Talk:Last Generation Theology/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Some comments

Having read this article from start to finish, I can't help but feel that it was written by someone who strongly advocates LGT. The bias comes through quite clearly. Hence I am concerned about NPOV. I also do not feel that the article has been written in a formal encyclopedic style. The quality of wording and expression could be improved considerably. Tonicthebrown 08:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed

I agree with Tonicthebrown's comments here. Additionally, this article seems to be of little or no interest at all to the Adventist Church. LGT seems to be a random opinion rather than a full blown challenge to any theology of the Adventist church. For it to be called a movement, it needs believers; otherwise, it's just another opinion of what should be in a church denomination's doctrine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.49.106.70 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 30 September 2006

I probably would not go so far as to call LGT a "random opinion" which is "of little or no interest" to the Adventist church. Yes, LGT is a minority opinion that is opposed by the leadership of the church. But nevertheless they are quite vocal and active, they operate numerous independent ministries, and seem to attract a fair number of supporters. Some friends once brought me to their seminars in Melbourne (Australia), and these appeared quite popular. The "concerned brethren" appear to hold LGT sentiments, and they are certainly a sizeable group. The stand which M.L. Andreason took against the leadership of the church in 1957 continues to be applauded by many Adventists. In summary, it seems to me that LGT is very much a force to be reckoned with—it's inaccurate to write it off as a "random opinion" Tonicthebrown 08:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Mis-use of "Historic"

I put quotation marks around the word "historic." The term "historic Adventistism" should be 1) avoided or 2) used with quotation marks or 3) use a tag clarifying that this is a label. It is difficult to distinguish whether this refers to a specific movement, or with what the authors believe are true historical beliefs of earlier believers. By failing to make a proper distinction, it mis-leads the readers and the authors show a clear bias assuming that this movement is truly faithful to historic doctrines, which is disputable. The point is that either we avoid calling it historic Adventistm, or we use quotation marks around "historic."--Tomluttrell (talk) 00:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Secondly, a CITATION is needed for the assertion that "'Historic Adventism' formed a large portion of the church in the early 1900s." I'm not sure how to request a citation, but that along with many other references, are needed as indicated. Tomluttrell (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tom, to request a citation, use the {{Fact}} template. The issue is what the most reliable, independent sources call the movement. From my reading, they call it "historic Adventism". There may be a reference to what you seek in that article. Either way, feel free to improve either article yourself with neutral, verifiable material. Cheers, Colin MacLaurin (talk) 12:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Another point - you mention that "Historic Adventists" are not necessarily believing "historically"-held Adventist beliefs. In the Historic Adventism#Criticism section Tonic or I added a criticism of this from Woodrow Whidden. If you know of other reliable sources who have said the same, please add them to either article. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 07:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of what the people in a movement want to call it, it is still misleading people. Just because somebody wants to start an offshoot movement and call it the official church, doesn't make it so, and it is misleading people if it really is not. People calling themselves historic doesn't make them so. We have to differentiate between a legitimate adjective and a label. My only way of improving this article is by deleting assertions that don't have any proof. Wouldn't you agree?

For both articles on LGT and "Historic" Adventism, I believe the burden of proof is not on people like Woodrow Whidden to disprove that Historics are NOT historical, but rather the burden is on the Historics to prove that they ARE historical, with supporting references for which I request above. I agree with others writing here that there should be a preface in the BEGINNING that so-called "Historic" Adventism and LGT are not officially endorsed by the church, rather than at the end in fine print. --Tomluttrell (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Glad you're willing to contribute to the article. You're absolutely correct about the burden of proof; rather, it comes down to what reliable sources say (see the policy Wikipedia:Verifiability). If a statement is not supported by reliable third-party sources, it should be removed. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 02:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Criticism Section

This article needs a section for criticism of LGT. I had added one with info reverted from a previous post, but it has been deleted by @simbagraphix. Can we please add this back in? Databases (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Need to work for consensus before we make undue or POV changes such as this section on criticism of LGT. One thing you have to be clear is that this is not Andreasen's LGT, as this is Adventist doctrine with some wrinkles such as the "Hastening Eschatology" and I propose a simplified presentation in this article with link to a separate more detailed article on Andreasen's views on LGT such as we see here http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Criticism_of_Ellen_G._White. "

So I propose the following critique of LGT to be added in the article under "Criticism of LGT"-

Critics of LGT bring up the following points.

