This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
I would like to comment that I strongly support the creation of this article! It gives a nuanced, "insider" point of view into the Adventist church (yet the statements are easily verifiable as well). It also simply gives an insight into the people and the theology of the church. Its counterpart which I started, Progressive Adventists has a similar purpose, although I believe it represents a much larger proportion of scholars. For me, this insider, nuanced approach is a good thing - I believe it is a way of being open and including, and not insular. Let's just be careful to keep it as NPOV as possible. Colin MacLaurin 11:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Should we move the article to Historic Adventism? I seem to recall reading a policy somewhere that articles like this should be named as an "ism". Compare Christianity (not "Christian") etc. The same would of course be true for Progressive Adventist. Colin MacLaurin 11:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
We need to discuss the definition of "historic Adventism" and when to label particular people as "Historic", "Progressive" etc. Perhaps to say, "The following prominent Adventists hold to at least one of the beliefs considered historic [/progressive] above: ..." is the best option, because this is easily verifiable if they have published their views. However it is not easily verifiable to label them outright as traditional, liberal etc. (See also the discussion at Talk:Progressive Adventists#Some ideas and thoughts).
Ron Corson's article Progressive and Traditional Adventists Examined needs debating amongst us. Presumably he is a "progressive" himself, and I wonder if he has slightly overstated his case. He defines "historic/traditional Adventists" primarily as those who believe in the four doctrines investigative judgment, remnant etc, as well as other points. But I consider these four to be "conservative mainstream" today, not to be lumped together with believing in a sinful nature of Christ, atonement not fully completed at the cross, etc. which is a whole other category. Colin MacLaurin 15:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, there are three main groups, which believe:
See my soon coming "Sourcing Adventist theology" proposal on the project talk page of WP:SDA. Colin MacLaurin 15:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I have just been talking to a friend of mine who knows much more about the Adventist church than I do. He said that terms such as "historic" are highly nuanced - in particular, not all self-termed "historic Adventists" necessarily believe in perfectionism and a certain christology. The article may hint at this, but if true it needs to be clearly stated. Colin MacLaurin 12:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I replaced Last Generation Theology as an example of Historic Adventism. Does anyone disagree? (If so, please give a good reason). Colin MacLaurin 02:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I have some questions. Perhaps someone who knows some of the answers could add them to the article? In Woodrow Whidden's interview with Julius Nam, [4] he mentions the "1888 Message Study Committee" which he implies is conservative and not mainstream, similar to Historic Adventists but not quite the same; what is it? What is "universal legal justification"? Why do some conservative Adventists I know talk so much about the 1888 message? Why is their interpretation different, as asserted in the article? Colin MacLaurin 08:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I assume that there's pastors employed by the official church who are Historic? Are there any academics teaching at official universities or colleges? Thank-you, Colin MacLaurin 08:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I was reading the Progressive Adventist article and noticed that a number of tertiary institutions are listed as being progressive. I wondered whether institutions such as the the Institute of Advanced Study in the Phillipines are mentioned anywhere as being known for being very conservative? - Fermion 10:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Where do I put this statement by Raymond Cottrell? Does it belong on this page? He comes out with guns blazing! " Southern [Adventist University] operates as an agency of Southern Bible belt obscurantism. Furthermore it was (and still is) to an appreciable extent, dependent on the largesse of committed ultra- fundamentalists, who insist that the college operate on ultra-fundamentalist principles." [1] - Colin MacLaurin
References
Presumably this page is still on the website somewhere. Colin MacLaurin 07:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I have sourced from the Standishes too much, and from self-published materials (e.g. much of internet content) too much. We need to improve the number of third party, independent sources. Colin MacLaurin ( talk) 07:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I propose that Last Generation Theology be merged into this article, Historic Adventism. While the two concepts are not exactly the same (according to adherent Larry Kirkpatrick for example), they are closely related. A merged article would clearly discuss the differences. I assume the history is largely identical. See also comments in the #Last Generation Theology section above. Colin MacLaurin ( talk) 15:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
