Evangelism in Europe

[Gregory Matthews]

Goodby: The following article is well worthy of thought.

[I have removed the URL as it did not work--GM.]

 

[Kevin H]

I'm not sure if this leads to the correct article: it brought me to an article on evangelism in Europe. Oh how I long for that, but I fear that we are so WEventist centered rather than Christ centered, and wanting everything to be the Pope, the Pope, the Pope, and oh, any liberal ideas which is so dangerous that we need to run to conservative church power and force to protect us from them, even if it is the same methods as the Pope.  

We need to be more Christ centered, and care about people. To respect how God works with everyone, encourage them to grow, teach the truth about what (or rather who) hell fire is.  The issues of the great controversy, health, liberty of conscience. 

In the secularization and influence of the French Revolution in Europe, our church has the best foundation to reach Europe, but we don't like it and just want to use the same old same old. 

God has so much he wants to do with us and through us. There are amazing things that God wants to do through our health message. But we tie his hands in us wanting these only to call glory to conservative Christianity, and our narrow version of Adventism instead of the wideness of Christ., and how this has caused a tapestry with in Adventism.  

[Gregory Matthews]

You are correct.  The URL took you to an article on evangelism in Europe.  I am attempting to correct it.

[bonnie1962]

8 hours ago, Kevin H said:

 WEventist centered rather than Christ centered, and wanting everything to be the Pope, the Pope, the Pope, and oh, any liberal ideas which is so dangerous that we need to run to conservative church power and force to protect us from them, even if it is the same methods as the Pope.  

 But we tie his hands in us wanting these only to call glory to conservative Christianity, and our narrow version of Adventism instead of the wideness of Christ., and how this has caused a tapestry with in Adventism.  

Would you elaborate on the above in red?

As a conservative I am curious what you mean by "only to call  glory to conservative christianity"

and "any liberal ideas which is so dangerous that we need to run to conservative church power"

There are fanatical conservatives, but the majority arent, there are fanatical liberals that are SDA in name only. As long as you claim to love the Lord, you are home free.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

 

I believe that the following URLs take you to the correct articles on evangelism in Europe.

https://atoday.org/christ-for-europe-part-1-is-it-really-most-extensive-evangelistic-outreach-in-adventist-history/

 and

 https://atoday.org/christ-for-europe-part-2-ted-wilson-in-prague/

 

 

 

[Kevin H]

9 hours ago, bonnie1962 said:

Would you elaborate on the above in red?

As a conservative I am curious what you mean by "only to call  glory to conservative christianity"

and "any liberal ideas which is so dangerous that we need to run to conservative church power"

There are fanatical conservatives, but the majority arent, there are fanatical liberals that are SDA in name only. As long as you claim to love the Lord, you are home free.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree. Adventism has formed as a tapestry, and we do have two threads who have been quite loud. I am equally critical of both of these. I see them as two sides of the same coin, that both take approximately half the truth, give or take on each topic, and use it to fight against the rest of the truth. 

Now, there is one topic where both of these two groups are wrong; that is how they see the nature of Christ. For centuries the church argued over this, and eventually got to the truth that Jesus had his own unique nature, unlike Adam's before the fall and unlike us after the fall. Jesus had all the weakness of fallen man, but did NOT have the sinful nature.

[Note: I understand that before the fall that Adam had his appetites, desires and passions NATURALLY under the control of reason. At the fall they became out of harmony. Also, I understand the sinful nature to be found in two quotes, one by Mrs. White, the other by the poet/philosopher Eli Siegel. Mrs. White said in the communion chapter of the Desire of Ages (and please forgive any wrong punctuation) There is in man a disposition to think he is for himself by esteeming himself more highly than his breathern, to serve self, to seek the highest place and often this results in evil surmisings and bitterness of spirit. The Eli Siegel quote says There is in every person a disposition to think that they are for themselves by making less of the outside world. We are sinners because we have this disposition. But we can evaluate how this manifests it self with in us, and choose against it; and that while our appetites, desires and passions are not naturally under the control of reason, we can still monitor and do our best at submitting them to reason.  Now, besides our sinful nature and our needing to juggle our appetites, desires, passions and reason; that we also have another thing inside of our deepest being at war with the sinful nature. That when God made us, and emphasized in the fantastic poem of Genesis 3:14-16. Again turning to White and Siegel: Siegel said that our deepest desire is to like the world on an honest basis. Mrs. White said in Desire of Ages "When we love the world as he [Jesus] has loved it then for us his mission is accomplished we are fitted for heaven for we have heaven in our hearts.  (I have the page memorized, but can't put my finger on it, but I think it is page 642) These two attitudes towards the world fighting with in us are what causes the problems. But there is the power of the will and choice.

