SDA Evangelism

[Gregory Matthews]

See:

https://spectrummagazine.org/views/2020/adventist-evangelistic-dilemma

 

[BlessedMan]

Rich Hannon obviously needs to do a little more homework. If I have time, more later. IMO it RCCs who preach "exclusivism."  I don't see how anyone can miss it now.

[Gustave]

Interesting article. I read it twice - than thought about it longer than it took me to write what's below.

Is the author saying that SDA Church leadership knows its "historic" methods for gaining members is becoming less and less effective and thereby needs to change by dropping those "distinctive doctrines" Adventist Groups generally share ( Creature Christ, Soul Sleep, no eternal hell ) and focusing more on the core essentials of Christianity AND that this should happen immediately as opposed to the Church leadership waiting for a couple generations to die off so they can 'glacially' (very slowly over time) effect the change? 

[Sorry Gustave, I am going to introduce a comment here.  Yes, the author is suggesting that.  For an expanded discussion of your comments, please read my response to your post later in this thread--Gregory Matthews.]

If the SDA Church were to replace their "Explore Prophetic" seminar with a XXXX seminar what would the topics of that seminar be? How could they do it without introducing those distinctive teachings?

The SDA Pioneers evangelized by claiming very distinctive doctrines.

The Sabbath is "the greatest of the ten" [commandments] and "the Sabbath God" has a body of functional flesh, bone, members and organs [they are speaking of the Father]. The Sabbath God is contrasted with "The Sunday God" who is described in the article by using Creedal statements from the Methodists and Catholic Church. 

http://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/RH/RH18540307-V05-07.pdf

In the section of the article describing "the Sunday God" it says; 

"It is very natural to suppose when the Pope set himself up to be God in the temple of God, [2 Thess. ii, 4] that he should have a day sanctified to his worship".

The day the article specifies as holy to the Sunday God is, of course, Sunday. 

Almost 25 years after the above article was published another two articles came out that articulated the distinctives of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. These distinctives were said to be imminently important, critical to salvation, etc.

http://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/RH/RH18780905-V52-11.pdf

 http://documents.adventistarchives.org/Periodicals/RH/RH18780912-V52-12.pdf

I found this article so interesting because essentially the same condition exists in my and many other Churches today. In the U.S. the Catholic Church doesn't have the type of evangelism programs that the SDA Church does but we still have some ancient ideas / traditions that I've thought often times may be a hinderance to gaining more members in the US. What I'm saying is that the article is applicable to any Church because time does change the emphasis on what doctrines one might want to show cases. If I understood the author correctly he is asserting that many of the SDA distinctives are "not" Salvation oriented and thus should be retired in favor or core Christian themes. I would agree with that. 

I'm very conservative in some things and very liberal in others. 

 

 

 

 

 

[BlessedMan]

6 minutes ago, Gustave said:

we still have some ancient ideas / traditions that I've thought often times may be a hinderance to gaining more members in the US.

May I ask what some of those are?

[Gustave]

4 minutes ago, BlessedMan said:

May I ask what some of those are?

Personally I don't think celibacy should be mandatory in the Latin Rite. There are also a few other things I'll refrain from mentioning but yes, I don't like everything in my camp as probably most people in any org feels the same way. 

[BlessedMan]

7 minutes ago, Gustave said:

There are also a few other things I'll refrain from mentioning

Ill ask a question or two about "celibacy" in another post, but I think before I do, I should ask why, again. may I ask why you "won't mention" some of the other ones?

[Gustave]

Just now, BlessedMan said:

Ill ask a question or two about "celibacy" in another post, but I think before I do, I should ask why, again. may I ask why you "won't mention" some of the other ones?

I'd just say personal reasons. 

[BlessedMan]

2 minutes ago, Gustave said:

I'd just say personal reasons. 

I guess my question was kind of like asking you to shoot your own dog because I don't like the barking? :D

[BlessedMan]

14 minutes ago, Gustave said:

Personally I don't think celibacy should be mandatory in the Latin Rite.

When you say "mandatory," what does that mean? Does it mean "salvational?"

[phkrause]

Personally I believe that evangelism is the back bone of our church!! The reason, at least for me, is even though we call one to one witnessing, its still one to one evangelism!! At least in my thoughts! So even though we call it witnessing we are actually being evangelists on a one to one basis??

[Gregory Matthews]

In regard to some of the questions asked by Gustave, I shall make a few comments, which will be listed in no order of priority:

*  There is a conservative group within Adventism (I mean here the SDA denomination.) that looks to the past, to say the methods (and themes) that brought converts in the past, should be the methods and themes that we should  use today.

