FYI, if I remember correctly, Pastor Larry Kirkpatrick does not claim the "historic" label, though he holds many similar positions.

Like Bro Mark, I am in close agreement with Pastor K on most things. Our main differences are in the closely related topics of the nature of Christ, nature of sin, and nature of man.

However, I think our differences are mostly semantics. So far, when we discuss things in enough depth to understand each other's terminology, we find ourselves in agreement.

As for the "historic SDA" label, I think Bro Tom is correct in defining it as those who hold to our traditional positions. But I don't think it's necessarily the correct positions. Remember, the opposition to Jones and Waggoner in 1888 were also defending "traditional" positions.

I agree Arnold with your points (mostly).

To give a specific example, Waggoner presented a position on the Covenants which Ellen White endorsed as "truth" and "clear as sunlight" on more than one occasion, but the position of the ones opposing his view has been the one that has remained with the church.

This is just one example among many. Pretty much, Jones and Waggoner didn't make any dent into our thinking, so your point is well taken.

I think the bottom line for the historic position is what LK terms "last generation theology." If one holds to the positions he's presenting on this, I think it would be fair to consider yourself an historic Adventist. Conversely, if one doesn't hold to it this position, one would be hard pressed to consider one an historic Adventist.

Have been very busy, so haven't been able to MSDAOL for awhile. As for "Historic Adventist," (HA) I am leary of the label;too many separationists use it. On the other hand, the dedicated Adventist young adults who compose the bulk of the Youth Conference movement use the term but rarely, if at all. Meanwhile, the term "LGT" (Last Generation Theology) is in common use today among the same.

I see the term LGT as saying much the same thing as "Historic Adventist" but updated. HA is associated in some minds with a negative view of the church, or with separationism, that LGT does not have. LGT believers would agree with most of the theology of HA, but differ with what has sometimes been seen as the bad attitude among HA. We see that there are dramatic problems in the organized church, but we are working around them and for reform, and believe that God has a hold on "the shaking." We do not have to shake the church for Him; we just have to labor in His lines and be faithful.

It should give some pause to realize that their attitudes have so tainted a term (like HA) that others do not want to be identified with it. I am not in any way trying to lay anything on Tom E or anyone else on this, but just pointing out why I find the term unhelpful. Basically, it is too associated with negativity for me.

Others have used the term "Last Generation Theology" as a pejorative, but I do not mind embracing it, since such use is based on but little more than someone's own bad attitude. LGT is a positive way of looking at things, as I have found and as many SDA young adults are finding. Powerful things are afoot, and they are happening inside the church. Sometimes, in spite of the church, but still within the church. God has His hand on the wheel!

So, if someone wants to identify my position more specifically than as SDA, it can be said that I am an LGT SDA. But You will not find me using the term HA. I think there was a more transitional time when HA was a valid label, and many faithful persomns used it. But today is a different day, and LGT stands for a similar but different outlook, especially with reference to negativity and positivity.

My two cents. LK

To keep this topic on track, I moved the last post from this topic and created a new topic on LGT out of it, as the whole post pertained to it, therefore, let the LGT be discussed there rather than here unless it is posted in comparison to this topic, as Pastor Larry's post was.

My understanding of historic SDAs (knew nothing of them until recently and do not know much) is that they feel they must leave the organized conference SDA church due to changes that have come about over the years. These are beliefs that differ from what the early SDA pioneers believed. These are the specific things I have been told are THE reasons for formally leaving the organized church and becoming a Historic SDA.
Historic SDA's do not believe in the relatively new doctrine of the Trinity. They do not believe that Jesus is
Almighty God. They believe Jesus is Deity but is the Son of God. They believe that the Holy Spirit is God's spirit is not God. They believe that Ellen White's writings have been tampered with and have many changes in the newer books. Therefore they compare at great length and only subscribe to teachings in the early books that were printed when she was alive. They do not agree with the celebration style worship of many SDA churches today. They do not agree with the conference sending representatives to the WCC and forming unions with churches who do not obey the 10 commandments. They do believe in spreading the third angels message with a loud voice right now whether it offends people or not. They do not agree with any man or organization making decisions for them instead of God. That is my understanding of what they believe. If this is incorrect I am open to learning more.

That sounds about right, in general. Since "Historic SDA" is not an organized group, there is no set of beliefs that everyone adheres to.

Historic SDA is basically a label taken by those who strive to uphold the "historic" beliefs of the SDA church. As far as I can tell, each individual decides for himself how far back into history he wants to go, as there are several points in our history to choose from (1844, 1850's, 1888, 1901, 1915, etc.). It is not uncommon to find one who believes as U. Smith did re: the Holy Spirit, but disagree with him re: 1888.

The ideas about the Holy Spirit and the divinity of Christ would be a newer version of historic adventism. The original form were groups like the Firm Foundation, which hold to the views that the Holy Spirit is God and Christ is God. The other parts would fit. They would emphasize Christ's having taken our fallen nature, and the need for character perfection in order to meet Christ when He returns.

We also need to remember that the SDA church emerged from the Millerite movement. And William Miller was in error as to what would happen in 1844.

No matter how we romanticize our history, we must face the fact that we have much to learn and much to unlearn. One thing is as true today as it has always been: There is truth to gain and error to forsake. So, rather than accepting/rejecting a point of doctrine based on who did or did not believe it historically, we should use the unerring standard - the Law and the Testimony. Then, we wouldn't have to worry about historic/contemporary, conservative/liberal, etc. Everything will boil down to truth vs error.