Talk:Last Generation Theology

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)

Missing elements

Besides the theologians mentioned, one needs also to include Wieland and Short, who made this the cornerstone of their conception of the "1888 message," starting with "1888 Re-Examined." Robert Brinsmead also pushed this theory in the 1950s and 1960s, in a more coherent format; instead of just saying "We must be perfect," he said that there will be a particular act of God, the "blotting out of sins" that will bring the Last Generation "over the hump," as it were. W. D. Frazee also saw final generation perfection as an essential element of "the Sanctuary message." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.25.95 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 8 January 2007

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)

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)

Condense, Cleanup, and Cite Sources

I think this article is useful and helpful, but some work needs to be done to consolidate the discussion on doctrine and general cleanup. A lot of the sections on doctrine are POV. Extensive quotes from Ellen White, the Bible, etc to "prove" LGT are not helpful here. Cite sources which contain these quotes and studies, and generally summarize what are the distinctive attributes of LGT that set it appart from mainstream Seventh-day Adventist teaching. Also, when referring to the teachings of Last Generation Theology, say so, don't use vague POV phrases like "Early Adventists, as well as some Last Generation Theology modern Adventists" Databases (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

That clarifies who it is, but will add sources and work to make it clearer and to rewrite weasal words...Simbagraphix (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, @Simbagraphix. Is there a reason you reverted by edits on the intro? I guess we should discuss here first before editing. That was my bad.

@Simbagraphix, the weasel words are still there in many cases--you only removed the flag or changed the word. To say "it is said" is the same as "some say." Databases (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I would also like to suggest that the introduction include a more specific summary of the distinctive LGT beliefs, as outlined by Andreason, Kirkpatrick, etc, and less trying to "prove" that LGT is true Adventist doctrine (that should be saved for cited articles outside wikipedia). The distinction isn't so much that there will "be" a remnant (virtually all adventist believe that), but on "who" the remnant is and what they will look like. It's also widely taught that the remnant overcome sin, keep the commandments etc. The "logical conclusion" that LGT takes from this, is (briefly):

• That the 144000 are "sinlessly perfect" (different from others who are in the process of being sanctified).
• That tha atonement is was not completed at the cross, but rather is finally completed when the saints demonstrate that they can perfectly keep the law
• That the overcoming of the saints has huge eschatological implications, and finally clears God's name and defeats Satan in the Great Controversy

This is stated explicitly by Andreasen, and I think should be outlined in the intro of this article.

Here is a proposal for the intro:

Last Generation Theology (LGT) or "final generation" theology is a belief system of overcoming sin held amongst a conservative wing within the Seventh-day Adventist Church, in which perfection will be achieved by those who are sealed before the Second Coming of Jesus much like the 144000 described in the Book of Revelation of the New Testament. The belief is there will be an end time remnant of believers who are faithful to God, which will be manifest shortly prior to the second coming of Jesus. These "last generation" believers overcome sin like Christ and achieve a state of sinless perfection before the second coming.{https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1988/02/have-we-delayed-the-advent} This achievement vindicates the character and law of God and finally and ultimatly defeats Satan in the Great Controversy.

While similar in many ways to the fundamental teachings of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, LGT adds specific beliefs, or takes traditionally held Adventist beliefs "to their logical conclusion." Points of difference include teachings on the nature of Christ, perfection, the nature of the atonement, the identity of the remnantFundamental Beliefs, Scroll to 13th.], and the role of the last-day remnant in the Great Controversy theme. The beliefs and emphasis of LGT is similar to the group loosly known as "historic Adventism."

Last Generation Theology is largely based on the writings of M. L. Andreasen, who was expanding on the ideas of E. J. Waggoner. It is promoted by Adventist figures such as Dennis Priebe and Larry Kirkpatrick.

Databases (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Very good points, I am at work so a bit limited, but I like your proposal, and will get to work on getting the sources which show this is what Adventist have always believed. I cannot agree with the assertion that Last Generation Theology is largely based on the writings of M. L. Andreasen, as it has been taught from the early pioneers including Ellen White. We need to seperate fact from fiction, such as the looking into who came up with idea that the cleansing of sin is directly connected to affecting the timing of the Second Coming,etc...Thanks for your assistance on this article..Simbagraphix (talk) 19:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Simbagraphix, as other posters in this talks page have already pointed out, LGT is not mainstream Adventist teaching. WP is not the place to "prove" that this is what was taught by the pioneers. I propose that this page should be re-organized under 3 main headings:

• Teachings / Doctrine - the main points of LGT as it differs from mainstream Adventism. (perhaps Kirkpatrick's 14 points would be a good starting point, or better to summarize them in the point's I've already mentioned)
• History - History of the development of the line of thought, starting with M. L. Andreason. If mention is made of Adventist Pioneers, E.G. White, in support of LGT, it should be stated as "Adherents of LGT see the roots of their belief in ..." followed by brief summary, not long studies and attempts to prove. All adherents to LGT uphold Andreason's teachings (to my knowledge), so his contribution to the line of thought should be expanded (as the article appeared this morning before history was deleted).
• Controversy - Briefly summarize the differences and points of controversy with mainstream Adventist, along with sources. This would be the place to present arguments on both sides, but in an encyclopedic NPOV fashion. Databases (talk) 20:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Teachings / Doctrine - the main points of LGT as it differs from mainstream Adventism. Well lets take a look, Mainstream Adventist hold to the Biblical understanding of overcoming sin, which is shown in its doctrines as seen in the following "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]. Also 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.) Also 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....I will await your response and we can go from there..Simbagraphix (talk) 01:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Good start. These are two points on which mainstream Adventists and LGT agree, though LGT places special emphasis on these points. I think the teachings of LGT can be summarized under a teachings / doctrine section, like this: (could expand slightly. We'll have to provide references but no need to include long quotations here, that only confuses the issue. References should be to more recent people / sites who promote LGT, not to E.G. White and the Bible, this is not an argument. People don't come to Wikipedia to read long arguments, just to get an NPOV overview of the argument and sources for more information on either side.)

• Teachings / Doctrine
  • LGT emphasizes the doctrine of overcoming sin, as taught by the mainstream Adventist church. LGT expands this teaching of sanctification into a doctrine of "sinless perfection" or "completed sanctification" (as opposed to or in addition to a progressive or continuing work of sanctification) which is achieved by those living just before the second coming of Christ.
  • LGT teaches the divine / human nature of Christ, as taught by the mainstream Adventist church, with special emphasis on the post-fall human nature of Christ. LGT teaches that Christ took man's sinful nature, including both inherited and cultivated tendencies to evil, because He was "in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin."
  • LGT teaches that the remnant must live perfectly during the time of trouble at the end to prove to the universe that fallen human beings can keep the law of God. LGT teaches that this perfection of God's remnant is the third and final phase of Christ's atonement, when God's law is vindicated and Satan's claims are finally defeated.

Databases (talk) 03:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any issue with "LGT expands this teaching of sanctification into a doctrine of "sinless perfection" or "completed sanctification" (as opposed to or in addition to a progressive or continuing work of sanctification) which is achieved by those living just before the second coming of Christ.

This part we have to go over, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh-day_Adventist_theology, "LGT teaches that Christ took man's sinful nature, including both inherited and cultivated tendencies to evil, because He was "in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin."

This part is what Adventist have believed from the early pioneers as we see in the writings of Ellen White, till today, so need to see what is different in the LGT."**LGT teaches that the remnant must live perfectly during the time of trouble at the end to prove to the universe that fallen human beings can keep the law of God."...Simbagraphix (talk) 03:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Adventist believe that sanctification is a progressive or continuing work, but there is a time when it ends, and this is special time for the end time believers. This occurs when Christ atoning ministry in the heavenly sanctuary finishes and the investigative judgment ends. The completion of this ministry of Christ will mark the close of probation "before the Second Advent", (Fundamental Belief no. 24). Adventist hold that there is group of those living at this period just before the second coming of Christ, which the saints live without an intercessor till Christ appears. This is the remnant alive at the close of probation, which are described as the saints that are sealed, showing the perfect character of Christ, and this is where Adventist make the connection with the 144,000 to the remnant, those "without fault before the throne of God”.