The Bible teaches us that our deepest desire is to want to be like and with Jesus. He is the fairest of 10,000, sweeter than honey, more desirable than gold. He is the desire of all nations, the desire of ages, an overlooked name of Jesus in scripture is the one beloved/desired by women. At the birth of Jesus the angel did not say that it was great joy to only the chosen few, those pure of heart, but to ALL people. The entire "hell" event is the clash between people and angels who have totally committed themselves to allow their sinful nature to be the controlling center of their hearts; yet meet their deepest desire, where the deepest part in them longs to run into his loving arms, but they don't know him, they distrust him. While they end up seeing their sins though God's perspective instead of their excuses, being unforgiving people they cannot comprehend God's forgiveness. They know what they would do to someone like themselves if they were God and thus invent in their mind all sorts of horrible punishments that they would use if they were God and project their views on to God and expect him to sooner or later give them what they deserve, Yet despite all of this their deepest desire is to be with and like Jesus. They have developed a character of ignoring and submersing this desire, and it has developed into a habit that they cannot break. They continue to fight against this deepest desire, but it is still there burning in their hearts. Instead of choosing to yield to this and enjoy the heaven of all reality; they choose their own morbid heaven of criticizing and finding all sorts of fault and excuses for their miserable lives, they complain about how unfair it all is, they play the blame game, they long to threaten, punish and nag. There is a morbid pleasurer that we, all of us get out of doing these things. It tries to create a world better to our liking by external control psychology. These and similar actions sooth our sinful nature. Yet, the deepest part of them longs to be like and with Jesus. This conflict becomes so intense that it quite literally disintegrates  them.

Jesus like us could catch colds, feel hungry and tired thirsty. He had to choose to submit his appetites', desires and passions to reason. But he DID NOT have the disposition to think he was for himself by esteeming himself above others, to seek the highest place, to serve self, to think he was for himself by making less of the outside world. 

Getting back to your question about these two groups: both of these groups tend to intentionally or unintentionally end up seeing the sin problem in a way that focuses on our actions rather than these two attitudes. Among our pioneers, many (maybe even most) of them questioned the trinity. (they were wise enough to not make this one of our landmarks, they allowed trinitarians to join the church. They allowed this to be a field open to further study. Eventually it became the very center of Mrs. White's great controversy philosophy.) But in our pre-trinitarian past we did not see Jesus as God. Breaking up the trinity, the natural result is to take one aspect of the trinity and making that aspect God in total. While they may not use this language, eastern religions tend to focus on God the Holy Spirit as God in total. In the west we tend to focus on God as power and authority. Other religions who reject the trinity tend to be very controlling over their members. As Adventism formed a new generation we started preaching the law, the law, the law until we were as dry as the hills of Gilboa. Jesus became mostly our example of someone focused on keeping God's law and doing what is right, and submission.

Now, as the trinity started to make way within the church, and seeing Jesus as God, Mrs. White and many others took the traditional nature of Christ that the church had worked out, that Jesus had his own unique nature. Mrs. White found a theologian who gave a wonderful explanation of the traditional view, and copies his most powerful statements to teach the church. 