It has been nearly 3 years since the above discussion, and another editor has just reminded me about the merge proposal. Tonicthebrown and I agree that LGT and Historic Adventism are not identical. However I still believe they should be merged, because:
I suppose LGT is both a theological belief about the end-time sinless perfection of earth's final generation (supported by Andreasen, Heppenstall etc., see Seeking a Sanctuary p93) and also the self-given name of a small more recent movement led by Larry Kirkpatrick and others. I could try to complete the merge later this year, unless others beat me to it. Colin MacLaurin ( talk) 02:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I have emailed the Standish brothers, who are leading historic Adventists, to invite them to either improve this article or email me with suggestions. I didn't mention WP:NPOV or WP:V; I may need to in the future. Colin MacLaurin ( talk) 07:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree this list isn't entirely appropriate for the article. I've put it here for research purposes. Tonicthebrown ( talk) 02:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I like the new layout by Tonicthebrown of putting all the publications in a list. I have just done a similar thing for Progressive Adventism - that page looks much more pretty now! Colin MacLaurin ( talk) 06:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
An informed person told me Jack Provonsha was closer to being a "liberal". I am conscious of not confusing readers nor misrepresenting Provonsha, as Taylor called his book "an apologetic for historic Adventism." Important to explain the nuances of "historic". Colin MacLaurin ( talk) 12:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:SundayLawTimes01.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Willfults, if you believe that this article is biased towards the Spectrum and AToday POV, the solution is not to delete and replace material wholesale (especially when said material is well written and backed up by citations). The solution is to add credible balancing material of your own, and suggest changes one step at a time and achieve a consensus among the editors of this article. (of which I am only one.) This is the accepted procedure on Wikipedia and you need to abide by it. Tonicthebrown ( talk) 13:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Last Generation Theology has an old merge tag on it (December 2007) and I was hoping we could decide what to do about it. It was discussed a long time ago here. AIRcorn (talk) 11:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I have noted the recent revision regarding the Maseko information.
Revision as of 09:19, 13 May 2011 (edit)Tonicthebrown (talk | contribs)("2 editors think" isn't good enough. Wikipedia policy states that claims have to be verifiable. You need to show where in the source the claim is supported)
The Maseko quote and info is solid secondary source material. He is not an editor here at Wikipedia.
I am pleased that the Maseko book is available to us. DonaldRichardSands ( talk) 12:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Historic Adventism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Historic Adventism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:06, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
I would like to comment that I strongly support the creation of this article! It gives a nuanced, "insider" point of view into the Adventist church (yet the statements are easily verifiable as well). It also simply gives an insight into the people and the theology of the church. Its counterpart which I started, Progressive Adventists has a similar purpose, although I believe it represents a much larger proportion of scholars. For me, this insider, nuanced approach is a good thing - I believe it is a way of being open and including, and not insular. Let's just be careful to keep it as NPOV as possible. Colin MacLaurin 11:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Should we move the article to Historic Adventism? I seem to recall reading a policy somewhere that articles like this should be named as an "ism". Compare Christianity (not "Christian") etc. The same would of course be true for Progressive Adventist. Colin MacLaurin 11:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
We need to discuss the definition of "historic Adventism" and when to label particular people as "Historic", "Progressive" etc. Perhaps to say, "The following prominent Adventists hold to at least one of the beliefs considered historic [/progressive] above: ..." is the best option, because this is easily verifiable if they have published their views. However it is not easily verifiable to label them outright as traditional, liberal etc. (See also the discussion at Talk:Progressive Adventists#Some ideas and thoughts).