Ellen White clearly lays this out in her statements including, "The urgency for attaining perfection comes from the knowledge that the remnant must live perfectly during the time of trouble at the end to prove to the universe that fallen human beings can keep the law of God." and “When He leaves the sanctuary, darkness covers the inhabitants of the earth. In that fearful time the righteous must live in the sight of a holy God without an intercessor.” (Great Controversy pg 614). So this belief of a end time believers who are sealed between the end atoning ministry in the heavenly sanctuary and the Second Coming is Adventist doctrine, in the Fundementals, supported by Ellen White, and Adventist also hold is shown by Scripture....Simbagraphix (talk) 11:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Looking at Historic Adventists they are a very small subset of Adventist 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, including Christ's atoning ministry in the heavenly sanctuary and the investigative judgment, the inspiration of Ellen White, the 7 day Creation, etc.. and tend to downplay the Pillars of Adventism including the state of the dead, the Sabbath. 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.

Now as to the nature of Christ, Adventist believe Christ is our example and took the post-fall nature of Adam, "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). Mainstream Adventist hold to the belief taught by Ellen White, that He came with the effects of Adam’s sin deep within his nature, that Christ took on the fallen nature but not the sinfulness of man. Christ took our "infirmities of the race as they existed when He came to the earth to help man..with the weaknesses of fallen man upon Him" He took the sinful nature in the sense of that he had a lessened capacity with respect to the fallen nature that he inherited from Adam, including physical weaknesses, frailties and mental, and moral degeneracy and deterioration. QOD Assumed Liabilities of Human Nature pp. 653-654. Yet Christ had a spiritual nature that was not tainted by sin. 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]

While Christ was tempted as all other human beings are, the lessened capacity of his human nature did not ever include giving in to temptation or having any evil desires or propensity or inclination towards sin in his spiritual nature as Adam had before the Fall, a position with which Ellen White taught and mainstream Adventists hold. See Woodrow W. Whidden II, The Humanity of Christ page 70, and QoD III. Took Sinless Human Nature pp. 650-652....Simbagraphix (talk) 14:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

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]...

So its not a simple either Post-fall versus Pre-fall, but the Adventist belief on Christ taking on our nature and overcoming is seen in Hebrews 5..2 Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity....7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; 8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; Notice it says Christ learned obedience. That means He didn't naturally obey. And 'compassed' with human infirmities, which would include the mind became tired or stressed, or suffer and be emotional as when Christ cried at Lazurus death. It is important to understand that Christ, because of human nature He took on, had the strength of human passion for sin. But He did not have the human passion to sin, or as Peter says 'the Mind of Christ'. Simbagraphix (talk) 14:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

History Section Gutted?

@Simbagraphix, I see you have removed a large section that was under "History," describing Andreasen and his development of LGT. Instead, you replaced it with a much smaller section entitled "Early Pioneers" which just has a couple lengthy quotes from Ellen White, and says nothing about LGT as we know it. I think the section you deleted was perhaps the most informative part of the whole article. Granted, it did need to be re-formatted and cleaned up, and part of it should have gone in a sections on "criticism." Databases (talk) 18:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I was restoring what had been deleted as I asked the poster to come into the talk page to work it out, but you can see the results.....Simbagraphix (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Simbragraphix, I see that a large section that was added by @RoyBurtonson was deleted. While the new content could use some work, I think it is a good starting point for an article. As I maintain, WP is not the place of a one-sided view, and this article should present a fair and balanced view of LGT. Here is the latest revision of the article before the content was deleted.

We can work on that once we settle the other issues, as some of us do have other things such as work, LOL...Simbagraphix (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Claiming Supporters of LGT?

The article claims that many well-known individuals, including Ted Wilson, the current General Conference President, support LGT. Also, there is a laundry list of Adventist ministries. Such claims need to be verified and validated with proper citations. Just because an individual makes statements that agree with some of the tenants LGT does not mean they support LGT. References and citations should indicate that the named individual is clearly supporting / promoting LGT as a whole. Databases (talk) 18:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Much of that was there or at other wikipedia articles, we can work on that for improvement....Simbagraphix (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is General Conference President Ted Wilson on the end time believers or remnant and the source, "The first step in the revival that will prepare God’s people for the latter rain is our recognition of personal sin and weaknesses. With this recognition, the remnant will seek a closer relationship with Jesus through genuine repentance and a turning away from sinful behavior. The Great Controversy, page 623, says, “It is in this life that we are to separate sin from us, through faith in the atoning blood of Christ. Our precious Savior invites us to join ourselves to Him, to unite our weakness to His strength, our ignorance to His wisdom, our unworthiness to His merits.” ..http://www.adventistreview.org/church-news/%E2%80%98god%E2%80%99s-prophetic-movement,-message,-and-mission-and-their-attempted-neutralization-by-the-devil%E2%80%99...Simbagraphix (talk) 02:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no evidence here, linking Ted Wilson to the LGT camp. Even if his statements clearly espoused LGT beliefs, this constitutes original research unless you can cite an authority outside of WP that makes the claim that Ted Wilson is in the LGT camp. I rest my case. Databases (talk) 03:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you understand that overcoming sin as given in the Great Controversy at "the latter rain" which he uses and LGT are the same, there are those that take it beyond what the church holds, and that is what needs to be identified....Simbagraphix (talk) 03:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

NPOV

Please see my comments under the previous NPOV heading, #Attempt to Prove LGT taught by Adventist Church Pioneers Databases (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

That is fine with me, I can get to work on that when I get home tonight....Simbagraphix (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Lets take a look at what there is from the pioneers. Here is Ellen White, "The urgency for attaining perfection comes from the knowledge that the remnant must live perfectly during the time of trouble at the end to prove to the universe that fallen human beings can keep the law of God. Ellen White states, “When He leaves the sanctuary, darkness covers the inhabitants of the earth. In that fearful time the righteous must live in the sight of a holy God without an intercessor.” (Great Controversy pg 614). And more, "Perfection of character is based upon that which Christ is to us. If we have constant dependence on the merits of our Saviour, and walk in His footsteps, we shall be like Him, pure and undefiled. Our Father Cares, Page 214.3

Our Saviour does not require impossibilities of any soul. He expects nothing of His disciples that He is not willing to give them grace and strength to perform. He would not call upon them to be perfect if He had not at His command every perfection of grace to bestow on the ones upon whom He would confer so high and holy a privilege.... Our Father Cares, Page 214.4

Our work is to strive to attain in our sphere of action the perfection that Christ in His life on the earth attained in every phase of character. He is our example. In all things we are to strive to honor God in character.... We are to be wholly dependent on the power that He has promised to give us. Our Father Cares, Page 214..5

Jesus revealed no qualities, and exercised no powers, that men may not have through faith in Him. His perfect humanity is that which all His followers may possess, if they will be in subjection to God as He was. Our Father Cares, Page 214..6

Our Saviour is a Saviour for the perfection of the whole man. He is not the God of part of the being only. The grace of Christ works to the disciplining of the whole human fabric. He made all. He has redeemed all. He has made the mind, the strength, the body as well as the soul, partaker of the divine nature, and all is His purchased possession. He must be served with the whole mind, heart, soul, and strength. Then the Lord will be glorified in His saints in even the common, temporal things with which they are connected. “Holiness unto the Lord” will be in the inscription placed upon them. Our Father Cares, Page 214.7”...

Then James White, "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

Then more from James White, "The great work of the atonement is now complete, and the work of our Lord, as priest, accomplished. The sins of those who have obtained pardon through the great sin-offering, are, at the close of our Lord's work in the holy places, blotted out, Acts 3:19, and being then transferred to the scape-goat, they are borne away from the sanctuary and host forever, and rest upon the head of their author, the devil. The Azazel, or antitypical scape-goat, will then have received the sins of those who have been pardoned in the sanctuary, and in the lake of fire he will suffer for the sins which he has instigated. God's people, the host, will then be free from their iniquity....The cases of all men will then be forever fixed. "He that is unjust, let him be unjust still; and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still; and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still; and he that is holy, let him be holy still." The Ministration and Cleansing of the Sanctuary by James S. White, from "Bible Adventism" page 160.

