Talk:Criticism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church/Archive 1

Rewrite
I have some time this weekend and I'm going to try and edit this puppy. Someone stop me if you think any of the changes are for the worse. HiS oWn 02:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

There is lot's more that could be added about sda anti-Catholicism.

NPOV
Uncle G has posted a NPOV notice on the page with the statement that the titles are inherently non-neutral. I had the same inkling in my head as well. Does anyone have any suggestions for corrections? Would Opposition of the Seventh-day Adventist Church be more neutral? MyNameIsNotBob 03:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Criticism of Christianity/Archive1 for the many examples of where "Criticism of X" articles have become perennial neutrality disputes, and a discussion of how to address this. Uncle G 04:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Folks, you must understand that this is NOT an article ABOUT Seventh-day Adventism, but an article about Evangelicals' Critiques of SDAsm. The NPOV description of POV is what it's all about. I find that this NPOV is spurious and will remove it shortly since there is nothing being forwarded as evidence, or even examples of POV in this article. PLEASE, if you NPOV flag an article and put up a talk page, for heaven's sake put something down on that page that shows what/that you are thinking...  Thank you... Emyth 20:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I might add that it is also an article about Roman Catholic critiques of SDAism (for a fuller roundup of different points-of-view). Ruby 06:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Attention and Cleanup Tags
I've added the tags calling for attention and cleanup for this article. Here is my rationale for each. Please understand that my intent is not to belittle the original authors, but to encourage more involvement to make this a better article. Ken 18:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup
The organization and heading names of the article need to be better. For example, the following headers are almost the same and far too long:


 * Some points to note on some other Adventist beliefs that are commonly criticised - the Sabbath
 * Some points to note on some other Adventist beliefs that are commonly criticised - Ellen White

Most of the responses seem like they should be under Response to Outsider Criticism of Adventism. Headings should not start with "regarding".

The wording of the article needs improvement. I don't think the following statements are grammatically correct:


 * Critics also view the Adventist belief in annihilationism as unbiblical.


 * Some groups of traditionalist Seventh-day Adventists, however, are rather cross at the Adventist Church leadership for doing this, and a few have left the Adventist church to form splinter groups as a result.

Sentences like "it might be worth saying" and "are summarized below" are redundant -- a statement that the article is about its topic is unnecessary and if it's worth saying, say it.


 * It might be worth saying that many or most Adventist beliefs,


 * which are summarized below.

There are other examples. The text "(see Wikipedia on historicism)." isn't a link, and even if it were, that's not a preferred way of mentioning other wikipedia articles. Ken 18:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Attention
I think this article is lacking a natural flow and readability. I'm also not sure historicism is the right term to use, among others. This article lacks sources and references to specific incidents. Ken 18:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Preterism is the opposite of futurism, I'm confused by the use of the word historicism in the rebuttal. Ruby 06:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Outline
How does this outline sound?


 * External criticism
 * Cult status
 * Doctrine
 * Ellen G. White
 * Internal dissent/controversies
 * See also
 * External links

Each section of the external criticism would specify quickly what the criticism is, its rationale, and from whom the criticisms came. There should be a short Adventist response. Where possible, specific incidents, speeches, websites, etc should be referenced.

Internal dissent/controversies should include any internal criticism of the church, including those made by off-shoots of the denomination, such as branch davidians.

See also would link to the church itself, articles on the religious doctrines mentioned, any applicable history articles, etc. External links would link to web pages that criticize the SDA church, and any responses that may exist from the church or anyone associated with it. Ken 18:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The most stinging criticisms of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, in terms of brutal honesty and sheer power, come from the pen of Ellen G. White. I want to know if her criticisms of the Adventist Church will be tolerated or censored in the main article?


 * For example, Ellen White wrote in 1900 that not one in twenty Seventh-day Adventists were saved:


 * "It is a solemn statement that I make to the church, that not one in twenty whose names are registered upon the church books are prepared to close their earthly history, and would be as verily without God and without hope in the world as the common sinner. They are professedly serving God, but they are more earnestly serving mammon." The General Conference Bulletin, July 1, 1900, paragraph 7.