1. The perfection theology is a message only for those who want to be highly self-disciplined in thought as well as behavior and many respond by giving up all hope and assume they will loose salvation

2. Perfection theology makes behavior the focus of one’s Christian life. It is all about putting maximum effort into reducing one’s sin

3. Perfection theology is isolating, creating separation from those who strive to keep from sinning and focused on the goal of perfect living which tends to isolate oneself from the outside world and those in the church who do not treat perfection with the same importance.

4. Perfection theology suggests that we must live a life that tends to focus on legalism.....Simbagraphix (talk) 01:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

WP discourages separate articles dedicated to criticism. Better to have the criticism integrated into the rest of the article, but if we can't have it that way, than at least a criticism section within the article where alternative viewpoints can be described (with proper citations). See Wikipedia:Criticism Databases (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I will go ahead with adding to at least within the article...Simbagraphix (talk) 11:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Improving Clarity and NPOV

Introductory Paragraph

For the sake of clarity, I believe that a statement that Last Generation Theology (LGT) is not generally endorsed by the leadership and scholarship of the Adventist church, is required in the first paragraph. There is a statement saying it is a "significant" viewpoint, so for balance I believe it needs to be said that it is not mainstream or officially supported.

Perhaps something like this quote from near the end of the article would suffice, "Although exceptions exist, most official Seventh-day Adventist Church resources published since the late 1970s have opposed the concepts identified as LGT." Colin MacLaurin 05:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Colin et al, A satisfactory case can be made for leaving the introductory paragraph as is rather than adding the statement about official dislike of LGT, as follows.

Let's keep in mind that at the root of SDA teaching is its current set of Fundamental Beliefs. There have been four major sets (1872, 1931, 1980, 2005) with varying degrees of significance. The 1872 statement was not approved by a GC session for example. Nevertheless, it should be kept in mind that the 1980 statement for the first time included a hamartiological element that formally endorsed the view of sin found in LGT. In 1980 this was placed in Fundamental Belief #7, which included this: "The image of God in them [Adam and Eve] was marred and they became subject to death. Their descendants share this fallen nature and its consequences. They are born with weaknesses and tendencies to evil." This denominational stance on the doctrine of sin is starkly in contrast to the Augustinian conception of original sin that reigns in most segments of Western Christianity. The fact that the SDA denomination actually went out of its way to incorporate such a statement in 1980 is an indicator of the strength LGT viewpoints have in the church. Moreover, the list of belief statements was not changed for 25 years, and in 2005 when an additional belief was added, the statement mentioned was not changed, but was in essence reaffirmed by the General Conference delegates in session.

Add to this other factors, such as the continued and expanded publishing of Ellen G. White's writings by the church, in which she affirms that sin is best understood in terms of 1 John 3:4 more than 166 times. Again, one of the most widespread Bible study sets in use in the church for many decades now, the Amazing Facts Bible Studies, after 1980 added as the second study, just after the first one establishing the trustworthiness of the authority of Scripture, a study on sin, affirming the same understanding as given above. Realize, this is the second element in a set of 28 studies. Establishing this doctrine of sin as the baseline for a whole Christian denomination is taking a marked step.

A denomination of 14+ millions like the SDA does not change its doctrines at the drop of a hat or on the turn of a dime. Nor does it take a step such as creating a statement like the aforementioned and standing for it in stark contrast with other evangelical bodies. Furthermore, during the floor debate at the GC session in 1980 at least one delegate sought to modify in the fundamental belief statement to include rthe idea of original sin, that was not done; the statement as currently offered then prevailed.

It should be noted that books by Priebe and Douglass were published in the late 70s and 80s also on denominational presses--not independent publishers, upholding LGT views.

Add to this, that LGT viewpoint authors mentioned in the article (J.R. Zurcher in __Touched With Our Feelings__ in 1999 and Herbert E. Douglass, __Messenger of the Lord__, in 1998) have been sought so recently to publish major books on denominational presses, and we see further evidence that within Adventism, LGT or at the minimum particular core elements of it, retain even today significant influence within the upper echelons of the church.

It is sufficient that at the end of the article it is indicated that today, within "officialdom" the LGT viewpoint is generally opposed. Indeed, the case for a currently negative official view may be overstated in the article. Certainly, within the current youth revival there is no question that a very significant segment stands in wholehearted support of LGT, although documentation of this doubtless is sparse. In summation, the evidence makes clear that within the church, both views are significantly supported. My recommendation would be to leave the statement where it is at the end of the article; do not add it to the front, as it would overstate the case for official antipathy to LGT. Indeed, the article may be improved by removing altogether the statement about official antipathy towards LGT. (Added 17 July 2006). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.22.144.151 (talk • contribs) 10:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

---

The first paragraph read: LGT "is the designation given to a line of theological emphasis connected with the Seventh-day Adventist Church". I am concerned that this sentence could be misleading. It could easily be misunderstood to mean that LGT is an "Adventist" teaching. To maintain NPOV and clarity for an uninformed reader, I believe it is essential to clarify in the first paragraph that LGT is not an Adventist teaching, in the sense that it is not taught by the mainstream church. Hence I just changed it to clarify that it is a minority movement within Adventism.

