"what choice do we have to make? We love Adventism, there isn't any choice"

seemed to be the response.

So, here is a little quiz. Try to answer Yes or No to the following questions.

1. Do you believe Traditional Adventism contradicts Reformation Theology?

2. Do you accept the teachings of the Reformation: Justification by Faith Alone, Christ's unfallen nature, the finished and completed work of Christ?

3. Do you believe modern theology has a part to play in our understanding of God?

Now check your answers:

Q1	Q2	Q3	YOU ARE:
N	N	N	Traditional Adventist
N	N	Y	Traditional Adventist
N	Y	N	Traditional Adventist
N	Y	Y	Traditional Adventist
Y	N	N	Sectarian Adventist
Y	N	Y	Liberal Adventist
Y	Y	N	Evangelical Adventist
Y	Y	Y	Liberal Adventist

So what is wrong with being a Traditional Adventist? The answer happened in the 1950s and 1960s. This was the point about the history of the church.

Up until the 1950s Adventists thought they were "fulfilling" or "completing" the Reformation. However Reformation Theologians showed that many of Adventism's teachings on faith and law contradicted Reformation Theology. Adventism said Christians had to keep the law in order to be saved, that Christ had a fallen nature, which showed it was possible for fallen man to keep the law, and that Christ's work in the sanctuary showed the atonement was not complete on the cross. A number of Adventist theologians simply said this wasn't what Adventism taught (hence "Answers to Questions on Doctrine"), however after some difficult reflection many accepted this was what Adventism had been teaching, and decided to go about changing this (hence, Evangelical Theology). Once the move towards orthodox Christianity had been made, a liberal Adventism followed.

A revolt against this by "sectarian" Adventism insisted on the original teaching - keeping the law, the fallen nature of Christ etc.

So "traditional Adventism" is really just being in a state of innocence. It is not a "stable" position, because it lasts only as long as one is unaware of the contradiction between traditional Adventist teachings and the teachings of the Reformation. Once you "wake up" to the self-contradiction of the position you have to make a choice one way or the other.

Simply saying "I love it" or "Amen" does not, alas, resolve the contradiction.

At least the other forms of Adventism have faced up to the contradiction - traditional Adventism simply avoids the problem by denying it exists.

This is why no traditional Adventists have attempted the "Are you a Protestant or a Catholic" questions - they simply do not understand them.

Without trying to get people to run before they can walk, what I am trying to argue is these choices themselves are not the only choices.

If we go back to 1888 we can see that the 1950s/60s debates are in fact a re-run of 1888 (the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce, of course). What happened in 1888? Jones and Waggoner discovered Reformation Theology - from first principles - and Sister White realised this was the key to completing the vision of Adventism. However their calls for change were rejected. Now we can understand why Sister White copied from so many books - her writings after 1888 are marked by an urgency for the church to repent and turn to God, so all these books she wrote/compiled - Patriarchs and Prophets, Prophets and Kings, Desire of Ages etc - are just her repeating this message over and over again. If the church stays in her pre-1888 state she is rejecting God, she is turning away from God's truth.

How did Sister White ensure her writings were firmly orthodox - and uncontaminated by anti-Reformation Adventist teachings? By copying extensively from orthodox writers. She had to get "up to speed" quickly, and we can see her decision was correct, for Jones and Waggoner tried to get to orthodoxy "from first principles" and without joining up with the orthodox church, strayed into error. Sister White quite correctly took on huge quantites of orthodox literature and plunged it into Adventism to try to correct their ant-orthodox errors. Like the Evengelical Adventists of the 1960s and 1970s she turned to Christianity outside of Adventism to correct the errors of Adventism, however unlike Evangelical Adventism she also interpreted this truth in the light of her visions from God.

Since 1888s Adventism has remained in its pre-1888 state theologically. The revolution of the 1960s and 1970s has had some effect, but very little of significance - it has only encouraged more fudge in theological statements.

What is needed, then - to come back to the same point yet again - is a decision on what direction Adventism needs to take!