*  These methods and themes should include today, distinctive doctrines (Sabbath, soul sleep, etc.)  and horns, beasts and numbers.

*  It is generally believed that in the foundational days of the SDA denomination, the general population of the U.S. was informed of, and in agreement with, the  core beliefs of Christianity.  Therefore, those core beliefs did not need to be an instructional part of evangelism.

NOTE:  As an exception, it must be stated that the early leaders of what became the SDA denomination, did not have a united understanding of the Trinity as a core Christian belief. 

*  It should also be stated that the early foundational leaders, with some exceptions, of the SDA denomination were often very young people, who came from a varied denominational background, and had no understanding of what are considered to be core issues faced by the developing Christian religion.  A major example is the doctrine of the Trinity.  (James and Ellen White are examples among others of youthful founders of this denomination.)

*  SDAs today may not understand the developmental process by which this denomination has established doctrinal positions.  At a time when some agreement had been reached related to the proscribed foods of Leviticus 11, there was disagreement as to the exact composition of those foods.  As an example, probably few SDAs understand, although it has been published, that Ellen White enjoyed eating clams and personally considered clams to she comfort foods in times when she felt ill.    

NOTE:  I consider this to be one example that demonstrates that the personal beliefs of Ellen White were not the foundational source of SDA beliefs.

 *  SDAs developed their five (5) foundational beliefs in what are typically called five Sabbath Conferences as they were held at conferences on the Sabbath.  Those five beliefs were all distinctive and not considered to be core beliefs of Christianity.

*  There is a segment of the SDA denomination that believes that the population of the U.S. can not be assumed to be informed of and in agreement with, the core beliefs of Christianity.  Therefore, they believe that evangelism must be focused first   on the basics of Christianity, with a primary focus on Christ, his death on the cross, and an actual conversion to Christ.

*  One example of this is what has been called "The One Project."   This group has been controversial due to the fact that it has primarily focused on SDA members as it has suggested that SDA members have needed to re-focus on basic doctrines of Christ and the cross.

NOTE:  As a point of disclosure, I am a strong supporter of what was The One Project.

*  As to what is salvific (necessary to be believed if one is to be saved),  further definition must be made as to the various groups that exist within Adventism, as I do not believe that only one group exists.

*  Some, within Adventism, will suggest that the core  salvific doctrines are those that relate to Christ and the cross.  Everything else is not salvific.  Others may appear to add a little beyond Christ and the cross.

*  On a personal basis, when I am summing up Christianity I will say that the core beliefs are limited to Christ and the cross, with no other doctrines being salvific.

*  However, when I expand to give a more detailed response I suggest that there are no doctrines that are salvific.  I consider God''s  plan of salvation to include all people with no exceptions.  This includes new-born babies who have never accepted any doctrinal position.  Salvation is not determined by a lack of ignorance.  It includes adults who have never heard of Christ.  In brief, I consider that salvation depends upon the response that one has made to the leading of the Holy Spirit.   It does NOT depend upon what the Holy Spirit has not yet done for a person.

*  I will sum up my understanding of salvation:  Salvation is a choice that each makes, within the limits of their knowledge, as to whether or not  one choses to spend eternity with God.  Each is allowed to make their choice.  One who choses to spend it with God is allowed to do so.  One who choses not to spend it with God, ceases to exist.  Each person has an equal opportunity to be saved.

*  As I see it, my task, is not to convert people to my way of thinking.  Conversion is the work of the Holy Spirit.  Rather, my task is to build relationships that the Holy Spirit can use to encourage people to chose to spend eternity with God--IOW to be converted.

 

 

 

 

 

[BlessedMan]

3 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

On a personal basis, when I am summing up Christianity I will say that the core beliefs are limited to Christ and the cross, with no other doctrines being salvific.

 

I would disagree. Very much disagree. More later

[Gregory Matthews]

It is fine to disagree with me.  I do not have a problem with that.

Notice that's I have defined "salvific" in terms of knowledge required to be saved.

If you intend to say that salvation is based upon  knowledge, you may be trending toward Gnosticism.  I do not beleve that salvation is limited to people who have obtained a specified level of knowledge--Babies for example.

 

[thx4mercy]

4 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

*  On a personal basis, when I am summing up Christianity I will say that the core beliefs are limited to Christ and the cross, with no other doctrines being salvific.

From what I understand, "doctrine" means teaching.  How can you separate Christ from His teachings?