Having said that, I acknowledge and agree with your points that it is a real movement. I also agree with your points that submovements help to define the identity of a religious group. But it must be made clear that this is just one such movement, and a minor one at that. There are other minority movements, such as Adventists who don't believe in the trinity (a small minority - but an organised group I suspect; one walked into my church and started talking about it just this year) or Adventists who don't believe in the prophetic ministry of Ellen White, for example. It would need to be stated that these are not typical of the church.

Please explain the statement, "...the 1980 statement for the first time included a hamartiological element that formally endorsed the view of sin found in LGT." It may be compatible with the LGT understanding, but surely it does not "formally endorse" it?

(In respect for your request that the "currently negative official view" not be overstated, I have cut and pasted the appropriate comment to keep just a single statement, rather than copy it into both locations.) --Colin MacLaurin 17:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Colin, the first sentence as it appeared in the statement (LGT "is the designation given to a line of theological emphasis connected with the Seventh-day Adventist Church") is neither misleading nor likely to cause "LGT" to be construed as an LGT teaching in some official capacity. Your change of the opening paragraph actually operates against NPOV by unduly injecting your perception that LGT is a minor viewpoint within the church. To say something is "connected with" and then explain the connection as the article does is just about as NPOV as you can get.

The sentence (as it was before you changed it) does not assert that LGT is an Adventist teaching. However, in fact, it is most definitely an Adventist teaching and finds its origination in Seventh-day Adventism. The article nowhere asserted that LGT was/is an official teaching. However, what the article suggested, (and offered several reference points for historically in terms of leaders of the church, writings, and even officially published statements) was that historically the concepts frequently since 1937 called "LGT" within the church have been meaningful to many Adventists.

Look even at what SDA Theological Seminary professor historian Dr. George R. Knight (no darling of conservative or LGT SDAs!) has to say:

"The publication of Questions on Doctrine did more than any other single event in Adventist history to create what appear to be permanently warring factions within the denomination" (Questions on Doctrine, Annotated Edition (2003), p. v).

"...in a recent poll [c. 1955] of several Adventist leaders Froom himself had discovered that 'nearly all of them' 'feel that Christ had our sinful nature.'" (Ibid., p. xv).

"Andreasen... had been the denomination's most influential theologian and theological writer in the late 1930s and throughout the 1940s..." (Ibid., p. xviii).

"M. L. Andreasen, the most influential Adventist theologian of the 1940s..." (Ibid., p. 277, footnote).

"[What Andreasen taught about Christ's humanity had] become the belief of the majority of Seventh-day Adventists in the first half of the twentieth century. That teaching was so widely accepted that it no longer needed to be argued in Adventist literature. It was accepted as a fact. It was upon that teaching that M. L. Andreasen would build his final generation theology" (Ibid., p. 519).

"By the 1940s Andreasen had become the most influential theologian in Adventism and his final generation theology had been accepted by a large majority of Adventists" (Ibid., p. 519, footnote).

These references from Knight (I have probably missed a few more) demonstrate that LGT teachings (such as concerning Christ's humanity), and the atonement and other points offered to Adventists in revised form in QOD were extremely prominent, even majority positions, and that Andreasen is considered by Knight, as having been the "most influential" Adventist theologian of that era. He speaks repeatedly throughout his notes in the book of long-term singificnat division between significant groups within the church. Minority position?

True, that was then and this is now. However, I think that without meaning to, you have under-estimated the current size of the those holding these positions. Knight wrote of something so strong that it had the staying power to exist as one of two "permanently warring factions within the denomination."

Equating the LGT viewpoint with other minority movements such as the current crop of resurgent antitrinitarians is unconvincing and a poor comparison. Antitrinitarianism today exists among a small subset of folks, many of whom have completely abandoned the SDA denomination and their church membership. There are no significant SDA writers or scholars or administrators upholding the antitrinitarian position. We know of no pastors, teachers, or administrators presently employed by the denomination who espouse the antitrinitarian position. There is not even a claim to a lineage of antitrinitarian teachers existing in the church for any long period connected to contemporary times.