Then we have Uriah Smith, "Thus the evidence seems clear and conclusive that the 144,000 are gathered from the last generation before Christ comes; that they are brought out by the third angel's message; that even those of them who die in the message are blessed, being restored to the number by resurrection before Christ appears; and that all crowned at last with the peculiar privilege of composing the cabinet of the King of kings and Lord of lords, to follow the Lamb whithersoever He goeth (Rev.14:4), joyful in His constant presence, and sustained by His unfailing grace. Rev.7:15,17." The 144,000 In Revelation 7 and 14 by Uriah Smith.

Then A.T Jones, speaks extensively on it in the Consecrated Way, "Sanctification is the true keeping of all the commandments of God. In other words, this is to say that the will of God concerning man is that His will shall be perfectly fulfilled in man. His will is expressed in His law of ten commandments, which is "the whole duty of man." This law is perfect, and perfection of character is the perfect expression of this law in the life of the worshiper of God. By this law is the knowledge of sin. And all have sinned and have come short of the glory of God—have come short of this perfection of character....In His coming in the flesh—having been made in all things like unto us and having been tempted in all points like as we are—He has identified Himself with every human soul just where that soul is. And from the place where every human soul is, He has consecrated for that soul a new and living way through all the vicissitudes and experiences of a whole lifetime, and even through death and the tomb, into the holiest of all at the right hand of God for evermore....Perfection, perfection of character, is the Christian goal—perfection attained in human flesh in this world. Christ attained it in human flesh in this world and thus made and consecrated a way by which, in Him, every believer can attain it. He, having attained it, has become our great High Priest, by His priestly ministry in the true sanctuary to enable us to attain.", The Consecrated Way, A.T Jones. Chapter 12, 43,45.

There is more, but I think this will suffice for the article...Simbagraphix (talk) 01:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Re-factor Article

I have taken some liberty to re-factor this article. I've combined some sections under "Doctrine" that were largely redundant, moved the section on "Cleanse and Close" to the history section, resurrected deleted content on Andreasen's theology to add to the history section, and also added a section for criticism per WP policy. I have tried to leave all the actual content the same as before, but I did make a few edits to make things flow a little better. Please, let's discuss these changes, and if someone has problems don't just revert my edits, as I'm trying to improve this article and make it more readable. We've got a long ways to go on the actual page contents but do the section headings fairly represent what needs to be in the article now? Databases (talk) 16:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Original Sin has a totally different meaning than 'nature' of sin, , and Victory Over Sin also has deep meaning and context for Adventist so I reverted that, please propose changes first and we can move forward accordingly..Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh-day_Adventist_theology..Simbagraphix (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, I can see that "nature of sin" gives a different meaning. I was mainly looking at the consistency of the table of contents. As an editorial / stylistic issue, all the other teachings are stated in the positive, so it appears that LGT teaches "Original Sin" (from the TOC) even though the article states the opposite. That's why I changed to "nature of sin." Perhaps we could say "Opposition to Original Sin" or something for the section title, for people who don't read the whole article? Databases (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I would like to work through the article systematically, so that it is written as NPOV. I don't want to discredit the work that has gone into this article but I think it needs some help, and part of that will be to condense a lot of wordy sections and remove EGW quotations. As an example, I have re-worked the heading to the "Doctrine" section to demonstrate what I mean. We can discuss it, but please let's keep this article clean and to the point. Databases (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss before changes to Ellen White quotes as her counsel and testimony helped illuminate the truths in scripture which are the Pillars of Adventism and her writings lends weight as a "continuing and authoritative source of truth" as seen in Fundamental Belief #18 "The Gift of Prophecy- One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. White. As the Lord’s messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested."...Simbagraphix (talk) 00:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Simbagraphix, please read Wikipedia:Quotations#Overusing_quotations and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view. I don't believe that these quotes help the article. This is not the place to debate EGW but neither is WP the place to prove your viewpoint. Databases (talk) 01:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I will work on the quotes to pare down to what is needed, but please do not delete them as it is central to the issue at hand...Simbagraphix (talk) 11:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

What kind of Adventists?

The article seems to make all kind of references to different groups withing Adventism. I know about "Seventh-day Adventists" but references to "Mainstream" Adventists, "Modern" Adventists, etc don't make much sense. As per previous discussion, the term "Historic Adventism" has gained some level of traction (although itself a misnomer IMO) so those references could stay as links to the article on historic adventism. I've also not heard of "LGT Adventists," so I am using the phrase "Proponents of Last Generation Theology." Not sure if this phrase is NPOV, not wanting to sound derogatory, but please suggest a better phrase, to distinguish believers in LGT from the larger body of Seventh-day Adventists. In the meantime I will work on normalizing other references.Databases (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

We can use Adventist, but keep in mind there 3 general groupings within Adventism

1.Historics - believe in post-fall human nature of Jesus, with sinful inclinations, tend to reject the Nature of the GodHead or hold Semi-Arian views. [Note that Historic Adventism has been erroneously applied by Progressives to any Adventists that adhere to the teachings of the church as reflected in the church's fundamental beliefs.]

2.Mainstream - believe in post-fall nature yet without the sinful desire or propensity to sin, or taint of sin (spiritual nature of Adam before the Fall), and accept traditional formulation of 1844, Investigative judgment, the remnant, Ellen G. White's writings as the Spirit of Prophecy, etc. Basically the distinctive Adventist doctrines and the denomination's 28 fundamental beliefs.

3.Progressives - reject traditional formulation of investigative judgment, the Nature of Christ, the Gift of Prophecy, or the remnant, etc. They tend to not hold to the denomination's 28 fundamental beliefs.

Here is the Mainstream on the Nature of Christ-."Christ's humanity was not Adamic humanity, that is. the humanity of Adam before the fall, nor fallen humanity; that is in every respect the humanity of Adam after the fall. It was not the Adamic, because it had the innocent infirmities of the fallen, It was not the fallen, because it had never descended into moral impurity. It was. therefore. most literally our humanity, but without sin," [Seventh-day Adventists Believe. 47/1:4-47/ 2:0. 1988]

QoD:IV. Assumed Liabilities of Human Nature pp. 653-654"Christ did not make believe take human nature; He did verily take it. He did in reality possess human nature. "As the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same." He was the son of Mary; He was of the seed of David according to human descent."—The Review and Herald, April 5, 1906.

"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."—The Review and Herald, July 28, 1874.

"The Son of God humbled Himself and took man's nature after the race had wandered four thousand years from Eden, and from their original state of purity and uprightness. Sin had been making its terrible marks upon the race for ages; and physical, mental, and moral degeneracy prevailed throughout the human family." —The Review and Herald, July 28, 1874.

From Answers to Objections--An Examination of The Major Objections Raised Against The Teachings of Seventh-Day. Adventists, " 'Seventh-day Adventists teach that, like all mankind, Christ was born with a 'sinful nature.' " This plainly indicates 'that His heart, too, was 'deceitful above all things and desperately wicked.' In harmony with this, they also teach 'that Christ might have failed while on His mission to earth as man's Saviour that He came into the world at the risk of failure and eternal loss,' But the Bible repeatedly states that Christ was holy, that 'He knew no sin,' and that He would 'not fail nor be discouraged,' "Frances D. Nichol, Answers to Objections, Review and Herald, 1952,389.