[BlessedMan]

3 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

It is fine to disagree with me.  I do not have a problem with that.

Notice that's I have defined "salvific" in terms of knowledge required to be saved.

If you intend to say that salvation is based upon  knowledge, you may be trending toward Gnosticism.  I do not beleve that salvation is limited to people who have obtained a specified level of knowledge--Babies for example.

 

lol. YUP. David The Gnostic. (that would be too easy) :D

My question here would be more in keeping with @thx4mercy

and her comment. My question would be with the perception being given to "doctrine." For starters, there's no such thing as "distinctive" doctrines. (more later).

[BlessedMan]

18 hours ago, Gustave said:

time does change the emphasis on what doctrines one might want to show cases. If I understood the author correctly he is asserting that many of the SDA distinctives are "not" Salvation

So what are the RCC "distinctives" that are "salvific?" Why are said RCC doctrines "mandatory?"

[BlessedMan]

7 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

NOTE:  I consider this to be one example that demonstrates that the personal beliefs of Ellen White were not the foundational source of SDA beliefs.

point well-taken

2 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Notice that's I have defined "salvific" in terms of knowledge required to be saved.

Deut 32:2  My doctrine shall drop as the rain, my speech shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender herb, and as the showers upon the grass:

Right from the beginning, the Bible really makes "doctrine" sound not only needed, but quite literally, permeating all that we say, think, do. I would find it hard to believe that some such are NOT "salvific." 

What do you personally think of when you hear/use the word "doctrine?"

IMO, IF a doctrine is "Christian," then it is always going to be "salvific."

Two more questions:

1) when we say a doctrine is not "salvific," how can we justify it as Christian?

2) What are we really talking about by the word "salvific?" Are you trying to say it has some kind of direct connection to "Christ and Him crucified?" At what point then, would said doctrine become "salvific," or are we saved just because we say it? (that sounds like an incantation to me).

Sorry, guess I squeezed more than "two questions" in that last bit.

 

[Gustave]

6 hours ago, BlessedMan said:

So what are the RCC "distinctives" that are "salvific?" Why are said RCC doctrines "mandatory?"

I would say that the Creed is something that systematizes what is required "Christian" belief. 

"We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation, he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen."

Getting granular about it there are other things that are required belief - such as God created the world out of nothing. Adam & Eve:

"When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains either that after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parents of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now, it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the teaching authority of the Church proposed with regard to original sin which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam in which through generation is passed onto all and is in everyone as his own” (Humani Generis 37)."

There are of course others as you dig deeper but those of simple faith don't generally dwell on such things. 

 

[Gustave]

9 hours ago, thx4mercy said:

From what I understand, "doctrine" means teaching.  How can you separate Christ from His teachings?

Do you define the following as Christ's teachings? 

• That there was a possibility that Christ could have sinned and been terminated (eternally) by "God" as the SDA's up until the death of Ellen White asserted "Jesus taught".

 

• That Lucifer was an archangel.

 

• That God The Father, and the archangels Lucifer and Michael all had bodies of flesh? 

 

[B/W Photodude]

This article of the OP was kind of sad, as many articles on Spectrum are. It seems so many just want to tear down the Seventh-day Adventist church and it's historical beliefs whether thru questioning doctrines or just revising history. Online publications have a number of flaws from those on the liberal side who are busy trying to dismantle the old teachings or even on the conservative side where they may hold the doctrines correctly, but often the love of Jesus for the people seems absent.

This is not really a new phenomenon for God's church in whatever age you look at. Even Jeremiah wrote of this, "Thus says the LORD: “Stand by the roads, and look, and ask for the old paths, where the good way is; and walk in it, and find rest for your souls.” But they said, “We will not walk in it.” (Jer. 6:16). Later he wrote, "But this command I gave them: “Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people. And walk in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you.” (Jer. 7:23). To “walk” in the “old paths” is the equivalent of obeying that which the Lord has commanded.

One of the serious problems facing the churches is the emerging church. I tend to see the One Project and it's children as being part of that. There is a lack of the influence of Jesus, even if they claim it, in some of their gatherings. An article was written and published on the Advindicate regarding the One Project:

http://advindicate.com/articles/2014/3/4/one-project-present-or-emergent-truth

Quoting from the article: Sam Leonor, Co-founder of One Project: "Who hasn't awakened from a dream afraid, fearful of the Lord's return?"  Referring to the 1844 Disappointment, he mockingly continued, "It's not for you to know the day or the hour of His return, that is except for the Adventists. (spontaneous audience laughter)  You (referring to Adventists) can make all the predictions you want." (hilarious laughter from the audience.)