In contrast, those who have taught the concepts in LGT within the church have been employed all through the ranks, whether we are thinking of prominent writers like Andreasen mentioned above, or other writers and theologians like H. E. Douglass, or men like General Conference President Robert H. Pierson. These men were all credentialed, employed church workers functioning within the denomination. Today there continue to be pastors, writers, and workers working in the church and teaching these concepts.

I appreciated your question about 1980. What I had in mind is found in Fundamental Belief #7, wherein it is stated with reference to man's nature after the Fall, that "When our first parents disobeyed God, they denied their dependence upon Him and fell from their high position under God. The image of God in them was marred and they became subject to death. Their descendants share this fallen nature and its consequences. They are born with weaknesses and tendencies to evil." The latter line, the teaching that men after the Fall are born "with weaknesses and tendencies to evil"--not with guilt, condemnation, or original sin, is the most definite statement on the topic in the whole list of 28 beliefs. (Check this at: http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/fundamental/index.html). This position is decidedly in contrast with general Christian viewpoints held by most other Christian or Protestant groups, which almost inevitably affirm guilt or condemnation in some form. So, it would be more correct to say that in 1980 the church for the first time offered to the onlooking world an expression of its hamartiology (doctrine of sin) that was exactly compatible with the views that have since come to be discussed under the commonly accepted term "last generation theology" or "LGT." Hence, the church did not in 1980 endorse LGT per se, but a key doctrinal view that is the underpinning of it. The church endorses the view in FB#7, which exactly harmonizes with the same views expressed in LGT14 points #1 and #2.

I appreciate, Colin, your desire to get this right. However, I think that in making the changes you have made, that the factual picture has been substantially blurred. I would like to see the material revisited so that it stands closer to what was before. For it is true that LGT is "connected" with the SDA Church, even as the article at that time also stated that in recent years the viewpoint had not been the preferred viewpoint of officialdom. As I indicated, in reviewing the page then, I felt that the earlier material was too pessimistic in tone. Actually, the church today, regardless of the reticence of its "official" publications in general to be favorable to LGT, has beliefs that continue to dovetail with it most smoothly. This is very unlike the situation with the antitrinitarians you mention, who are mostly if not entirely outside the denomination and who soon leave behind their faith in the work of E.G. White because in the end they cannot reconcile her strong three persons in one God statements with their new belief system.

Please don't be offended if I or someone else comes along and changes the entry again. However, I will hold off for now. I think that you can adjust the entry again perhaps, taking some of these thoughts and references into consideration and bring it to a more even-handed place than it is now. JT Aug. 8, 2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.40.162.149 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 9 August 2006

---

Hi JT, I just reread your comments again, after time thinking about them.

• You mention that "historically the concepts frequently since 1937 called 'LGT' within the church have been meaningful to many Adventists." I'm sure this is true and notable, and the article certainly gives this impression.
• I agree that my comparison with antitrinitarians was a limited one. I was citing an example which I assumed we would agree on. But I do believe that there are other subgroups of Adventism just as notable as LGT.
• Feel free to change it if you think the NPOV could be improved. Also, please consider my comment below about "too much biographical detail".

I appreciate that the tone of this dialogue has been civil and polite. God bless you, Colin MacLaurin 14:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

George R. Knight quotes

I just reread the comments above (which I must have done at least four times now)! I highly recommend that the quotes from George R. Knight be placed into the article. Knight has done a great service to supporters of LGT and other very conservative Adventists, because the fact that he is not a LGT-supporter gives a lot of credibility to his statements above about the significance (particularly historically) of LGT. Ideally it would be good to find other references as well, but I am confident you will not find better ones that his annotated Questions on Doctrine. Colin MacLaurin 12:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Sin and the 28 Fundamentals

By the way I still cannot see how the doctrine about sin in the 28 Fundamentals supports LGT. Although I have not studied the details of hamartiology, the doctrine of sin, I do not see how the fundamental belief contracts with other Christian concepts such as original sin. Please explain, as this may assist the development of the article. I think that at Avondale College the lecturers have taught that sin is both: it is being born into sin without choice, and it is also our personal decision. Colin MacLaurin 12:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Too Much Biographical Detail

Some of the biographical details of LGT proponents are unnecessary and fall outside the context of the article - particularly the church employment details of Andreasen, Pierson and Douglass. The intention seems to be to build the credibility of these figures. I suggest much more concise statements, with details reserved for separate Wikipedia articles on each of these figures. The other alternative would be to also give full biographical details for Froom, Gulley, Knight, Johnsson and the other opponents of LGT. Yet I maintain that this would be out of the context of the article, and reduce the clarity. Colin MacLaurin 05:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It has been seven months since my original post. I again offer the main contributors to this article the chance to remove extraneous biographical detail, possibly to new articles; before I take out the "red pen" myself. Regards, Colin MacLaurin 12:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy is Crucial

I have revised this article for accuracy. I have removed the points of contention Colin and TonictheBrown have raised as they hold no merit. They are subjective and biased opinions lacking relevance.