In 1888 many found this in conflict with the idea of righteousness by faith. Many who were trying to make sense out of Mrs. White's endorsement of rightlessness' by faith, and took a break to try to figure it out, and many formed a way of still holding on to much of the old theology, but making some sort of addition of righteousness by faith to the situation. Many of them rejected the growing interest of the trinity among Adventists, some being anti-trinity all their lives; but got excited over the person of Jesus.  Among this group there were all types of excuses about how the trinity was growing in popularity among Adventists. A young man who's influence was within this group decided to instead of listening to the excuses and conspiracy theories, that he would write and ask Mrs. White if she really wrote those trinitarian stounding passages and whether or not she herself was a trinitarian. He had his visit and saw those passages in her own handwriting and that Mrs. White was indeed a trinitarian. He went home, but was still basically within this thread of Adventism, and he added the trinity to this blended theology, and while there were some who still refused the trinity, many within this group did add the trinity to their theology. However, they still continue to see the sin problem as as the actions. and emphasis on Jesus as our example. I fear that this thread of Adventism still carries residual of our message as we were approaching the 1880s. 

They have also mixed this with something that John Wesley theorized. Wesley thought that there may be a lever of sanctification that he never reached and never met anyone that reached it, but he theorized that it exists. A few groups latched on to this theory. The Pentecostals see this in their speaking in tongues. A thread within Adventism mixed Wesley's theory with what Mrs. White taught about a last generation perfection. They came to understand the last generation of having a different Quality of the experience of sanctification then anyone of any other generation had. While they speak of a more balanced view, their actions are still focused on Jesus as our example, and looking for a greater obedience in the last generation. Now, from what I can gather, I believe that they can still hold their basic theology if they were to accept the traditional view that Jesus had his own unique nature; however for some reason they feel that they need to build their theology on the theory that Jesus had the sinful nature.   

On the other hand, we have others who still see the sin problem as actions. They focus on how there are sins of commission and sins of omission. They see us so overwhelming stuck in sin that they need the legal adjustment of what Jesus did on the cross. They are focused on legal status and focus on Jesus being our substitute. Now, the reformers were able to both hold the atonement and the traditional view of the nature of Christ. But with in the 20th century, this thread in Adventism is so focused on our legal status, that they have more or less dropped the traditional view, and want Jesus to have the nature of Adam before the fall. 

The one group sees it as possible to get victory over sin, but tend to be focused on the do's and don'ts  and maintaining tradition and setting this up as the goal post to strive for. The other group is so overwhelmed with how there are not only sins of commission but also omission, that they are mired down in the Jesus is our substitute and thus not to worry about our sinful situation, do your best to try to live a Christian life and avoid the sins of commission, but you are trapped because of all your sins of omission, thus focus on Jesus being our substitute and that we are forgiven with a legal adjustment and to just depend on Jesus' substitutionary death. They see no difference between the last generation and any other generation. 

As I understand Mrs. White, she did see a last generation perfection; but in a different way than it popular within our church. She saw people as some in each generation that came to totally love and trust in Jesus that there is nothing that can shake them. And she saw people as some in each generation who so hardened their hearts against God that nothing can convert them. Then there is the rest of us which has been the majority of each generation; some who have accepted the Lord but who has not developed into the state of unshakable trust, and maybe could have been shaken. And those who had not accepted the Lord, but as they learn they could be converted.  In the last generation, the world ends up with only the two groups of either total unshakable trust, or totally in rejection of the Lord and  focus on self that nothing can reach them. Not a difference in quality of the experience but a difference in QUANTITY   . A Few theologians have noticed that while she did not name his name, her descriptions of those reaching perfection happened to also be descriptions of John Wesley. 

I hope you find this useful. 

[bonnie1962]

I appreciate you taking the time to respond but did not find the response addressing my specific question.

 any liberal ideas which is so dangerous that we need to run to conservative church power and force to protect us from them, even if it is the same methods as the Pope.  

The above is strictly aimed at conservatives and comes across as considering the superior ideas of liberals as dangerous.  What ideas specifically are you referring to or was that just a general condemnation of conservatism? We all know conservatives that seem to believe they are going to slide into heaven on a vegeburger and liberals that believe the only sin is believing something is a sin.