And the "moral/spiritual nature" of Adam before the fall without the sinful desire or propensity to sin."Christ took the spiritual nature of man before the fall, and the physical nature of man after the fall." [N. R. Gulley, Christ Our Substitute, 33, Senior Sabbath School Quarterly for the First Quarter of 1983]

And Mainstream Adventist doctrine is Christ could have sin, he was not 'impecable'."Many claim that it was impossible for Christ to be overcome by temptation. Then He could not have been placed in Adam's position; He could not have gained the victory that Adam failed to gain. If we have in any sense a more trying conflict than had Christ, then He would not be able to succor us. But our Saviour took humanity, with all its liabilities. He took the nature of man, with the possibility of yielding to temptation. We have nothing to bear which He has not endured. . . . In man's behalf, Christ conquered by enduring the severest test."—The Desire of Ages, p. 117

“Be careful, exceedingly careful as to how you dwell upon the human nature of Christ. Do not set Him before the people as a man with the propensities of sin. He is the second Adam. The first Adam was created a pure, sinless being, without a taint of sin upon him; he was in the image of God. He could fall, and he did fall through transgression. Because of sin his posterity was born with inherent propensities of disobedience. But Jesus Christ was the only begotten Son of God. He took upon Himself human nature, and was tempted in all points as human nature is tempted. He could have sinned; He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him and evil propensity.”[The SDA Bible Commentary, vol. 5, p. 1128]

Here is his definition of Progressive/Evangelical Adventists-The major doctrinal issues which united this group were:

1)*Righteousness by faith*: This group accepted the reformation understanding of righteousness by faith (according to which righteousness by faith includes justification only, and is a judicial act of God whereby He declares sinners to be just on the basis of Christ's own righteousness). Our standing before God rests in the imputed righteousness of Christ, which we receive through faith alone. Sanctification is the accompanying fruit and not the root of salvation.:

2)*The human nature of Christ*: Jesus Christ possessed a sinless human nature with no inclination or propensities toward sin. In that sense, Christ's human nature was like that of Adam's before the Fall. Though Christ certainly suffered the limitations of a real man, by nature He was impeccable (i.e., incapable of sin). Jesus was primarily our substitute.

3)*The events of 1844*: Jesus Christ entered into the most holy place (heaven itself) at His ascension; the sanctuary doctrine and the investigative judgment (traditional literalism and perfectionism) have no basis in Scripture.

4)*Assurance of salvation*: Our standing and assurance before God rest solely in Christ's imputed righteousness; sinless perfection is not possible this side of heaven. Trusting Christ gives a person assurance.

5)*Authority of Ellen G. White*: Ellen White was a genuine Christian who possessed a gift of prophecy. However, neither she nor her writings are infallible, and they should not be used as a doctrinal authority.

I think, for purposes of this article, it would be best to stick with well-accepted names and stay away from labels like "mainstream" "progressive" etc. To say "Seventh-day Adventists teach" is a defensible position, citing the 28 fundamental beliefs. By contrast, I think we should say "those who teach Last Generation Theology" to refer to that, as I have never found a source saying "last generation theology adventists" or anything like that. Databases (talk) 15:02, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I will work on the rewording...Simbagraphix (talk) 01:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Lead Section

The lead section needs to be re-worded to accurately summarize the article, and remove weasel words. I have made several attempts at re-wording but they are always reverted by @Simbrgraphix. Specifically, the lead section is mostly a re-hash of similarities between LGT and Seventh-day Adventist teaching. It should describe the differences or unique points of LGT as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section Databases (talk) 15:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Please make a presentation of the changes for the lead and the body before you delete what is there, then we can work to a consensus, rather than have what is crucial to understanding the issue taken out of the article...Simbagraphix (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Excessive Quotations / Over-use of Primary Sources

The article includes many, many quotations from the Bible and Ellen G. White, in defence of the teachings of LGT. Not only is this not NPOV, this kind of study constitutes Original Research, IMO, and is also an over-use of "primary sources." Wikipedia policy encourages the use of secondary sources over primary sources. See Wikipedia:No original research. I have taken some liberties to remove or shorten excessive quotations. This article could really use more secondary sources, especially from publications like the Adventist Review. (Also Larry Kirkpatrick and M. L. Andreasen would be considered primary sources in this article).Databases (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I will work on reducing, I don't think that should much of a issue....Simbagraphix (talk) 00:31, 26 January 2015 (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 https://en.wikipedia.org/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)

Re-hashing SDA beliefs and quoting Bible studies unnecessary

As this article is about Last Generation Theology, I don't think this is the place for long discussions about this history of SDA beliefs. The article should point out the similarities / differences between SDA beliefs and LGT, but the discussion at the top of the "Doctrine" section, and long discussions under many of these sub-headings, could be condensed significantly.

Saying "The Last Generation Theology understanding is best seen in light of the doctrinal development of the Seventh-day Adventist Church" and then proceeding to re-hash the history of the 28 fundamental beliefs is off-topic at best. There is already an article for the 28 Fundamental Beliefs (Adventist), and if this discussion needs to be anywhere, that is the place for it. This article should simply reference the existing 28 Fundamental Beliefs (Adventist) article and then point out similarities / differences and differences of emphasis, supported by reputible secondary (20th or 21st century) sources.

Also, there is no need for lengthy quotations from scripture, "proving" that it's possible to have victory over sin, or that Christ had a fallen nature, etc. This is an encyclopedia article, not a Bible study or persuasive speech. This article should simply summarize the debate and cite relevant secondary sources. Databases (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Well as the differences of the groups is what is causing the debate as M. L. Andreasen views are supported as Adventist doctrine, only the hastening and cleansing sin of the saints on earth by Christ during His atoning ministry is not held directly as doctrine so should that should be laid out in the article. I will work on those issues......Simbagraphix (talk) 11:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Ted Wilson & Robert Pierson

There are no secondary sources that link Ted Wilson or Robert Pierson to Last Generation Theology. Please cite secondary sources for these links, or remove these names from the article as this constitutes original research. Simply quoting passages from their speeches, or citing places where they have used the same quotations by EGW that are used to support LGT, does not mean that these people support LGT. Databases (talk) 16:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thats what you fail to understand, traditional Adventist belief is LGT all the way to the early pioneers, Ellen and James White, Jones and Waggoner, etc.., and the concepts of the Latter Rain and sealing of the saints living at the close of probation which they held is same as Ted Wilson & Robert Pierson. Now how it differs from M. L. Andreasen and Larry Kirkpatrick is the issue at hand. ....Simbagraphix (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

In all of my research and reading, I do not find any definitions of the term "last generation theology" in any Adventist writings dating back to the 1800's. M. L. Andreasen uses the term "The Last Generation" as the title to a chapter in The Sanctuary Service[The Sanctuary Service, by M. L. Andreasen, http://www.restoringtheoldpaths.com/uploads/The_Sanctuary_Service_by_M.L_Andreasen.pdf]

I do find, however, a consistent use of the terms "Last Generation Theology" and "Last Generation Perfection" in reference to the teachings of M. L. Andreasen, Dennis Priebe, Larry Kirpatrick, etc, as attested by the following sources:

• Angel Manuel Rodríguez, Theology of the Last Generation, Adventist Review, October 10, 2013 [1] [2]
• A Historical-Contextual Analysis of the Final-Generation Theology of M. L. Andreasen, by Paul M. Evans, Dissertation, Andrews University, July 2010 [3] Summary [4]
• Last Generation Theology: A Different Salvation? by Nick Miller, GYC 2012 [5]
• Did Adventist leaders Lie to Walter Martin? by Stephen D. Pitcher, Proclamation! Magazine, July August September 2010 [6]
• Moral Complexity, by Rich Hannon, Spectrum Magazine, August 30, 2012 [7] Databases (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Overcoming the LGT Formula, by Marcos Torres, Spectrum Magazine, July 4, 2014 [8]

If other editors would like to make the case that LGT is something different than what is taught by Andreasen, Priebe, and Kirkpatrick, then please provide relevant sources. Otherwise, this article should focus on the definition of LGT as brought forward in extant secondary sources. This is not the place to re-define LGT, but to simply describe the debate. If LGT has been re-defined somewhere, please provide the source. Databases (talk) 19:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Look up "last generation" and "adventist" and it will go all the way to the early pioneers. I will work on it....Simbagraphix (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Too much George Knight