While I am unfamiliar with the term "LGT", The beliefs that are listed are in line with Adventist biblical understanding and the Pen of Inspiration. Furthermore I will make the timely observation these ideas are in fact the subject of a debate is creating a shaking in many Adventist churches as there are many who are promoting the opposing viewpoint(contra LGT) .

If Colin or TonictheBrown wish to add biographical data for the individuals who are contra to this belief, that is his perrogative.

To state that the article is unbalanced because of the bios or that it is "Narrative" in its nature is not accurate. OSIRIS X 3:28, 27 February 2007

Please assume good faith that I and TonictheBrown are attempting to be objective, unbiased and relevant. Actually, the comments about the biographies are completely separate to the other comments about the neutrality of the article. Looking at the article, the neutrality has improved markedly since its inception. I will however replace the "not verified" tag. I stand by my position on the bios. I suggest a single sentence saying, "Douglass has held a number of significant teaching and administrative positions within the church", or similar. Please give a reason if you disagree. Colin MacLaurin 02:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Attempt to Prove LGT taught by Adventist Church Pioneers

Numerous sections under History and Doctrine use words that attempt to show that LGT is was taught by Adventist Pioneers, and consist largely of long quotations from Ellen White. This argument is better left outside of wikipedia. The article should state clearly the core tenants of LGT, cite sources, and leave arguments about validity of LGT to other venues. This is not the place for long quotes from Ellen White--better to state clearly what is being taught. I have flagged this article POV for this reason. Databases (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is a good explanation of what the Adventist Pioneers believed. "A Review of "The Seventh-day Adventist Message" The Hereditary View of Perfection

Few would want to deny that the pioneers of the Seventh-day Adventist church believed that the final generation would become perfected, or sinless, men. Said James White:

"The mass of people think that if a person is prepared to die, he is prepared for the coming of the Lord. But they do not consider the difference between dying and standing alive to meet the Lord at His appearing. It is one thing to die in the Lord, to yield our spirits to Him while He is pleading for us before the Father's throne, and quite a different thing to stand in the time of trouble after Jesus has ceased to plead in man's behalf, after His priest-hood is closed, and He is preparing to come to redeem His own, and take vengeance on His foes. They who realize these things will bless heaven that means have been devised in the mercy of God for the perfection of the saints."—Life Sketches of James and Ellen White, p. 431. (This book is not the present Life Sketches of Ellen G. White.)

And the generation who followed the pioneers believed in perfectionism. An excellent example is John A. Brunson's Week of Prayer reading which appeared in the General Conference Bulletin, III (Fourth Quarter, 1899), pages 78 to 81. One could hardly cite anything more officially accepted than a Week of Prayer reading. Said Brunson:

"Is more required of the candidates for translation than of others who have lived and died in Christ? I answer, Most certainly, Why?—Because those who shall be translated must reach that degree of perfection while in the flesh that will enable them to stand in the last times without a mediator. That means much,—a great deal more I fear than many of us realize."

". . . if His work as mediator began just as soon as the necessity for it arose, we conclude that it will cease only when the necessity for it ceases. But this necessity for mediation arose when man became a sinner, a being in rebellion against his Maker, an apostate. Hence it will cease only when God's children in the flesh have been restored to that complete harmony with God which was enjoyed by man before he sinned. That is to say, he who will be translated will be as perfectly conformed to the image of Christ, the purpose for which he was called (Rom. 8:28, 29), as Adam before he sinned was conformed to the image of God."

If anyone would like to read a documentation of the perfectionistic stance of early Adventists, We refer him to Robert Haddock's thesis, A History of the Doctrine of the Sanctuary in the Advent Movement, 1800-1905 (Andrews University, June 1970)....http://www.presenttruthmag.com/7dayadventist/SDAPart1/1.html....Simbagraphix (talk) 13:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Granted, and thank you for citing sources. I also want to apologize for bringing accusations to the table. I do not intend to start an edit war, but I just want to see this topic given a fair treatment. Could I suggest that we divide the discussion more clearly, so that all this information can be summarized and sourced in a logical manner, without pre-supposing a given viewpoint? More specifically, the doctrine section could be condensed by summarizing each portion, and giving only perhaps a very few in-line quotations where absolutely necessary to explain the position. Then, we can include this information in the History section, under Early Pioneers. (And given, contrary to an earlier point, we should include early pioneers in the history discussion, only insuring it is presented from NPOV.)