Most conservatives I know are nothing as you describe "liberal ideas which is so dangerous that we need to run to conservative church power"

Most of us have a very similar view.  Most understand I am firmly against abortion, as most of my friends are. Our views are considered extreme. I have been told people like me are responsible for those that die by illegal abortions. I would not protest in front of a abortion clinic, I would not abuse someone that disagrees with me, I would never refuse to offer help to a young pregnant unmarried woman ,nor would I vote in support of abortion. Christian Liberals that I know

will claim they believe personally abortion to be murder but can't tell a woman what to do with her own body and will vote to support what they believe is murder. Both sides probably work to get the denomination to agree with them.

Most conservatives are against drag queen shows to be held where there are young children. I could care less who attends drag queen shows but keep it away from children. All you have to do is read the Political forum to see post after post  condemning those intolerant conservatives for being against children being exposed. I am intolerant of that. A liberal christain should be free to go, however not for children .

People being forced to use a unisex bathroom. As a conservative I do not want my young granddaughters using the restroom with with an adult male. If you want your(general) wife,daughter, granddaughter standing next to a adult male urinating ,go for it. Have a male, female, and unisex bathroom. That is just skimmimg the surface. 

When the liberal viewpoint is my way or you are a bigot and by force of law you will do it our way,you get pushback.

This is just a few things that come to mind about the accusations against conservatives. You were not clear as to  liberal ideas have us conservatives running to conservative power

[Kevin H]

Thank  you for your post Bonnie: I am talking about ONE aspect of conservativism. Seventh-day Adventism has been a tapestry. We tend to be conservative in that we are Biblical Maximalists and believe in a God who is active in human history. 

We have room for debate on specifics. 

I'm sad that I never did a paper on these, but back when I was at Andrews going through the White Estate Vault, I'd frequently come across correspondence between Mrs. White and/or Willie to people who's beliefs were not extreme enough for church discipline. However, the Whites were not comfortable with what they were teaching, and felt that they were using massive Ellen White quotes to try to force their views on to the rest of the church. I'd come across flyers by these people's followers that would come down hard on Mrs. White among others. Since I was looking for information on other topics, and thinking that these ideas had become old and out of touch and that the real issue that was worrisome was Ford and Rea. 

However, in the years following, and starting to grow in recent years, I've been finding the views of those people that the White's were not comfortable with, is being pushed on to the rest of the church. They have been using a fair amount of righteousness by fear in trying to force the church to join their flavor of Adventism. 

Our church formed an outstanding theological seminary, and our professors created a fantastic Bible commentary, including a Bible dictionary that was lauded by non=Adventist scholars. 

Then we elected some leaders who were baffled that  wasted our time and money to form a theological seminary and to make Bible Commentaries. They believed that all ministers needed to do was to take a quick course in how to give Bible Studies and Evangelistic sermons, and if we wanted to look deeper into what the Bible means to simply read Ellen White and see her as the final word on the topic. That our job was to give as many Bible Studies and Evangelistic sermons to pick up as many members as we can. While this movement is not as extreme as those who like to follow the ideas of those who's correspondence with the Whites that I found (and they have frequently attacked this group). Some of the leaders from this group would say that to finish the word and to do our job is to give the Bible Studies and Evangelistic meetings to convert as many as we can to Seventh-day Adventism, and to avoid anything that they considered "Liberal" including other members of this movement; much less the SDABC and our colleges and seminary, and have been pushing for our schools and seminary to join this view. 

Now, the predecessors of what developed into these two views were very upset with the 1919 Bible Conference, and those who ended up forming the above two threads of Adventism took over the 1922 General Conference where they demoted or fired those who they were upset about (with the exception of voting in Elder Spicer who they saw as too liberal, but he thought that they were harmless and not bother them pushing their views.) The 1920s had witch hunts to get rid of our teacher and pastors who they considered to be "Liberal" However, even after this witch hunt and pushing their views on to the church; our pastors and teachers kept studying the Bible and Mrs. White and began to develop ideas that had be cleared out of the church during the witch hunts leading up to and following the 1922 General Conference, and as I mentioned above grew into what became our Theological Seminary etc., that were strongly attacked in the 1960s and which grew into some of the approaches to Bible Study that was being formed over about 30 years and started to be more grounded in a few of our schools in the 1990s; and even more encouraged and pushed by Elder Wilson's (the current one, not his dad who was seen as too liberal) in his presidency. 

