In Acts 19, instead of attacking, Paul would only share what he loved and if others could benefit good.

I understand Acts 19 to also be the spirit of the original organization of the Seventh-day Adventist church. Our pioneers came from a wide denominational background. They were kicked out of their beloved churches because their churches were too narrow to allow the additional thought of the Advent movement. They did not suddenly throw out all they used to believe and set up a new uniform set of beliefs. They agreed on a handful of landmarks/pillars, and a desire to have no creed save their conscience based on their understanding of the Bible. A willingness to discuss and listen. From time to time we would give out a general list of where we more or less were in our study and growth. Many (maybe most) of our pioneers questioned the trinity and were willing to preach against it; yet they did not make their views a test of fellowship. People were free to join if they were trinitarian or not. People would share and allow the hearers to evaluate and make up their own mind.

It does have to be based on our landmarks and on sound Biblical studies and not merely tradition I'm not talking about minority views that cannot be sub stained by just a small group. I've already pointed out two or three subgroups of Adventism who worry me. Those outside the tapestry of Adventism worry me even more so. And even with these two or three groups I like much of what they say. What bothers me about them is the righteousness by fear that they tend to use, the preaching that the church is going to hell in a hand basket, and insisting that their particulars, such as one or the other of the two misconceptions of the nature of Christ be forced upon the entire church, or the one groups insistence that we give up the investigative judgment .and to limit our knowledge of the Bible to what the Reformers taught.

When the town of Washington NH was founded, the settlers set up the different buildings that they needed. However, as they were setting up their church, the villagers could not agree. Some of them wanted the church to only have official ministers holding the line. Others wanted a church where anyone who felt that they had a message from the Lord could share their message and that the members use their own relationship with Christ to evaluate what was taught. They concluded to build two rather than one church; a church for the strict hold the line, and the second for the share what you have and we will evaluate.

Guess which one of these churches became one of (and considered*) the first Seventh-day Adventist church? Are you saying that the other church in town was the correct church to belong to?

*Now there is at least one other church which we can use in the discussion for the first Seventh-day Adventist church: Linklaen Center NY. A major family in this church was the Coon family. John MaCoone, Sr., who was born in Aberdeenshire, Scotland around 1625. MaCoone migrated to the American colonies where he was a member of the first Seventh Day Baptist church in Rhode Island. He died in East Cambridge, Massachusetts in 1705. He was a Seventh-day Baptist and settled into a Seventh-day Baptist community in Rhode Island So the Coon Family kept the Sabbath since at least the 1600s.

The MaCoon eventually became Coon and decedents eventually moved and settled into the Seventh-day Baptist community of Lincklaen Center NY. ,The Coon family, among others in the Lincklaen Center Seventh-day Baptist church accepted Millerism and were kicked out of the Seventh0day Baptist church because of accepting Millerism.

They built their own church and continued to worship on the Sabbath and held to their Millerite beliefs. It appears that it was around the 1880s that this little, long time Sabbath keeping group of Millerites learned about the Seventh-day Adventist church and became a formal part of the Seventh-day Adventist church. But this is a group of long time Sabbath Keeping Millerites and may be representative of other Seventh-day Baptist or other Sabbath Keeping Communities that accepted Miller's message. And this group of Sabbath Keeping Millerites from Lincklaen Center NY did eventually become a part of the Seventh-day Adventist church. This is a history that we must not forget!!!
Here the dates are not clear as to which happened first; the Coon family and others who were excommunicated for accepting Millerism, or the Washington NH Church changing from keeping Sunday to the Sabbath. Also, Washington NH already had a church building, while these Sabbath keeping Millerites in Lincklaen Center needed to get their own building. Also, while Washington NH was right in the center of the development of the Seventh-day Adventist church, connected with the Whites and Joseph Bates; Lincklaen Center's congregation were just meeting in that little valley and it was not until the 1880s that they learned that there were other Millerites who, although were Sunday Keepers, changed to keeping the Sabbath and formed a denomination. Since the church in Lincklaen Center had much in common with the Seventh-day Adventist denomination, they ended up being grandfathered in and became the Lincklaen Center Seventh-day Adventist church. At this time Charles S.?Coon was pastor of these Sabbath Keeping Millerites in Lincklaen Center. He left for a year to study the ministerial program at Battle Creek College, returning to his pulpit in Lincklaen Center officially as a Seventh-day Adventist minister in 1888. At this time, besides just being the shepherd of the Millerites in Lincklaen Center, Charles Coon also began visiting near by towns where he started to hold evangelistic meetings. He and other members of the Coon family became active in raising up more Seventh-day Adventist churches.

Since Lincklaen Center is in the country and the town's population is much smaller than it was in the 1800s, so it was closed down for a while. the New York Conference gave the church back to the Coon family who maintained it. Then in 1977 Glen Coon took several of us right after Campmeeting for a work bee on the church and then turned it back over to the New York Conference where it has been operating ever since. However, the conference has recently put this historic church on the market. I don't know what's happening, but when I told the conference officials about the history of this church they said that they are reconsidering. I've been campaigning on us saving this history of this church, writing to both the Conference and Adventist Heritage ministry, asking them to at least contact the Coon family, who built this church, lead it both before and after it was grandfathered into the Seventh-day Adventist denomination; and who took over the church the first time the conference closed it down. And hoping that I can find other members willing to chip in to save this history. The Lincklaen Center Seventh-day Adventist church has at least 400 years of Sabbath keeping. Was an early Sabbath keeping Millerite church, may have technically be the very first Seventh-day Adventist church (or maybe other Seventh-Day Baptist communities have had a similar experience with Miller, but we don't have their history; however Lincklaen Center history being saved can represent them. I had asked Roger Coon if Linklaen Center may have actually been the very first Seventh-day Adventist church; he replied "Maybe" but that the dates are not clear as to when the Millerites were kicked out of the Lincklaen Center Seventh-Day Baptist church and when Washington NH started keeping the Sabbath. Please keep this situation in your prayers (and check book with donations for this church to the New York Confench and/or Adventist Heritage Ministry.)

I will pray for this church, but like Peter said silver and gold have i none.