Regarding one of the speakers at this One Project gathering, "Yet Leonard Sweet is not a Seventh-day Adventist. He doesn’t believe in any of the Present Truth doctrines on which we base our beliefs, on which this One Project event was purportedly based."

Janet Lundeen Neumann gave a speech you can watch on YouTube regarding some of the leaders in the church working to dismantle "the old paths."  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPWCDfTrS3M

Sister Ellen wrote long ago, "Time and again I have had presented before me a vision of people across the broad ocean, standing in perplexity, and pale with anxiety, earnestly inquiring, “What is truth?” They say: “We want the bread of life. Our churches are backslidden from God. We want to find the old paths. We want to come back to the simplicity of gospel religion.” My tears flow as I see this picture rising vividly before me. The voice from heaven pleads, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.” While so great a work remains to be done, shall not we, as Christ's followers, arouse to a sense of our God-given responsibility, and be active in doing our part?"" An Appeal to Ministers and Church Officers, page 5

One of the problems is that people seem to be wanting to throw away doctrines so they can have Jesus.But even Jesus when he spoke to the Pharisees said, "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone." Matthew 23:23 

Throughout the New Testament, Jesus and the Holy Spirit thru Paul writes regarding having the mind of Jesus. Even to the point that Jesus would be formed within us. So, did Jesus ignore the doctrines? Did He ignore the Scriptures. I think not. So, if you are throwing out teachings it is extremely possible that Jesus is not abiding in you! One text that I think about a lot is, "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life." Romans 5:10 Where is that life but within the follower of Jesus transforming them into His likeness? And you will keep the doctrines of His church like He would have because you would be like Him.

For those who still believe in the Old Testament, it was written in the Book of Joshua, "This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success." Joshua 1:8

Now the topic of the thread is evangelism. This is where it gets real. Anyone who has Jesus abiding in them will have an earnest desire to go and tell of Jesus and teach them to observe all things. "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen." Matthew 28:19-20 If you are not teaching doctrines, what are you teaching them to observe?

Many are even questioning evangelism. But JCRyle said, “The highest form of selfishness is that of the person who is content to go to heaven alone.” Charles Spurgeon said it like this, "Have you no wish for others to be saved, then you are not saved yourself. You can be sure of that."

[BlessedMan]

1 hour ago, Gustave said:

There are of course others as you dig deeper but those of simple faith don't generally dwell on such things. 

is that first one "The Nicene Creed?"

[BlessedMan]

1 hour ago, Gustave said:

Do you define the following as Christ's teachings? 

• That there was a possibility that Christ could have sinned and been terminated (eternally) by "God" as the SDA's up until the death of Ellen White asserted "Jesus taught".

 

• That Lucifer was an archangel.

 

• That God The Father, and the archangels Lucifer and Michael all had bodies of flesh? 

 

this is just apologetic nonsense. Nothing personal but I asked a pretty simple question.

[BlessedMan]

1 hour ago, B/W Photodude said:

One of the problems is that people seem to be wanting to throw away doctrines so they can have Jesus.But even Jesus when he spoke to the Pharisees said, "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone." Matthew 23:23 

IF its a christian doctrine, there would be no such thing of one without "having Jesus."  There are some that definitely do not "have Jesus" and are expressly not Christian, no matter how many Bible verses are quoted.

[Gustave]

I know I'm the odd man out here and can't offer an internal view of this question. I can however offer an outsiders view.

 

The "DISTINCTIVE" beliefs of the SDA Church were more akin to a non Christian sect than to a Christian one.

• Militant anti-Trinitarianism.
• Instead of admitting error (like Miller did) the early SDA's said they got the timing right but the event wrong. 
• Publicly rebuked Christians for rejecting the definite time message of Miller. 

A logical conclusion from an outsider would be IF the early SDA's exercised the type of scholarship and Bible study methods that had them concluding the Trinity was false there is more than a good chance there were other "distinctive" doctrines they thought up that were well enough off the mark to be also considered non Christian or at the minimum not Salvic. It seems in the article that Gregory posted the author is simply saying it would be a good idea to re-think how the church reaches out to other people of different faiths in an attempt to attract them to the SDA Church. This doesn't seem to be a bad idea. 

 

[Gustave]

14 minutes ago, BlessedMan said:

is that first one "The Nicene Creed?"

Yes.