Now both of these views have things that they offer to both Adventism in general and to the world in general. But too many in both of these threads want to push their version of Adventism as the ONLY true Adventism, and to limit Adventism to their version. I thought I said this already, but incase I didn't, they look for converts from the most conservative Christian churches. I have a case of books I got free for paying just the postage from 3ABN that I pass out. In general I like the book; however, the second paragraph of the book makes a comment that would appeal to conservative Baptist Republicans, and repel others where they can read that paragraph and think "This is just more of the propaganda of the religious right and [modern, not traditional] Republicans. and not read any further. I try to see if who I give it to would read beyond that second paragraph. I wish that 3ABN left out that second paragraph and gave EVERYONE the chance to read the rest of the book, and as they learn this information, maybe someday in the future they will have to face and make a decision about the issues in the second paragraph, but give them the chance to learn what they can about Christ and the Bible before putting them to the test. When I leave the book in places such as laundry mats etc. I pray that they would mostly go into the hands of those who won't throw it away and close their minds at the second paragraph. I don't know how much God would teach them about, and how much God would just let them move on in heaven in bliss, but how many stars this second paragraph has put into what if the Devil was to give a crown of stars to those we encourage to not look into life saving truth. 

Within Adventism there is a still conservative, but yet moderate that can appeal to the secular mind of the Europeans that few, if any other, denomination has. But we have Adventist leaders who want to stamp this out of the church. (and we have gone cycles of having it pushed out, but as the Bible and Mrs. White continues to be studied beyond the favorite quotes of these two groups to push their views on to others, this more moderate group keeps popping up like weeds because this wider view is within our DNA.)

I love the tapestry of Seventh-day Adventism. I am fully committed to our landmarks/pillars. I am in harmony with the 28 Fundamentals. While I can live with most of the things one the Adventist Theology Society have on the form to sign, there are a couple of points, and a couple more that I could accept except where their interpretation of those words I can not sign.  

Now, you did mention the issue of abortion. and I like how you wisely said that you would not simply vote for a politician who wished to make abortion illegal. There are topics such as abortion where, as I understand it, should be fought on the grass roots, individual level. Where is is your job and my job to reach out to them to encourage them to not have an abortion, to offer them other choices and to support them. However, it's the government's job to minimize the harm to those who either we cannot reach, or who do not accept our options. There are too many who are expecting the government to do OUR job, while we sit on our posterior. Paul predicts that a sign of the last days is that people will have a form of godliness but deny the power thereof. We have too many who instead of trusting in the power of love, kindness and the Holy Spirit to help people choose against an abortion. They are instead looking to the power of the state to force people to either comply or to increase the risk of death and injury. There are also other topics where it if fine for the church to make one stand as to who can become members, or how to perform their outreach, but it is not  the job of government to force the church's views on to the country as a whole. There are some Bible text that a superficial reading of the Bible appears to say something, but when looking closer at the context does not support the tradition. 

Today this is the crisis. We have politicians who are basically on strike with pay demanding their religious views be pushed on to the whole country. and over the past couple of decades there have been a growth of people on the liberal and conservative side who have basically been on strike unless they get their religious or their secular views pushed on to the rest of us. We need politicians who are willing to talk to each other and work together for a compromise that helps most of the country. I'd like to see the votes for Judges in congress to rather than getting the votes from the party in the majority, I'd love to see that both parties need to have a majority of their members vote for the judge, and thus both parties need to choose someone who they may not be completely happy with but who is acceptable by both parties.  I fear that our political "parties" are turning into labor unions who take their pay as they go on strike demanding their ideas be places on the country, and that other voices be stiffed. I am equally bothered by comments from some of our Republican representatives,  and Ron Reagan's ad for "freedom from religion."