Once we clearly outline the doctrine portion of the article, I think in all fairness that each section of the history portion should reference (where appropriate) which portion of LGT doctrine is under discussion, as (in some views) LGT was a slow development of thought from the 1840's through 1888, then to the 1940's and M. L. Andreasen, then to the 1980's and the present day. Each era and each individual taught specific things, which may or may not reflect LGT as a whole, or specific parts of it, so I think we should be clear on that in presenting the article.Databases (talk) 00:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

3 SDA groups

Right wing legalists -- often called Historic Adventists. This is a vocal, but minor part of SDAs, who think they are the majority. And they think that all other Adventists are Progressive Adventists.

Mainstream SDAs, believe the 28 fundamentals, by far the majority of SDAs

Progressive SDAS. The left wing vocal, minority of SDAs who think they are the majority. And they think that all other adventists are Historic Adventists.

--RoyBurtonson (talk) 19:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Historic Adventists are a very small group which don't believe even in the understanding the Pioneers unveiled such as the nature of the GodHead, and Christ untainted by sin, while the Progressive Adventist don't believe in most of the basic fundamental beliefs, and walk away from the Sabbath, the inspiration of Ellen White, the 7 day Creation, etc..

Mainstream Adventist reject either extreme and hold to the pillars of Adventism, and the 28 fundamentals, including the basic understanding of overcoming sin given in scripture, and clearly laid out in the writings of Ellen White.Simbagraphix (talk) 12:50, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

The idea that overcoming sin means reaching a state of sinless perfection is not a mainline position. That idea came from M. L. Andreasen. The teachings of Morris and Lee Venden (and others) represent the mainline position. i.e., We are counted as perfect in God's eyes through the perfection of the life of Jesus, so long as we keep our love relationship with God. Perfection is the act of growing maturity in our love relationship with God. Each person is at their individually mature love relationship. While our lives may be less sinful over time, still, we are by nature sinners, it is our relationship with God that determines our salvation, not our lack of sins.

The Historic Adventists hold to reaching a state of sinless perfectionism. While a minority position, it is not a "very small" minority. The Progressive Adventist position tries to paint mainstream Adventists with sinless perfectionism. And the Historic Adventists are glad to also paint mainstream Adventists with that same position because it amplifies their position greater than it is. Both positions are in error. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Mainstream Adventist hold to the Biblical understanding of overcoming sin, and this is support by its doctrines, and by the writings of Ellen White as seen in the following:

"As one of us He was to give an example of obedience. For this He took upon Himself our nature, and passed through our experiences. . By His humanity, Christ touched humanity; by His divinity, He lays hold upon the throne of God. As the Son of man, He gave us an example of obedience; as the Son of God, He gives us power to obey." Desire oF Ages, 24.

"Many hold that from the nature of Christ it was impossible for Satan's temptations to weaken or overthrow Him. Then Christ could not have been placed in Adam's position. to go over the ground where Adam stumbled and fell; He could not have gained the victory that Adam failed to gain. If man has in any sense a more trying conflict to endure than had Christ. then Christ is not able to succor him when tempted. Christ took humanity with all its liabilities. He took the nature of man, capable of yielding to temptation; and. with the same aid that man may obtain, He withstood the temptations of Satan and conquered the same as we may conquer . . ." International Sabbath School Quarterly, "The Spirit of Sacrifice" a special testimony (Senior Division, No. 41, Third Quarter. 1905, Oakland: Pacific Press Publishing Association), 89.

"By assuming sinful flesh, and voluntarily making Himself dependent upon His Father to keep Him from sin while He was in the world, Jesus not only set the example for all Christians, but also made it possible for Him to minister for sinful flesh the gift of His own Spirit and the power for obedience to the will of God. "International Sabbath School Quarterly, "The Incarnation and the Priesthood" (Senior Division, No. 71, First Quarter. 1913. Pacific Press). 15.

' Sinless Life': .. 'In His humanity Christ partook of our sinful. fallen nature. If not, then He was not 'made like unto His brethren,' was not 'in all points tempted like as we are,' did not overcome as we have to overcome, and is not, therefore, the complete and perfect Saviour man needs and must have to be saved. . On His human side, from His very conception He was begotten and born of the Spirit." [Bible Readings For the Home, Review and Herald, 174]

Adventist belief is we can overcome sin as shown above...Simbagraphix (talk) 00:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

[You do not have the right to delete my comments.]