 * Ellen White also wrote that the Seventh-day Adventist Church of her time was more disobedient to God and a greater failure than the Jewish Church:


 * "But very few of those who have received the light are doing the work entrusted to their hands. There are a few men of unswerving fidelity who do not study ease, convenience, or life itself, who push their way wherever they can find an opening to press the light of truth and vindicate the holy law of God. But the sins that control the world have come into the churches, and into the hearts of those who claim to be God’s peculiar people. Many who have received the light exert an influence to quiet the fears of worldlings and formal professors. There are lovers of the world even among those who profess to be waiting for the Lord. There is ambition for riches and honor. Christ describes this class when He declares that the day of God is to come as a snare upon all that dwell upon the earth. This world is their home. They make it their business to secure earthly treasures. They erect costly dwellings and furnish them with every good thing; they find pleasure in dress and the indulgence of appetite. The things of the world are their idols. These interpose between the soul and Christ, and the solemn and awful realities that are crowding upon us are but dimly seen and faintly realized. The same disobedience and failure which were seen in the Jewish church have characterized in a greater degree the people who have had this great light from heaven in the last messages of warning. Shall we, like them, squander our opportunities and privileges until God shall permit oppression and persecution to come upon us? Will the work which might be performed in peace and comparative prosperity be left undone until it must be performed in days of darkness, under the pressure of trial and persecution?" Testimonies for the Church, Vol. 5, pp. 456-457.


 * I'd like to see some of Ellen White's criticisms included in the main article. What can be said of the huge number of forceful and brutally honest testimonies that Ellen White has published against Seventh-day Adventists? http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=1143 --Perspicacious 02:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello Ken ...  Before you start to work on this mess, please compare the present text with what it was before the Anonymous additions of User:152.91.9.213 were added. Consider reverting to what it was and then working from there. I'll think about your proposal and get back to you. Off hand, the "Internal dissent" doesn't belong... This article was split off of the main SDA article for some reason... Internal dissent belongs back there in my opinion. Thanks... Emyth 20:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe reword the phrase "cult status"? I'm sorry but to me at least the first thing that comes into my head in reading that phrase is its relation to pop culture, such as a "cult film" or something that develops a "cult following".

And on the topic of NPOV, I'm sorry but if I were a non-Adventist reading this I'd totally think that the writer were trying to persuade me to rid of my criticisms (if I were to have any). It's like written in the style of an editorial (sorry if what I've just said has already been stated anywhere else) --HansTAR 02:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

No, no, no... "cult status" is what the whole controversy is about!! If you don't know what the actual, real-world issue is, i.e. Evangelicals asserting that SDAsm is a "cult"...Please don't mess with this article... In the name of misguided PC Non-POVsm you will destroy the actual information that the article is supposed to address...  Regarding HansTar's point, this article is about the Theological Polemics that are actually going on. The article must be written with an awareness of two levels: 1. The Evangelical vs SDA polemics, and 2. The Wikipedian NPOV Ideal. Don't inappropriately introject Wikipedian NPOV into the very POV debate.Emyth 14:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Basically it follows the theological sense of the word cult, not the colloquial meaning. Colloquially, cult means, more or less, "a bunch of fanatics about a particular subject". Historically/theologically, the word cult has been something of a slur applied to sects and religious followings that the majority institutions consider unacceptably outside of a mainstream. (ie; to a 17th century Catholic, Protestantism might be a sect you disagree with, but American-Indian religions are cults.) Because the SDA Church is an evangelical church, the evangelical community (per-se) may debate/consider whether the Adventists' doctrines (rules/beleifs) are sufficiently unorthodox as to have a "cult" status. From a broader perspective, Christianity in general, and specifically the Catholic Church, would make the same evaluation. It's basically, "do these people disagree with us enough for us to use the word 'cult'".


 * It may seem like a silly debate, but it's not entirely a subjective argument. Because most of the positions in the argument start with the same basic assumptions, the debate is more than just "I'm right because my religion says so". The SDA Church and its theological detractors agree on a doctrine of sola scriptura, a protestant assertion that the Christian Bible is the sole source of theological truth. (However that is to be defined is outside the debate, because among the SDA Church and its theological advisories, that's a mostly settled matter.)