. As I understand the Acts 19 Paul, Roger Williams, Thomas Jefferson/James Madison, and Mrs. White is that we should have an open marketplace of religion. We share what we find useful to us, and allow people to listen to us and learn the different options and to choose what makes sense to them. The principle is liberty of conscience. This is the foundation of the American Revolution, and Seventh-day Adventism comes from a next generation that started applying the views of Williams, Jefferson/Madison as deepened by the age of Jackson, applying their principles on to other aspects of life than just politics, including religion. (Seventh-day Adventism would look a lot different were it not for Williams, Jefferson/Madison and Jackson.) But today's generation is trying to either force the ideas of the French Revolution on to the United States, or to force the catholic (yes, small "c") Europe, that we fought to separate from, and we are forgetting something called the American Revolution. 

Daniel 11 and Revelation 12 and 13 picture Satan as pushing us into two different groups, represented by the king of the south and the dragon, and the king of the north and the beast. From Jerusalem, if you head north the road eventually turns east and goes to Babylon. If you head south, it turns west to Egypt. Now both the government of Babylon and Egypt picture themselves as using force to control the chaos monster. However, the chaos monster has been symbolized as a 7 headed dragon, a picture based on the Nile river with the Nile delta. Thus the king of the south is the chaos from liberalism, and the king of the north (and even the pharaoh) are church and state controlling the beast. I am noticing that many who see the danger of the dragon and king of the south, end up running to the beast, king of the north for safety and protection. The tapestry of Adventism is also unraveling into mostly two sides. Then there is going to be a great test where the false prophet which turns from being Christlike, to speaking like a dragon (liberalism) but then pushing the mark of the beast (catholic Europe).

While I am not too focused on the various "slippery slope" arguments, I do find a dangerous slippery slope within Adventism. We know about the role of the church in catholic Europe, especially in the Roman Catholic church. We know that within the Christian world that Sabbath and Sunday will bring the test. But the fact that Sabbath and Sunday will bring the test to the Christian world, indicates that there may be other issues bringing the test to other cultures. The issue is liberty of conscience. But we have an auto correct on the nerve cells between our eyes and the brain and between our ears and the brain. When ever we read or hear where Mrs. White writes on the deeper issue of liberty of conscience, our auto correct automatically changes to "Sunday law, and Sunday law only" by the time her words transfer from our eyes or ears to the brain. And we see "Vatican and the Papacy, and the Vatican and the Papacy only" as the power. When ever we find liberty of conscience attacked, we are becoming quite passive unless it comes specifically from the Pope and Vatican.   Our passiveness, and uniting with attacks on liberty of conscience issues that appeal to us, and it is not coming purely from the Vatican, and funneled through Sunday laws, we embrace the beast. And this is preparing us to give up our principles when the crisis comes and Satan has the two extremes join together. 

[bonnie1962]

On 11/2/2023 at 6:41 PM, Kevin H said:

Thank  you for your post Bonnie: I am talking about ONE aspect of conservativism. 

Either am not explaining myself correctly or you are on a different page altogether

Conservatives are no more dangerous to the church than liberals are, yet most of your negative focus is on conservatives. Why is that?  

Most that have a more positive view of liberalism always seem to have difficulty owning that. I don't have any reservation about claiming to be a conservative, nor do I claim to be unbiased in my outlook.

 They have been using a fair amount of right..eousness by fear in trying to force the church to join their flavor of Adventism. 

Specifically Who is the  "they"trying to force the church to join their flavor of Adventism? Liberals or conservatives?

 

On 11/2/2023 at 6:41 PM, Kevin H said:

. Some of the leaders from this group would say that to finish the word and to do our job is to give the Bible Studies and Evangelistic meetings to convert as many as we can to Seventh-day Adventism, and to avoid anything that they considered "Liberal" including other members of this movement; much less the SDABC and our colleges and seminary, and have been pushing for our schools and seminary to join this view. 

Here we go again, conservatives avoiding anything that they considered liberal.   Do liberals avoid anything they consider conservative?  Are they more tolerant and accept the more conservative beliefs along with their liberal viewpoint? Maybe it is the state I live in but surrounded by liberals in church and everyday life I do not find liberals in  general very tolerant of my conservative beliefs.