Ron Corson's article Progressive and Traditional Adventists Examined needs debating amongst us. Presumably he is a "progressive" himself, and I wonder if he has slightly overstated his case. He defines "historic/traditional Adventists" primarily as those who believe in the four doctrines investigative judgment, remnant etc, as well as other points. But I consider these four to be "conservative mainstream" today, not to be lumped together with believing in a sinful nature of Christ, atonement not fully completed at the cross, etc. which is a whole other category. Colin MacLaurin 15:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, there are three main groups, which believe:
See my soon coming "Sourcing Adventist theology" proposal on the project talk page of WP:SDA. Colin MacLaurin 15:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I have just been talking to a friend of mine who knows much more about the Adventist church than I do. He said that terms such as "historic" are highly nuanced - in particular, not all self-termed "historic Adventists" necessarily believe in perfectionism and a certain christology. The article may hint at this, but if true it needs to be clearly stated. Colin MacLaurin 12:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I replaced Last Generation Theology as an example of Historic Adventism. Does anyone disagree? (If so, please give a good reason). Colin MacLaurin 02:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I have some questions. Perhaps someone who knows some of the answers could add them to the article? In Woodrow Whidden's interview with Julius Nam, [4] he mentions the "1888 Message Study Committee" which he implies is conservative and not mainstream, similar to Historic Adventists but not quite the same; what is it? What is "universal legal justification"? Why do some conservative Adventists I know talk so much about the 1888 message? Why is their interpretation different, as asserted in the article? Colin MacLaurin 08:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I assume that there's pastors employed by the official church who are Historic? Are there any academics teaching at official universities or colleges? Thank-you, Colin MacLaurin 08:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I was reading the Progressive Adventist article and noticed that a number of tertiary institutions are listed as being progressive. I wondered whether institutions such as the the Institute of Advanced Study in the Phillipines are mentioned anywhere as being known for being very conservative? - Fermion 10:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Where do I put this statement by Raymond Cottrell? Does it belong on this page? He comes out with guns blazing! " Southern [Adventist University] operates as an agency of Southern Bible belt obscurantism. Furthermore it was (and still is) to an appreciable extent, dependent on the largesse of committed ultra- fundamentalists, who insist that the college operate on ultra-fundamentalist principles." [1] - Colin MacLaurin
References
Presumably this page is still on the website somewhere. Colin MacLaurin 07:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I have sourced from the Standishes too much, and from self-published materials (e.g. much of internet content) too much. We need to improve the number of third party, independent sources. Colin MacLaurin ( talk) 07:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I propose that Last Generation Theology be merged into this article, Historic Adventism. While the two concepts are not exactly the same (according to adherent Larry Kirkpatrick for example), they are closely related. A merged article would clearly discuss the differences. I assume the history is largely identical. See also comments in the #Last Generation Theology section above. Colin MacLaurin ( talk) 15:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
It has been nearly 3 years since the above discussion, and another editor has just reminded me about the merge proposal. Tonicthebrown and I agree that LGT and Historic Adventism are not identical. However I still believe they should be merged, because:
I suppose LGT is both a theological belief about the end-time sinless perfection of earth's final generation (supported by Andreasen, Heppenstall etc., see Seeking a Sanctuary p93) and also the self-given name of a small more recent movement led by Larry Kirkpatrick and others. I could try to complete the merge later this year, unless others beat me to it. Colin MacLaurin ( talk) 02:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I have emailed the Standish brothers, who are leading historic Adventists, to invite them to either improve this article or email me with suggestions. I didn't mention WP:NPOV or WP:V; I may need to in the future. Colin MacLaurin ( talk) 07:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree this list isn't entirely appropriate for the article. I've put it here for research purposes. Tonicthebrown ( talk) 02:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I like the new layout by Tonicthebrown of putting all the publications in a list. I have just done a similar thing for Progressive Adventism - that page looks much more pretty now! Colin MacLaurin ( talk) 06:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
An informed person told me Jack Provonsha was closer to being a "liberal". I am conscious of not confusing readers nor misrepresenting Provonsha, as Taylor called his book "an apologetic for historic Adventism." Important to explain the nuances of "historic". Colin MacLaurin ( talk) 12:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:SundayLawTimes01.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Willfults, if you believe that this article is biased towards the Spectrum and AToday POV, the solution is not to delete and replace material wholesale (especially when said material is well written and backed up by citations). The solution is to add credible balancing material of your own, and suggest changes one step at a time and achieve a consensus among the editors of this article. (of which I am only one.) This is the accepted procedure on Wikipedia and you need to abide by it. Tonicthebrown ( talk) 13:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Last Generation Theology has an old merge tag on it (December 2007) and I was hoping we could decide what to do about it. It was discussed a long time ago here. AIRcorn (talk) 11:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I have noted the recent revision regarding the Maseko information.
Revision as of 09:19, 13 May 2011 (edit)Tonicthebrown (talk | contribs)("2 editors think" isn't good enough. Wikipedia policy states that claims have to be verifiable. You need to show where in the source the claim is supported)
The Maseko quote and info is solid secondary source material. He is not an editor here at Wikipedia.
I am pleased that the Maseko book is available to us. DonaldRichardSands ( talk) 12:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Historic Adventism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Historic Adventism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:06, 4 November 2017 (UTC)