 * What it comes down to is two big issues: (1) The Adventists view Ellen G. White as a prophet. White was a founding member of the church and a prolific writer. Many of her writings have been incorporated as church doctrine. If sola scripture excludes other sources of information, White is then a "false prophet". If sola scripture provides a framework to identify prophets and White passes such criteria, then she isn't. (2) Adventists choose to have a weekly religious holliday (ie, go to church) on Saturday (Sabbath), not Sunday. That's a big point of contention. Ken 06:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * What doctrines exactly are those that are incorporated on the basis that Ellen White said so and hence it must be true. Also, how does a protestant evangelical prove that Sunday is the correct day to set aside specifically for worship as opposed to Saturday. It is all well and good to declare that because most people do something and someone else doesn't that they are a cult. You are coming at this from an Evangelical point of view and hence you have to prove all of this using sola scriptura. Ansell 04:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * ... Come to think of it, for that matter you could define a contemporary/secular use of the word "cult" to mean any following that makes demands of its members that are outside of a societal mainstream. For example: Wicca (witchcraft) would almost certainly be considered a "cult" (or worse) by most all but the most liberal Christian organizations. However because contemporary organizations of Wicca make no demands of their members that society deems unacceptable, it isn't in the contemporary sense, a cult. In contrast, a suicide cult demands that its members commit suicide, which is sufficiently outside of the societal mainstream as to be cult-like. In other words, a contemporary definition of cult may mean, "an organization that makes demands of its members that are unacceptably outside of the mainstream", as opposed to "an organization that has beliefs unacceptably outside of the mainstream". I make that distinction because contemporary society judges the acceptability of a religion based more on the actions it demands of its members, than its belief systems.


 * With the Branch Dividians in Waco (an off-shot of SDA'ism), a lot of people might have an impression of the SDA church as being cult-like. They do kind of keep to themselves (their own schools, hospitals, etc). Paradoxically, they are both skeptical of secular society and welcoming of it -- because they fear persecution under blue laws, they are strong supporters of the separation of church and state. But I digress: Moderate isolationism is not uncommon among evangelicals, especially ones that consider themselves theological remnants. I'm not aware there have been any widely publicized assertions, that in a particular sense, the SDA Church is a cult. The demands it makes of its members may be unusual (vegetarianism, sobriety, and sabbath), but they aren't unacceptable to society at large. Ken 07:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Ellen G. White section
How about this: Ken 06:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Ellen G. White
Ellen G. White, was a founding member of the Seventh Day Adventist church and many of her assertions have been incorporated in to church doctrine. A prolific writer, White's status as a prophet is one of the Adventists' 28 Fundamental Beliefs:


 * 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. (Joel 2:28, 29; Acts 2:14-21; Heb. 1:1-3; Rev. 12:17; 19:10.)

White's prophet status may be interpreted as at odds with the protestant view of sola scriptura, which simply means that the Christian Bible is the only source of religious truth. Adventists, rather than admonishing sola scriptura, contend that the Christian Bible includes tests to determine whether any future prophets are to be trusted, and White passes those tests. An Adventist view that Saturday should be a day of worship, as opposed to Sunday is supported by White's assertions, and the Adventist interpretation of the Christian Bible.

Adventists, and some groups who derive their views from the Adventist Church, are alone in their view that White's writings should be considered prophecy. However, they are not unique among protestant Christian churches which elevate their founding members' writings to religious instruction. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon Church) for example regards its Book of Mormon very much how Adventists view the writings of White. Also, many Adventists view the Catholic Pope as a arbiter of religious theology, and contend that there is no Biblical explanation for such authority.