 

On 11/2/2023 at 6:41 PM, Kevin H said:

 

Now, you did mention the issue of abortion. and I like how you wisely said that you would not simply vote for a politician who wished to make abortion illegal. There are topics such as abortion where, as I understand it, should be fought on the grass roots, individual level. Where is is your job and my job to reach out to them to encourage them to not have an abortion, to offer them other choices and to support them. However, it's the government's job to minimize the harm to those who either we cannot reach, or who do not accept our options.

I sincerely hope I have misunderstood this. SDA's in general will claim to be personally against abortion, many have and it has happened here,say they believe that abortion is murder,yet support a womans legal right to commit what they view as murder. I don't understand how that works. You are saying that it is the governments job to minimize the harm,The harm to whom? It certainly harms one. 

 

 

 

There are too many who are expecting the government to do OUR job, while we sit on our posterior.

Many of us don't sit on our posterior. But we cannot reach them all,so for the SDA's that feel abortion is murder, we need to support the government doing "their job"?,If we cant reach them,makes perfect  sense  to destroy the "little problem"

 

Paul predicts that a sign of the last days is that people will have a form of godliness but deny the power thereof. We have too many who instead of trusting in the power of love, kindness and the Holy Spirit to help people choose against an abortion. They are instead looking to the power of the state to force people to either comply or to increase the risk of death and injury.,

Nonesense, I don't want the state forcing me to pay for what I consider the murder of a child. Nor do I appreciate the liberal segment of adventism labeling those like myself some kind of a heartless religious fanatic. I would personally like to know the amount of "love and kindness" those that preach it actually do hands on. No answer necessary but how much have you personally done in the past month?

 

There are also other topics where it if fine for the church to make one stand as to who can become members, or how to perform their outreach, but it is not  the job of government to force the church's views on to the country as a whole.

 

 

Why is it alright for those of the liberal mindset to inflict their views on others? As a parent if you want your young child to attend a drag queen strip show,go for it. But stay out of places where other young children will be exposed to that.

If you want your daughter or wife, standing next to a strange man urinating,do so. But don't pass laws that force my granddaughters to be exposed to that.

Personally I don't care if you take your child to a strip show. Stop labeling those like myself some kind of extremist nut job. Stop supporting laws that make some of this mandatory

 

There are some Bible text that a superficial reading of the Bible appears to say something, but when looking closer at the context does not support the tradition. 

.  I fear that our political "parties" are turning into labor unions who take their pay as they go on strike demanding their ideas be places on the country, and that other voices be stiffed. I am equally bothered by comments from some of our Republican representatives,  and Ron Reagan's ad for "freedom from religion.".

Are you bothered by comments from your democratic representatives or just republican representatives?. Have you listened lately to some of your democratic representatives? Again for someone that claims the fault lies on both sides your focus is on conservatism

 

On 11/2/2023 at 6:41 PM, Kevin H said:

.

As a conservative I don't have any desire to force you to live and believe as I do. But on the flip side, unless you believe and live as a liberal ,you are less than they. They are the tolerant loving christian,yet cannot tolerate conservatives. The most intolerant "christians" I know are liberals. If we don't support abortion,drag queen shows for young children, hormone blockers for preteens and all the other current issues we are trying to force the government. We are the fanatics.

Or are

[Gregory Matthews]

1.  Kevin, I deeply appreciate the material that you are posting.

2.  Bonnie, you have got a good discussion going.  That is good.

3.  The unisex bathrooms that I see are used by people of both genders, but not at the same time.  IOW, they are only used by one person at a time, who locks the door to keep anyone else out.

4.  I once lived in a country where the bathrooms were unisex and both females and males were using them at the same time.  There never was a problem.  However, my Father had a problem when he visited me in that country and a woman walked in on him when he was attending to business.

[bonnie1962]

Conservatives have been and continue to be painted in a negative light on C/A. Yet when asked for specifics the answers are pretty hard to come by.   Why is that?

any liberal ideas which is so dangerous that we need to run to conservative church power and force to protect us from them, even if it is the same methods as the Pope.  

What are the liberal ideas that have the conservatives running to conservative church power to force us from them?

But we tie his hands in us wanting these only to call glory to conservative Christianity, and our narrow version of Adventism instead of the wideness of Christ., and how this has caused a tapestry with in Adventism.  