I edited the criticism section to temper it a little bit and show that it is largely a rehashing of George Knight's views. This is irresponsible scholarship and I don't believe Knight himself would approve that his views would reflect as the final authority on the subject. Yet the criticism section uses statements like "the fact is", etc. I have reworded some areas to show this is a perspective of Knight. It still needs much cleaning up to do. Let us work together, both adherents and critics to present a fair article for all to see.67.43.190.226 (talk) 17:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Welcome and thank you for your input I hope you like Wikipedia, and decide to register as a editor and maybe even help us with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church....Simbagraphix (talk) 11:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Knight is not just any Tom, Dick, or Harry. He is a recognized authority on SDA history being a professor of history at Andrews University. He has published many SDA biographies and history books. Everything I used from Knight is documented in his book from many, many sources. I could not reference all the sources in this short article. I focused on his sections about Andreasen and Questions on Doctrine in the book, but to get a full understanding of LGT and SDA theology you need to read the entire book. The sections on the early development of SDA theology after the great disappointment is very illuminating. Knight points out that most of the pioneer SDAs would not agree with many of the 28 beliefs SDAs now hold. And, that Historic Adventist beliefs had their origins in the early 20th century NOT with the 19th century pioneers. The problem is that most Adventists that have become SDA's since the 1950s are quite ignorant of church history and so are easy prey for off shoots like Historic Adventists. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand Knight is not just "anyone", but neither was the late Dr. Herbert Edgar Douglass and even Millian L. Andreasen. Andreasen had a respectable position as head of what was to become our seminary. To suggest that Knight's expertise surpasses that of a Douglass, Andreasen or a Dr. Paul Evans (who connected LGT to the teachings of the Pioneers in his doctoral dissertation) is being biased and unfair. Knight is not the only scholar of the SDA Church, and there are many SDAs who do not support his conclusions. Ron Duffield's book, The Return of the Latter Rain exposes many of Knight's faulty assumptions when dealing with the history of 1888 and it is well researched and documented. Please be responsible when appealing to authority. George Knight would agree.67.43.190.226 (talk) 15:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The heresy of Andreasen has held many in the SDA church in bondage for decades. He was kicked out of the church for good reason. Knight's dealing with Andreasen is spot on. I've read Andreasen's "letters" and other writings. The poor man was so wrong, it is so sad. And his pride exceeded his exceedingly poor theology. Questions on Doctrine was the best thing to have ever happened to the church. LGT is dragging down the SDA church and it needs to be expunged! And those promoting it excommunicated (it the church did such things). --RoyBurtonson (talk) 23:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

That LGT is heresy is not established. Wikipedia should not just reflect YOUR views, or even the views of one side of the debate. Andreasen may not have dealt with the issue in the best way, but his theology is an inheritance from many of the Pioneers, including Ellen G. White, whose support for the teaching is found in many places throughout the Testimonies. QoD did irreparable damage to the theology of the Church in that it now resembles a traditional Evangelical church and not the Remnant envisioned by Mrs. White that will complete the Gospel Commission and spread the Three Angels' Messages. It is true Andreasen was relieved of his credentials but they were restored posthumously, meaning the Church acknowledged it made a mistake to revoke them in the first place.166.137.118.56 (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Define LGT

A lot of the dis-agreement on this page seems to result from a vague definition of LGT. Some editors here seem to think that LGT simply means a belief in victory over sin. If this is the case, than LGT is just another name for what is taught by the Adventist church (as these editors would argue). If this is true, than there is no need for a separate WP article on this topic (it is not notable), and I propose a merge of this article with Seventh-day Adventist theology. However, I believe the weight of evidence in the sources already listed in this article, indicates that this is NOT so. LGT carries some unique teachings, which are distinct and different from Adventist belief. Although proponents of LGT attempt to argue that the beliefs are the "authentic" teachings of the pioneers, the earliest systematic developement and statement of LGT beliefs is M. L. Andreasen. LGT is not the same as Adventist belief--it never has been. It is a very popular, but minority viewpoint. Databases (talk) 15:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

That is incorrect, even Progressive Adventist admit it was taught by the Adventist Pioneers, if you search you will find much articles with their statements clearly showing this..Simbagraphix (talk) 13:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

There was a study by Adventist scholars and the conclusions of the study found that "all of the basic components of Andreasen’s final-generation theology were expressed by previous Adventist writers." See A HISTORICAL-CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS OF THE FINAL-GENERATION THEOLOGY OF M. L. ANDREASEN by Paul M. Evans.

Very good reference, 12.21.30.4, but as previously pointed out, this thesis does not prove that the pioneers believed the same as Andreasen, as is argured by many proponants of LGT. Basically, Evans' argument is that Andreasen didn't invent all his ideas--he got his ideas from early Adventist pioneers (White, Jones & Waggoner, etc). Even considering the precedant for the ideas in early Adventism, the case can be maintained that Andreasen was the first one to systematicly present the ideas of LGT. This is Andreasen's line of reasoning. (I have taken liberty to continue to the reasoning to show the fallicy of logic but this is perhaps outside the discussion for WP).

• Christ was tempted "in every point" like we are
  • THEREFORE Christ's nature was fallen, and included tendencies to sin
    • THEREFORE Christ was tempted from "within and without" (Kirkpatrick) [otherwise he would not have been tempted as we are]
      • [THEREFORE, Christ had sinful thoughts and desires within himself; he had a "carnal" mind that had to be renewed by grace outside of Himself; i.e. He was Himself in need of a savior.]
• Christ's ministry in the sanctuary in heaven is a continuation / finishing of the atonement begun at the cross
  • THEREFORE Christ's atonement was "unfinished" at the cross
    • THEREFORE the atonement must be completed by the perfecting of the lives of the last generation of the saints (parallel atonement)
      • [THEREFORE, the works of man (or God's work through man) add the finishing touch to salvation by completing the merit which Christ began to earn by His death]
• Satan's power is manifest in this world, sin remains in the lives of professed Christians, and Christ has still not returned
  • THEREFORE Satan must have been undefeated at the cross, and Christ's overcoming of Satan's temptations was insufficient to defeat his arguments
    • THEREFORE the purpose of the perfection of the last generation is to finally and forever silence the arguments of Satan, ultimately defeating Satan in the Great Controversy
      • [THEREFORE, just as God became man's savior through Christ, so man becomes God's savior by finally overcoming sin and defeating Satan in the last generation.]

Databases (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

No, again you don't grasp what Adventist believe, Andreasen was not the first one to systematically present the ideas of LGT as it was Adventist belief since the Pioneers, only the hastening and sinless perfection are in question. We find in Adventist belief, 'He was made in the "likeness of sinful flesh," or "sinful human nature," or "fallen human nature," (cf. Rom. 8:3).11 This in no way indicates that Jesus Christ was sinful, or participated in sinful acts or thoughts. Though made in the form or likeness of sinful flesh, He was sinless and His sinlessness is beyond questioning.' Seventh-day Adventists Believe. . . pg 47.

Adventist doctrine is Christ never had sinful desires, He had the fallen flesh nature weakened by sin since the fall of Adam, and was temped on all points as we are, but had no taint of sin and at the cross paid the full price for our sins so that we may be saved, the atonement in the heavenly tabernacle is the application of His atoning blood. "the actual atoning death of our Lord—took place at Calvary once for all time (Heb. 9:26-28; 10:10-14)...On the cross the penalty for human sin was fully paid. Divine justice was satisfied. From a legal perspective the world was restored to favor with God... The application of the atoning blood during the mediatorial ministry of the priest was also seen as a form of atonement (Lev. 4:35). The English term atonement implies a reconciliation between two estranged parties. As the atoning death of Christ reconciled the world to God, so His mediation, or the application of the merits of His sinless life and substitutionary death, makes reconciliation or atonement with God a personal reality for the believer." Seventh-day Adventists Believe... pg 315-316