 * Ken, my biggest criticism of this at the moment is that it lacks sources. Until it has credible sourcing it is your POV and not worth going in an encyclopedia. Good start though. MyNameIsNotBob 20:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello Ken and ≠"Bob"... A section on EGW needs to go in this article.  Thanks for your work.  Two comments:  1. I find the single sentence paragraph regarding SDA sabbatarian beliefs odd and out-of-place...  Critiques of sabbatarianism have their section.  Criticisms of the prophetic status afforded EGW are the point of this section: That is the particular point of the paragraphs on either side of that single sentence paragraph.  Also, all SDA Beliefs are supported by White's assertions...yet you don't mention them, so how is it a criticism?  Who is making that criticism anyway?  Sources...references...  It is also historically misleading for sabbatarianism entered the Adventist movement through the influece of a Seventh-Day Baptist, arguing on biblical grounds.  SDA's sabbatarianism is thoroughly and primarilly biblically based...Criticism of this practice is for its own section. 2. The "sola scriptura" argument is important, but as it stands, heavy handed and un-nuanced.  SDAs agree with and teach "sola scriptura"... This I know&mdash;for that was what I was taught the first 25 years of my life as a SDA living five miles from the church's world headquarters in Takoma Park.  There is a difference drawn between the Bible, as the only source of authoritative doctrine, and EGW, an authoritative source of interpretation of the Bible and Doctrine.  EGW is considered, to use her own words, "a lesser light pointing to the Greater Light."  That deals with the "sola scriptura" criticism of SDA use of EGW from a SDA perspective.  From a broader theological/history of religions perspective, I will point out that "sola scriptura" is NOT simply "The Protestant" position.  I believe that it comes from Martin Luther... But even Lutherans have religious authority beyond "scripture" (Luther being one of them...)  Then there are the Methodists... They are Protestants; but they affirm a "four-fold" basis for religious authority: i.e.  Scripture, Tradition, Conscience, Holy Spirit...I believe are the four sources...  Oops, no...  Here is the "Wesleyan Quadralatiral" from a Methodist source&mdash; "upon the four-fold authority of Scripture, Tradition, Experience, and Reason".  For these reasons, the "sola scriptura" criticism of Seventh-day Adventism can't be left this way.  It's too vague and seems if as if it were a monolithic "Protestant" criticism of SDAsm, rather that a narrow, fundamentalist argument that ignores history and the subtleties and nuances of SDA's actual theological position. Again, "Who is making the criticism?" and "Why? What are their assumptions?" Emyth 12:59, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I am sorry but you lost me about the time you said "For these reasons, the "sola scriptura" criticism of Seventh-day Adventism can't be left this way. ... etc." I did not pick up on the link between the part about some Protestant religious authorities and your sudden change to say that sola scriptura is not enough for this article. Ansell 14:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry Ansell, let me try to be clearer. I am saying that 1. The "sola scriptura" criticism is important, if there are actually critics who level it against the SDA Church...(Who are they?  References, please...)  2. However, the argument as it stands will NOT do for it is too vague and general: a. Because it suggests that "sola scripture" defined in a narrow, absolutist way as "absolutely nothing but Scriture is authoritative, is "the protestant" view... when b. this is plainly false, as I provided examples of Luther in Lutheranism, and the Wesleyan Quadralateral in Methodism, and I could go on and cite Calvin in Presbyterianism and so on.  3. Furthermore, SDAs hold, teach and believe in "sola scriptura"&mdash;thus it is disingenuous to simply print a bald assertion that EGW's status as a prophet "may be interpreted as at odds with the protestant view of sola scriptura" with no reference, and no further explanation of the nuances involved in "sola scriptura" (cf my comments regarding the distinction between "authoritative doctrine" and "authoritative interpretation".
 * I suggest that the evangelicals and fundamentalists (unreferenced so far, who are they? What are their books?) who make such broad, historically and theologically inaccurate criticisms of their competitors, do NOT deserve to have their arguments given the Wikipedia imprimatur. We must report the criticisms as clearly and throughly yet succinctly as possible.  Then outline a SDA rebuttal, followed by a mention of whatever pertinent facts that the critics and the SDAs have neither one mentioned, so that our dear readers nod their heads and are able to make up their minds for themselves.
 * I noticed that ≠"Bob" removed a big, long set of POV material a while back. It is good to have taken much of that verbiage out.  Succinctness is a virtue.  And this is NOT a place for SDAs and Evangelical Critics to hash it out.  It is a place for Wikipedians to take a third, objective perspective on the argument and lay it out as clearly as possible.  There was a drawback to ≠"Bob"'s excision of the POV material...  One third of our project has been left out.  We do need to include SDA rebuttals... Not necessarilly in their own words (they can go on a bit at times) but in a short and sweet, thoroughly fair manner, we should summarize and make the best case for their rebuttal (just as we must fairly represent the critics.)  I suggest that this whole article be worked over with that pattern in mind, if, of course this makes sense to you'all.   1. Criticism; 2. SDA Rebuttal and 3. Wikipedian addition of pertinent facts.  Emyth 00:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, thats alot clearer. I don't know why I seem to need you to rehash things you say. Maybe its the whole roundtable process actually working. I agree that MyNameIsNotBob should have left at least stubs for the parts that are distinctly relevant on a Criticism page.
 * I do not know about the sola scriptura arguments. I think I recall them being on the page before the excision recently. I do not remember any references for them. I see what you mean about it not being a valid point for excluding the contemporary prophet perspective from evangelicalism though and I would be interested to find them. The plan that you have for Criticism->Rebuttal->Other pertinent facts seems reasonable for an article outline. Now for implementation. Ansell 01:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "There is a large amount of criticism placed on the authority that Ellen G. White is given and some of her teachings, against her desires. It is believed that the authority White is given is contrary to the traditional Protestant sola scriptura view of the Bible as the sole inspired source of authority. Criticism is also made of some of the teachings of Ellen White such as a statement on Christology found in a non-official book Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine, and her view on the necessity of a belief in an "investigative judgment"."
 * The above section is a quote from the main page currently which supposedly summarising this page. In my view it goes against what we have just discussed, particularly with relation to the "sole inspired source of authority" statement. Maybe it needs changing. Ansell 01:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Emyth, my reason for calling Sola scriptura a Protestant doctrine is simple -- Wikipedia's sola scripture article says it is. It looks like Wikipedia's SS article has changed some, as it now reads "Although there is no agreed-upon technical definition among Protestants, it generally meant that Scripture, as interpreted by the individual believer, is the only inerrant rule for deciding issues of faith and morals." If that statement is accurate (I assume it is), that would explain the confusion. As for the day of worship thing -- I agree that it should be a separate section. Again, with my limited understanding, the gig is this: (1) The Catholic Church holds basically itself to be a source of theological authority, so it can set whatever weekly religious holiday it wants. (2) The Adventists, along with others, disagree. I asked a religious and international professor on the compus of a major state university (CU) what he would contribute and he said this article should be called "History of Critisims of.." and include dates, because within the ranks of the Catholic old guard and the Evangelical fire-breathers, the targets of today are Islam and Secularism -- not denominations of Christianity. Ken 06:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello Ken... Sorry I missed your comment. Sola scriptura is indeed code for a Protestant position on religious/doctrinal authority.  It is just that I object to the acceptance of the simplistic Evangelical interpretation of what "sola scriptura" means as being "The Traditional Protestant Position"...  I have given evidence that it is not...  I have also pointed out that SDAs themselves claim "sola scriptura" as one of their principles.  The naive passing on of this particular Evangelical critique of SDAsm is not doing anyone a service.  Yes, there are those who make that claim.  But...  well, we'll get it worked out.     What you go on and say about the Roman Catholics and Evangelicals targeting Islam and Secularism is interesting...  Contemporary Evangelical Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias is now editing Walter Martin's classic "The Kingdom of the Cults"... I don't know what the current edition says about Adventists, but I'll check and see.  Perhaps, as you say, this is all old, stale history...Emyth 23:52, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of large POV sections
I have removed the large sections that were the second half of this article that seemed very POV. A number of questions have been raised on this page about those sections and as such I figured it was best they just went. I believe that if this article is to ever become worthy of reading, that all edits be carefully referenced and worded neutrally. Otherwise the tag will live at the top of the page forever. It is my ever stressed request that all editors follow this advice. MyNameIsNotBob 12:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