I was raised in a SDA home, and have been a member all my life. I'm now 64. I consider myself a mainstream SDA, and I am well aware of all the various sidewinds and perversions that have crept into the church over the years. Last Generation Theology is NOT mainstream thinking. It came into the church through Andreasen and is based on sanctification by works, not faith. It sounds right, but it focuses on mankind doing his part to make himself perfect. This is heresy. Mainstream theology has that both Salvation and Sanctification is by FAITH ALONE. Just as there is nothing man can do to save himself, there is nothing man can do to sanctify himself. All kinds of Ellen quotes are used by both sides of the argument, so just quoting Ellen DOES NOT settle the issue. Besides, that is quoting a primary source, and your selection of them is OR and is therefore not allowed on WP. You need to base the article on reliable SDA theologians. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I think we can begin with the SDA Bible Commentary :

"All who will can be overcomers. Let us strive earnestly to reach the standard set before us. Christ knows our weakness, and to Him we can go daily for help. It is not necessary for us to gain strength a month ahead. We are to conquer from day to day...We become overcomers by helping others to overcome, by the blood of the Lamb and the word of our testimony. The keeping of the commandments of God will yield in us an obedient spirit, and the service that is the offspring of such a spirit, God can accept...

"Those who love and keep the commandments of God are most obnoxious to the synagogue of Satan, and the powers of evil will manifest their hatred toward them to the fullest extent possible. John foresaw the conflict between the remnant church and the power of evil, and said, “The dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.”

The forces of darkness will unite with human agents who have given themselves into the control of Satan, and the same scenes that were exhibited at the trial, rejection, and crucifixion of Christ will be revived. Through yielding to satanic influences, men will be transformed into fiends; and those who were created in the image of God, who were formed to honor and glorify their Creator, will become the habitation of dragons, and Satan will see in an apostate race his masterpiece of evil—men who reflect his own image" [S.D.A. Bible Commentary Vol. 7, Page 974]

Now Adventist doctrine is that Christ took the fallen nature of man as he was after four thousand years of sin, but not the sinfulness a spiritual nature that was unfallen, so He could be a example in overcoming sin.

"In taking upon Himself man’s nature in its fallen condition, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin. He was subject to the infirmities and weaknesses by which man is encompassed, “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.” He was touched with the feeling of our infirmities, and was in all points tempted like as we are. And yet He “knew no sin.” He was the Lamb “without blemish and without spot.” Could Satan in the least particular have tempted Christ to sin, he would have bruised the Saviour’s head. As it was, he could only touch His heel. Had the head of Christ been touched, the hope of the human race would have perished. Divine wrath would have come upon Christ as it came upon Adam...We should have no misgivings in regard to the perfect sinlessness of the human nature of Christ.— "—The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1131.—The SDA Bible Commentary, vol.5, p.1131.

"When Adam was assailed by the tempter in Eden he was without the taint of sin. He stood in the strength of his perfection before God. All the organs and faculties of his being were equally developed, and harmoniously balanced. Christ, in the wilderness of temptation, stood in Adam’s place to bear the test he failed to endure. Here Christ overcame in the sinner’s behalf, four thousand years after Adam turned his back upon the light of his home. Separated from the presence of God, the human family had been departing every successive generation, farther from the original purity, wisdom, and knowledge which Adam possessed in Eden. Christ bore the sins and infirmities of the race as they existed when He came to the earth to help man. In behalf of the race, with the weaknesses of fallen man upon Him, He was to stand the temptations of Satan upon all points wherewith man would be assailed....In what contrast is the second Adam as He entered the gloomy wilderness to cope with Satan single-handed. Since the fall the race had been decreasing in size and physical strength, and sinking lower in the scale of moral worth, up to the period of Christ’s advent to the earth. And in order to elevate fallen man, Christ must reach him where he was. He took human nature, and bore the infirmities and degeneracy of the race. He, who knew no sin, became sin for us. He humiliated Himself to the lowest depths of human woe, that He might be qualified to reach man, and bring him up from the degradation in which sin had plunged him" [The SDA Bible Commentary, Vol. 5, Page 1081]

"Those only who through faith in Christ obey all of God's commandments will reach the condition of sinlessness in which Adam lived before his transgression" [The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 6, p. 1118]

Adventist hold to the belief it was necessary for Christ to partake human nature in order to save mankind. Four reasons, found in the Seventh-day Adventists Believe: (1) To be the High Priest for human race. (2) To save even the most degraded person. (3) To give up His life for the sins of the world. (4) To be humanity’s example:

"To be our example. To set the example as to how people should live, Christ must live a sinless life as a human being. As the second Adam He dispelled the myth that humans cannot obey God's law and have victory over sin. He demonstrated that it is possible for humanity to be faithful to God's will. Where the first Adam fell, the second Adam gained the victory over sin and Satan and became both our Saviour and our perfect example. In His strength His victory can be ours (John 16:33)...By beholding Him, people "are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory" (2 Cor. 3:18). "Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith. . . . Consider him who endured such opposition from sinful men, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart" (Heb. 12:2, 3, NIV). Truly, Christ "suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps" (1 Peter 2:21; cf. John 13:15)."[Seventh-day Adventists Believe, pg 49-50]

These should suffice in laying out what Adventist believe on this...Simbagraphix (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

All of those quotes, but the last one, are taken directly from Ellen's primary sources. I agree whole heartedly with everything Ellen says when taken in their full context and with the last statement. We can overcome sin through faith alone. Overcoming sin has to do with salvation, not sanctification. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Then we have the 28 Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventists notice #10 'we are given the power to live a holy life' and right before that 'we are born again and sanctified' through the Holy Spirit:

"10. Experience of Salvation: In infinite love and mercy God made Christ, who knew no sin, to be sin for us, so that in Him we might be made the righteousness of God. Led by the Holy Spirit we sense our need, acknowledge our sinfulness, repent of our transgressions, and exercise faith in Jesus as Lord and Christ, as Substitute and Example. This faith which receives salvation comes through the divine power of the Word and is the gift of God's grace. Through Christ we are justified, adopted as God's sons and daughters, and delivered from the lordship of sin. Through the Spirit we are born again and sanctified; the Spirit renews our minds, writes God's law of love in our hearts, and we are given the power to live a holy life. Abiding in Him we become partakers of the divine nature and have the assurance of salvation now and in the judgment. (2 Cor. 5:17-21; John 3:16; Gal. 1:4; 4:4-7; Titus 3:3-7; John 16:8; Gal. 3:13, 14; 1 Peter 2:21, 22; Rom. 10:17; Luke 17:5; Mark 9:23, 24; Eph. 2:5-10; Rom. 3:21-26; Col. 1:13, 14; Rom. 8:14-17; Gal. 3:26; John 3:3-8; 1 Peter 1:23; Rom. 12:2; Heb. 8:7-12; Eze. 36:25-27; 2 Peter 1:3, 4; Rom. 8:1-4; 5:6-10.) ....Simbagraphix (talk) 11:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@ Simba... You are extremely ignorant of SDA history and theology. you need to read the book by Knight that I quoted from. Knight was professor of SDA History at Andrews University. he knows what he is talking about. The "Historic Adventists" had their beginnings in the 1920s and much of what they taught was NOT what SDA Pioneers believed. Andreasen led the SDA church down a path of heresy. He was popular, because he fed SDA narcissism, but he was wrong.

....I do not need to bring information from an extremely reliable source to the tlke page first. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Without reliable sources it cannot be put into the article, so please present them and your suggestions so we can go over them and see what improvements can go in, Thank You...Simbagraphix (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. The information @RoyBurtonson added was valuable to the article. If sources are required, please indicate where and someone will find reliable sources to add. Databases (talk) 03:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Everything I posted came directly from Knight and it is all properly noted where in Knight the information came from. One thing that Knight makes a big point of is that "Historic Adventist" teachings, such as LGT, are NOT WHAT SDA PIONEERS BELIEVED! Here is a quote from page 159 in "A Search for Identity" by Knight:

"In that time period [after 1950] many Adventists would mistakenly identify the characteristics of the years extending from 1920 to the mid-1950s as "historic Adventism." Most Adventists after 1955, not knowing the history of the denomination's theological development, had no way of comprehending the fact that the theology of the decades following 1920 and the methods for arriving at that theology would have been quite foreign to Adventists living in the early decades of the denomination's history. In short, what many have come to think of as "historic Adventism" is in reality a late development."

Those in the Historic Adventist sector have based their teachings on their interpretation of Ellen White and not on the Bible. Ellen White spoke out, again and again, against such use of her writings.

My grandparents joined the SDA church in the 1920s and were thoroughly indoctrinated in Andreasen's theology. My father was raised, in the 30s and 40s, steeped in the salvation by works promoted by Andreasen. Happily, through Bible study and a lot of reading of works and listening to sermons and lectures by other SDA theologians they abandoned Andreasen's heresy. However, it was a hard row to hoe, it was hard to get out of the idea of do it yourself salvation. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 12:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)