Andreasen brought out two points, that Christs Second Coming was delayed because of our lack of overcoming sin which even many Christians hold that the apostle's felt was the reason Christ didn't come in their lifetime, so its not a new idea. And as the living saints at the end will stand without a mediator, he brought out that this means it is possible for this "last generation" of Christian believers to overcome sin like Christ and restore a sinless state of perfect obedience. These are in many Adventist writings even from the Pioneers, but Andreasen felt others were coming out with a view that sin could not be overcome in this lifetime, and thus changing the belief traditionally held from scripture and end time prophecy especially as seen in the 'Great Controversy' writings of Ellen White, and so put a spotlight on this belief. We find the following as Adventist belief, "The cosmic perspective the book of Job affords provides powerful proof of the great controversy between Christ and Satan. This planet is the stage on which this dramatic struggle between right and wrong is being played out. As Scripture states, "We have been made a spectacle to the world, both to angels and to men" (1 Cor. 4:9)...Sin severed the relationship between God and man, and "whatever is not from faith is sin" (Rom. 14:23). The breaking of God's commandments, or laws, is the immediate result of a lack of faith, the evidence of a ruptured relationship. In turn, by the plan of salvation God intends to restore the trust in the Creator that leads to a loving relationship manifested by obedience. As Christ noted, love leads to obedience (John 14:15)." Seventh-day Adventists Believe...pg 101....Simbagraphix (talk) 12:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Simba... You don't seem to understand that Andreasen invented LGT by misunderstanding and misusing Ellen. And your appeal to Progressive Adventists is bogus, because they also misunderstand and misuse Ellen and end up rejecting what Historic Adventists believe. Mainline Adventists DO NOT believe in LGT and note that Ellen did not either. Historic Adventists and Progressive Adventists are both legalistic movements trying to deceive other Adventists away from their first love of God. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

How Historic Adventist misapply Ellen White

Historic Adventists misapply Ellen White making it look like she taught the Last Generation theology where a perfect, sinless generation of Adventists can live without the need of Jesus. They often quote this directly from Ellen:

“When he leaves the sanctuary, darkness covers the inhabitants of the earth. In that fearful time the righteous must live in the sight of a holy God without an intercessor.” {Great Controversy, p. 614}

They imply that being without an intercessor, means that those who are to be saved have become perfect, meaning having reached a level of living where they no longer sin or can sin. But when taken within the context of the entire paragraph it is obvious that that is NOT what Ellen was talking about. Read entire paragraph:

“When he leaves the sanctuary, darkness covers the inhabitants of the earth. In that fearful time the righteous must live in the sight of a holy God without an intercessor. The restraint which has been upon the wicked is removed, and Satan has entire control of the finally impenitent. God's long-suffering has ended. The world has rejected his mercy, despised his love, and trampled upon his law. The wicked have passed the boundary of their probation; the Spirit of God, persistently resisted, has been at last withdrawn. Unsheltered by divine grace, they have no protection from the wicked one. Satan will then plunge the inhabitants of the earth into one great, final trouble. As the angels of God cease to hold in check the fierce winds of human passion, all the elements of strife will be let loose. The whole world will be involved in ruin more terrible than that which came upon Jerusalem of old. {GC 614.1}

This says that there comes a time when God’s long-suffering ends and Jesus leaves the sanctuary. The wicked have passed their probation and without God’s intercession of the angels holding in check the “winds” of human passion, all humanity, both righteous and wicked, experience a time of terrible trouble.

This says nothing about human perfection; it says nothing about a last generation of perfect people living without the need of a savior. God’s “intercession” has been to hold off strife that is the natural result of sin to try to save as many people as possible, but the time will come when everyone alive has made their decision for or against God, and then that intercession ends. A time of trouble ensues…..

Following Andreasen’s lead, Historic Adventists use this text either unwittingly, or deliberately, out of context to try to make it seem like Ellen White believed in a last generation theology and so they appear simply to be promoting what she did. Either way, it makes their theology highly suspect, if not false. A thorough study of all of Ellen’s writings shows that she never promoted LGT.

They base their theology upon Ellen White and not the Bible. She wrote various “testimonies” to people in her life time who were similarly misusing her writings, warning them not to do so. Andreasen developed LGT not long AFTER Ellen died.

This illustrates why you cannot just take quotes from Ellen White as supplied by Historic Adventists to try to prove or support LGT as is being done in this article. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

As I showed previously the remnant end time believers are Adventist doctrine, not Historic or Progressive, but mainstream Adventist beliefs. I can repost if you need it....Simbagraphix (talk) 12:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Ellen White is clear on what happens, she lays out that righteousness does not come by trying with all our might to do right on our own, but by choosing to surrender our will to Christ’s will and letting Him work in us, by asking for His help and power when temptation comes.

"As the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. Ephesians 6:6. Let no one say, “I cannot overcome my defects of character”; for if this is your decision, then you cannot have eternal life. The impossibility is all in your will. If you will not, that constitutes the cannot. The real difficulty is the corruption of an unsanctified heart, and an unwillingness to submit to the will of God. When there is a determined purpose born in your heart to overcome, you will have a disposition to overcome, and will cultivate those traits of character that are desirable, and will engage in the conflict with steady, persevering effort. You will exercise a ceaseless watchfulness over your defects of character, and will cultivate right practices in little things. The difficulty of overcoming will be lessened in proportion as the heart is sanctified by the grace of Christ. Our will must choose to give up our sinful desires and surrender all to God’s will. This must happen every time we are tempted. Ask for God’s power and the victory will come. Temptation never ceased for Jesus and it will never cease for us. It is an ongoing battle. Yet God has promised us the victory if we trust in His words. When we control our will and choose to obey God every moment, we are overcoming in His strength, not our own."Sons and Daughters of God, p. 115 and we have "The followers of Christ know little of the plots which Satan and his hosts are forming against them. But He who sitteth in the heavens will overrule all these devices for the accomplishment of his deep designs. The Lord permits his people to be subjected to the fiery ordeal of temptation, not because he takes pleasure in their distress and affliction, but because this process is essential to their final victory. He could not, consistently with his own glory, shield them from temptation; for the very object of the trial is to prepare them to resist all the allurements of evil. Neither wicked men nor devils can hinder the work of God or shut out his presence from his people, if they will, with subdued, contrite hearts, confess and put away their sins, and in faith claim his promises. Every temptation, every opposing influence, whether open or secret, may be successfully resisted, “not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord of hosts.” [Zechariah 4:6.]" The Great Controversy (1888), pp. 528-529 and also "There is nothing that can keep you away from God but a rebellious will. The will is the governing power in the nature of man. If the will is set right, all the rest of the being will come under its sway. The will is not the taste or the inclination, but it is the choice, the deciding power, the kingly power, which works in the children of men unto obedience to God or to disobedience.The Holy Spirit has nothing to do with such a confusion of noise and multitude of sounds as passed before me last January. Satan works amid the din and confusion of such music, which, properly conducted, would be a praise and glory to God. He makes its effect like the poison sting of the serpent."Our Father Cares, p. 60

Historic Adventists try to prove their positions by exclusively quoting from Ellen, which she said that her writings should not be used to do.

"Between 1900 and 1920 at least five theological struggles would erupt within Adventism. The first was the Holy Flesh movement, which moved beyond the traditional Adventist interest in Character perfection to that of the physical perfection of the human body before the Second Advent. The second concerned the wave of pantheistic ideas that swept over the denomination under the influence of such Adventists leaders as Kellogg and Waggoner. The third involved A. F. Ballenger's rejection of Adventism's traditional understanding of the sanctuary and its ministries. The pentecostal/holiness ecclesiology set forth my Jones and Waggoner led to the fourth struggle. Irt denied the need for church organization since the Holy Spirit spoke directly to each church member. And the fifth was the extended battle of the "daily" of Daniel 8:13, with S. N. Haskell and other arguing the so-called Old view that the daily meant ancient Roman Paganism and Prescott and other contending that the daily represented Christ's priestly mediation in the heavenlkt sanctuary. As in the Battle over the law in Galation 20 years earlier, the debate over the daily was in part a conflict over Ellen White's role as a prophetic/historicl interpreter of the Bible. And once again she denied that function. "I cannot consent," she penned, "that any of my writing shall be taken as settling this matter."(1SM 164)" [Knight, 2000, A Search for Identity, pp 126-127]

The LGT movement is based solely on what people think Ellen White said and all proofs go back to her writings. This is exactly what you have done in your previous statements. LGT is NOT Adventist theology because IT IS NOT based on the Bible.