My response to some of the above questions
Some questions have been raised in the above paragraphs regarding the role of this article as a splinter of the main (Seventh-day Adventist Church) article. So to shed some light on my actions I will explain why I originally made this article. At the time of creating this article I was working on a cleanup of the main article with the naive intention of nominating it as a featured article candidate. At the time it appeared to me that the criticism section of the article was all too large as a percentage of the article. So, in this light, I removed what was the Criticisms section and placed it in this article as this:. You may be able to see my concern about the length from what can be seen there. I then summarised what I had copied in the section on the main article to something similar to what is there now. What I see as the purpose of this article is to explore the reasons and history behind some of the criticisms that have been placed against the Seventh-day Adventist Church and it will provide a broader insight into a summary that will appear on the main article. Hope this clears some things up. Feel free to ask any questions. MyNameIsNotBob 10:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I've no argument against your splitting this off... It makes for a better main article (as you intended.) It also focuses the subject on criticisms of SDAsm and will make this a better article in the end too.  I'd also like to note the statements by Ruby who pointed out that there are Roman Catholic criticisms as well.  I think that we should make that clearer, so that readers can "consider the source" and thus understand the criticism better.  In the Talk for the main article cestusdei has self-identified as a Roman Catholic, and personal animus seems to be a factor in the pugilistic/agonistic aspects of his/er posts.  As a Unitarian Universalist minister with a SDA family religious heritage, I guess I should make plain my bias...  Though I am no longer a believing SDA,  it annoys me when I see my natal faith being mischaracterized.  Thus, I can get a bit testy at times.  However, I do appreciate the dialog and open-mindedness with which true Wikipedians go about the process.  Emyth 20:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that my draft White section lacks sources, and for that matter, so does the whole article. I'm not a theologian, and I don't play one on TV. The only real knowledge I have of this comes from two places: (1) A class on religion at CU-Boulder; (2) I was in an SDA family until I was about 7. So, I have some knowledge on the topic, but I don't profess to be an expert.