Ellen did teach of perfection of character which can be obtained by all believers in all ages. But LGT is a twisted teaching by Andreasen. You need to learn the difference. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Ellen White quickly rebuked the Holy Flesh movement that was part of the of Pentecostal-like phenomena and has nothing to do with the end time remnant. "Worship With a Bedlam of Noise...It is impossible to estimate too largely the work that the Lord will accomplish through His proposed vessels in carrying out His mind and purpose. The things you have described as taking place in Indiana, the Lord has shown me would take place just before the close of probation. Every uncouth thing will be demonstrated. There will be shouting, with drums, music, and dancing. The senses of rational beings will become so confused that they cannot be trusted to make right decisions. And this is called the moving of the Holy" Spirit. The Holy Spirit never reveals itself in such methods, in such a bedlam of noise. This is an invention of Satan to cover up his ingenious methods for making of none effect the pure, sincere, elevating, ennobling, sanctifying truth for this time. Better never have the worship of God blended with music than to use musical instruments to do the work which last January was represented to me would be brought into our camp meetings. The truth for this time needs nothing of this kind in its work of converting souls. A bedlam of noise shocks the senses and perverts that which if conducted aright might be a blessing. The powers of satanic agencies blend with the din and noise, to have a carnival, and this is termed the Holy Spirit’s working. When the camp meeting is ended, the good which ought to have been done and which might have been done by the presentation of sacred truth is not accomplished. Those participating in the supposed revival receive impressions which lead them adrift. They cannot tell what they formerly knew regarding Bible principles. No encouragement should be given to this kind of worship... The same kind of influence came in after the passing of the time in 1844. The same kind of representations were made. Men became excited, and were worked by a power thought to be the power of God " [Selected Messages Book 2 pg 36-38]...Simbagraphix (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I proved beyond question at the top of this article that this sentence from the GC was take widely out of context. Go back and read the sentence in the context of the entire paragraph. As I said above: This says nothing about human perfection; it says nothing about a last generation of perfect people living without the need of a savior. God’s “intercession” in thes paragraph was to hold off strife that is the natural result of sin to try to save as many people as possible, but the time will come when everyone alive has made their decision for or against God, and then that intercession ends.

To continue to use this sentence out of context is bald face lying! --RoyBurtonson (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

It is talking directly of the end time remnant at the close of probation when Christ's intercession ends in the Heavenly Tabernacle, it is the issue at hand of that there is no question. It is part of the understanding of the Investigative Judgement and the living saints at the end and overcoming through Christ, the only question is, does it lead to sinless perfection as LGT lays our or not, so it is at the heart of the issue and is included in any discussion on Adventist beliefs of the end time. Clearly it needs to be in the article whether it appears to support or not support the proponents of LGT....Simbagraphix (talk) 10:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

You are completely wrong! That paragraph is NOT talking about the ending of Christ's intercession in the Tabernacle!! It is talking about the ending of God's intercession in keeping back strife on the planet. Go back and read the entire paragraph again. Good reading comprehension skills are required. Here it is again with bold instead of just italics as before:

“When he leaves the sanctuary, darkness covers the inhabitants of the earth. In that fearful time the righteous must live in the sight of a holy God without an intercessor. The restraint which has been upon the wicked is removed, and Satan has entire control of the finally impenitent. God's long-suffering has ended. The world has rejected his mercy, despised his love, and trampled upon his law. The wicked have passed the boundary of their probation; the Spirit of God, persistently resisted, has been at last withdrawn. Unsheltered by divine grace, they have no protection from the wicked one. Satan will then plunge the inhabitants of the earth into one great, final trouble. As the angels of God cease to hold in check the fierce winds of human passion, all the elements of strife will be let loose. The whole world will be involved in ruin more terrible than that which came upon Jerusalem of old. {GC 614.1}

NOTE: ALL INHABITANTS of the Earth, both wicked and righteous, are plunged into a final time of trouble. This has nothing to do with anyone living without sinning in the end. It has to do with everyone living through the final trouble caused by Satan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoyBurtonson (talk • contribs) 23:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

This refers to this period of end time believers and so is directely part of the discussion related to this article...209.12.14.250 (talk) 12:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

In the article, the preceding sentence say: "The urgency for attaining perfection comes from the knowledge that the remnant must live perfectly during the time of trouble at the end to prove to the universe that fallen human beings can keep the law of God." And the quote from White to prove that the remnant must live perfectly during this time is this: “When He leaves the sanctuary, darkness covers the inhabitants of the earth. In that fearful time the righteous must live in the sight of a holy God without an intercessor.”

BUT, I just pointed out previously that that quote from that paragraph has ABSOLUTLY NOTHING TO DO WITH LIVING PERFECTLY. As I said in my previous note: "That paragraph is NOT talking about the ending of Christ's intercession in the Tabernacle. It is talking about the ending of God's intercession in keeping back strife on the planet." The righteous must live through a fearful time of trouble caused by Satan and the wicked, all of which happens in the sight of a Holy God. It says nothing about needing to live perfectly. READ THAT PARAGRAPH AGAIN!! That quote is being deceitfully used out of context to back up a lie. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The paragraph before it says "Then Jesus ceases His intercession in the sanctuary above. He lifts His hands and with a loud voice says, "It is done;" and all the angelic host lay off their crowns as He makes the solemn announcement: "He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still". This is exactly what the article is about, then Ellen White confirms the reason “When He leaves the sanctuary, darkness covers the inhabitants of the earth. In that fearful time the righteous must live in the sight of a holy God without an intercessor.” It speaks directly of what happens at the time of the last generation to the living saints of the remnant at the end. It relates directly to LGT as any neutral observer can see....Simbagraphix (talk) 00:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

But this has nothing to do with havng perfection of character as promoted by the LGT heresy. Just because Jesus leaves off the judgment it does not mean that the last generation of people are sinless just like Jesus was when he was living on the earth. This is so WRONG!!!! This is pure heresy. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

And Ellen White makes it even clearer in the Great Controversy, "Those who are living upon the earth when the intercession of Christ shall cease in the sanctuary above are to stand in the sight of a holy God without a mediator. Their robes must be spotless, their characters must be purified from sin by the blood of sprinkling. Through the grace of God and their own diligent effort they must be conquerors in the battle with evil. While the investigative judgment is going forward in heaven, while the sins of penitent believers are being removed from the sanctuary, there is to be a special work of purification, of putting away of sin, among God’s people upon earth. This work is more clearly presented in the messages of Revelation 14. When this work shall have been accomplished, the followers of Christ will be ready for His appearing. “Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the Lord, as in the days of old, and as in former years.” Malachi 3:4..."The Great Controversy, Page 425....Simbagraphix (talk) 12:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

White used "Human Nature" two different but related ways

White used "Human Nature" to mean; 1, His physical body and 2, His spiritual quality as indicated by the context in which she was speaking.

For instance, here are some texts where she is talking about his physical body, his heridity, his genetics.

"But our saviour --RoyBurtonson (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)took humanity, with all its liabilities of the race as they existed when He came to the earth to help man. In behalf of the race, with the weakeness of fallen man upon Him, He was to stand the temptations of Satan upon all points wherewith man would be assailed." -- Review and Herald, July 28, 1874

"But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity." -- The Desire of Ages, p. 49

"He was hungry and thirsty and wearly. He was sustained by food, and refreshed by sleep. He shared the lot of man; yet he was the blameless Son of God. He was God in the flesh. -- The desire of ages, p. 311

Here are some texts talking about his spiritual quality:

"for his spiritual nature was free from every taint of sin" -- The Signs of the Times, Dec. 9, 1897

"In the fullness of time He was to be revealed in human form [a physical body]. He was to take His position at the head of humanity by taking the nature [physical body} but not the sinfulness of man. --The Signs of the Times, May 29, 1901

Christ is called the second Adam. In purity and holiness, connected with God and beloved by God, He began where the first Adam began. Willing He passed over the ground where Adam fell, and redeemed Adam's failure. -- The Youth's Instructor, June 2, 1898

"He vanquished Satan in the same [spiritual] nature over which in Eden Satan obtained the victory. The enemy was overcome by Christ in His human nature [physical body].