 * Having said that... I think the quality of the EGW section I'm proposing is at least superior to what's in there now. I think I'm coming at it from a neutral, albeit lazy in gathering sources, point of view. As far as I can tell, the basic issue is this: (1) A "cult" in a theological sense is any sect sufficiently outside of the mainstream; (2) most people don't consider EGW to be a prophet; (3) whether the SDA Church is labeled as a cult depends largely on how important the EGW difference is. Is that not correct?


 * I assure you my interest here is not political. I'm more interested in having quality articles on Wikipedia and this one caught my simply because it's so bad, and I have some cursory understanding of it. Hence my interest. Really, an Encyclopedia should not give voice to any critism of every institution. This article should really only exist if these critisms are widespread anyhow.Ken 06:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV again?

 * The Seventh Day Adventist Church teaches it's members that they are God's chosen people and this is a form of theologically based racism.

That's just a sample. If someone, somewhere, is making that claim, link to it. Otherwise, it's original thought. Either way, the statement that should be made is that "some people consider" -- and even that is generous. Most religions have some kind of exclusivity doctrine. It's very common, and it doesn't make the members of that religion racists. Ken 06:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Christology
In my opinion, the Christology section is a mess. 1. There are NO citations, just an anonymous "they" saying this and that...  That is NOT up to Wikipedia standards. 2. The quotation distinguishing "the man Christ Jesus" from "the Lord God Almighty" seems confused...  I do not have access to my family's SDA Commentary, but prima facia, the quotation does not seem to be distinguishing between the divine and human natures of the Christ, rather, it seems to be a distinction between the Christ and God the Father... It does NOT have a citation either. Who, specifically, is making this critique? I've Googled Adventist and Nestorian, and it is this article that comes up, and other articles are about other things... It looks like original research. Emyth 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know how much luck you will have finding someone who knows where it comes from. That section is the same as it was when I transferred it from the main article. MyNam e IsNotBob  23:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree; the Christology section is a mess. I'm not knowledgable enough to fix it. Ken 06:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)