In other words, Jesus physical body was like ours after years of heredity in a sinful world, but his spiritual nature was like Adam before the fall. Historic Adventists seem incapable of comprehending this distinction, saying that Jesus' spiritual nature was not like Adams, but like mankind after the fall. This is not the mainline SDA position. Andreasen made it up. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Adventist believe that Christ was in all ways created as man and this includes Adam’s human nature after the fall. But Jesus did not have a taint of sin. In the Desire of Ages Ellen White said, "He [Christ] took our nature and overcame, that we through taking His nature might overcome. Made 'in the likeness of sinful flesh,' He lived a sinless life" (pp.311,312). Also good read is SDA Bible Commentary: "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. {7ABC 447.3}

Here is a explanation by Ángel Manuel Rodríguez on the Adventist church view of the nature of Christ :"...the church's Statement of Fundamental Beliefs is useful because it summarizes that which the church holds to be biblical truth around the world. Let me quote from it some statements related to your question: "God the eternal Son became incarnate in Jesus Christ [John 1:1-3, 14]. . . . Forever truly God, He became also truly man, Jesus the Christ [Heb. 2:14]. . . . He lived and experienced temptation as a human being, but perfectly exemplified the righteousness and love of God [Heb. 4:15]." In infinite love and mercy "God made Christ, who knew no sin, to be sin for us" (2 Cor. 5:21, Clear Word).Those statements attest that, first, Jesus was divine; second, that He became what He was not, truly human; and, third, that He was without sin, even though He faced severe temptations. We can make those affirmations without hesitancy because that is what the Bible clearly teaches about God's Son...."

Now Historics tend to go the semi arian views on the nature of Son of God, and that Christ had a sinful inclination and desires to sin, this is not what Adventist doctrine holds but many seemed to have picked that up from what the churchs James White and others came from believed before they were Adventist and thus the issue.

Progressives tend to go the other way, to pre-fall impeccable 'unlike flesh creation' nature of Christ which could not be tempted and was just a substitute not our example, and believe in original sin, along with rejecting the traditional formulation of investigative judgment, 1844, and the basic pillars of Adventism, and most of the Fundament Belief's, etc.....

What makes Jesus equal (having no advantage over other human beings), is that he had all the damage done by sin (Adam’s human nature after the fall), but he had what Peter calls 'the Mind of Christ' which was what Adam was given to begin with and Paul speaks of in my view, that man can have and become dead to sin. Thus Christ has no advantage in overcoming sin as through the power of the Holy Spirit we also can have the 'Mind of Christ'. Taking this into view, then the following quotes makes sense:

"Jesus was in all things made like unto His brethren. He became flesh, even as we are. He was hungry and thirsty and weary. He was sustained by food and refreshed by sleep. He shared the lot of man; yet He was the blameless Son of God. He was God in the flesh. His character is to be ours.--The Desire of Ages, p. 311.

"But our Saviour took humanity, with all its liabilities. He took the nature of man, with the possibility of yielding to temptation. We have nothing to bear which He has not endured.-- The Desire of Ages, p. 117.

"The human nature of Christ is likened to ours, and suffering was more keenly felt by Him; for His spiritual nature was free from every taint of sin. Therefore His desire for the removal of suffering was stronger than human beings can experience. . . . The Son of God endured the wrath of God against sin. All the accumulated sin of the world was laid upon the Sin-bearer, the One who was innocent, the One who alone could be the propitiation for sin, because He Himself was obedient. He was One with God. Not a taint of corruption was upon Him.--The Signs of the Times, Dec. 9, 1897.

"Christ did not make believe take human nature; He did verily take it. He did in reality possess human nature. "As the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same." He was the son of Mary; He was of the seed of David according to human descent.--The Review and Herald, April 5, 1906.

Christ possessed fully human nature, taking on man's human nature in its fallen condition, but with uncorrupted desires and inclinations (or Mind of Christ) available to all through the Holy Spirit....Simbagraphix (talk) 10:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

When Historic Adventists say that Christ had Adams nature after the fall they mean that both his physical body and his spiritual nature was exactly like fallen Adam. But, Ellen is clear that Jesus' spiritual nature was like Adam before the fall, while his physical nature was like ours after the fall. So, to be clear, Mainline Adventists do not ever state that Jesus had Adams nature after the fall. They always make the distinction that he had Adam's spiritual nature before the fall, but that his physical nature was that of mankind some 4000 years after the fall. Wording is very important. --RoyBurtonson (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

You have to look very carefully as Ellen White clearly said that it wasn't just a body, but the moral and mental state after the fall, long removed from the 'original state of purity and uprightness' which Adam would have had, and was tempted 'tempted in all points like as we are'. Look where it says 'It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man's nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin.' So its not just a body Christ inherited.

"It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man's nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life. {DA 49}

"Christ was not in as favorable a position in the desolate wilderness to endure the temptations of Satan as was Adam when he was tempted in Eden. The Son of God humbled himself and took man's nature after the race had wandered four thousand years from Eden, and from their original state of purity and uprightness. Sin had been making its terrible marks upon the race for ages; and physical, mental, and moral degeneracy prevailed throughout the human family. 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. {RH, July 28, 1874}

"I had freedom and power in presenting Jesus, who took upon himself the infirmities and bore the griefs and sorrows of humanity, and conquered in our behalf. He was made like unto his brethren, with the same susceptibilities, mental and physical. He was tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin; and he knows how to succor those who are tempted. Are you harassed and perplexed? So was Jesus. Do you feel the need of encouragement? So did Jesus. As Satan tempts you, so he tempted the Majesty of heaven. {RH February 10, 1885}

"Christ was not in as favorable a position in the desolate wilderness to endure the temptations of Satan as was Adam when he was tempted in Eden. The Son of God humbled himself and took man's nature after the race had wandered four thousand years from Eden, and from their original state of purity and uprightness. Sin had been making its terrible marks upon the race for ages; and physical, mental, and moral degeneracy prevailed throughout the human family. 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. {RH, July 28, 1874}

"Christ clothed His divinity with humanity, that humanity might touch humanity; that He might live with humanity and bear all the trials and afflictions of man. He was tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin. In His humanity He understood all the temptations that will come to man (Ms 21, 1895). {7BC 925}

"It was in the order of God that Christ should take upon himself the form and nature of fallen man, that he might be made perfect through suffering, and himself endure the strength of Satan's fierce temptations, that he might understand how to succor those who should be tempted. {RH December 31, 1872}

"He assumed human nature, with its infirmities, its liabilities, its temptations. {Ms 58, 1890}

Notice "that he might be made perfect through suffering". Clearly Christ had a human nature with its infirmities, its liabilities, its temptations, not just a body of bone and sinew....Simbagraphix (talk) 22:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Unless any other issues I will go ahead and remove the POV...Simbagraphix (talk) 10:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

RoyBurtonson blocked for sockpuppetry

Account was a sock of Allenroyboy, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Allenroyboy. Doug Weller (talk) 14:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Last Generation Theology. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080821140245/http://www.spectrummagazine.org/files/archive/archive06-10/10-4rice.pdf to http://www.spectrummagazine.org/files/archive/archive06-10/10-4rice.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070301060414/http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/orc/fb1872.php to http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/orc/fb1872.php/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070301060307/http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/orc/fb1931.php to http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/orc/fb1931.php/

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Last Generation Theology. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070212071656/http://progressiveadventism.com/2007/01/08/interlogue-4-larry-kirkpatrick/ to http://progressiveadventism.com/2007/01/08/interlogue-4-larry-kirkpatrick/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://greatcontroversy.org/gco/ser/kirl-halfadam.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717021130/http://www.greatcontroversy.org/documents/papers/kir-sorl.html to http://www.greatcontroversy.org/documents/papers/kir-sorl.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070301060414/http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/orc/fb1872.php to http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/orc/fb1872.php/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070301060307/http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/orc/fb1931.php/ to http://www.greatcontroversy.org/gco/orc/fb1931.php/

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:53, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

NPOV

The article suffers from attempts to use it to establish the claims of LGT and to prove that LGT is true Adventist doctrine—instead of fitting Wikipedia parameters for a neutral point of view. Bluepenciltime (talk) 00:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies and guidelines

We all need to keep learning about and trying to write within Wikipedia standards, to make this article meet specifications. For example, Neutral Point of View, References, Encyclopedic standards, etc., https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_policies_and_guidelines Bluepenciltime (talk) 21:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Editing needed to meet Wikipedia standards

See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_policies_and_guidelines Bluepenciltime (talk) 21:14, 23 February 2019 (UTC)