Conservatives actually tying God's hand wanting only to call glory to conservative christianity? Really

I am talking about ONE aspect of conservativism.

You are concentrating on the damage done by conservatives,you give a token mention of Both sides but lack the specifics you throw at conservatives

Specifically Who is the  "they"trying to force the church to join their flavor of Adventism? Liberals or conservatives?

avoid anything that they considered "Liberal" including other members of this movement; much less the SDABC and our colleges and seminary, and have been pushing for our schools and seminary to join this view. 

Again it is those overbearing conservatives trying to run rough shod over the tolerant liberals.

 

[bonnie1962]

1 hour ago, Gregory Matthews said:

 

3.  The unisex bathrooms that I see are used by people of both genders, but not at the same time.  IOW, they are only used by one person at a time, who locks the door to keep anyone else out.

4.  I once lived in a country where the bathrooms were unisex and both females and males were using them at the same time.  There never was a problem.  However, my Father had a problem when he visited me in that country and a woman walked in on him when he was attending to business.

That is not always true. We have unisex bathrooms in MN that can be used at same time by both genders. What they do in other countries and find acceptable hasn't anything to do with the US. Of course it has now gone a step further with the transgender issue where young girls have found themselves undressing and showering with a unknown fully intact male. For those that don't consider this a problem for their wife or daughter, fine have a facility for that and let them choose. Because you may find it acceptable should not mean you have the right to force that on my family.

 

 

[Kevin H]

Hi Bonnie:

I'm sorry that I'm sounding too much like attacking the conservative and sadly thus leave the possibility that whoever is reading that I am thus embracing the liberal. I am uncomfortable with both sides.  And, yes, it is both sides that are using righteousness by fear to force the rest of the church. The liberal side has not moved much farther then the church was in the 1500s. In fact they have even moved backwards some because they are so focused on Christ our substitute and legal adjustment, that they have moved from the traditional understanding that Jesus has his own unique nature which has similarities with different points with both Adam's nature before the fall, as well as ours after the fall. But the liberal extreme has often if not totally embraced the pre-fall nature. Now, again as I use the "label" liberal in a comparative way. We are all conservatives in the fact that we are all Biblical Maximalists and believe in a literal God who is active in history and that the Bible is a record of his work with people. Now, not all of us claim to be "Fundamentalists"* but living in this culture probably the most anti-Fundamentalist among us probably has a large amount of Fundamentalism inside of us. But despite our embrace, or trying to distance ourselves from Fundamentalism, we are as I said Biblical Maximalists, believe in the inspiration of scripture (either from an embracing of Fundamentalism, or a trying to distance ourselves from Fundamentalism) and God active in history including the interaction with the Bible writers. 

Too much of the 14th century views of what we are labeling "liberals" and their forsaking the traditional understanding of Jesus having his own unique nature, that they have turned salvation into "Say the magic words about Jesus and be saved. If you try anything else you are depending on your own works, and are thus lost. Be careful with how you treat the Sabbath, maybe it is best to give it up, because it is part of the law and thus of works. Luther never taught an investigative judgement, so what roll can that play if not some sort of legalism? You are depending on your own works so God's wrath will get you. Christ did it all on the cross, so you don't need anything else (yet they say their prayers which is a way of asking the Lord to do something beyond the cross, and for their lives and events to be investigated so that God can do something, hopefully what they are asking for.) I'm saved because I have accepted Jesus as my savior and my substitute. I have  the assurance of salvation. Everyone else is lost.

The reason why I did not do a paper on the correspondence between the White's and our pastors who's ideas involved into the more conservative part of the church, is because I did not realize that they were still an issue in the 1980s, and did not foresee how  much their views was going to grow in the church over the years to come. I was focused on the problem of Ford, Rea and other liberals. Also I wonder if I could have even gotten much to them if I was actually trying to search. I just kept coming across these letters while searching for other topics. 

To get a better understanding of where I am coming from please reference the books by A LeRoy Moore such as "The Theology Crisis" (also I've seen this referred to as "Theology in Crisis")  https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/theology-in-crisis-or-ellen-g-whites-concept-of-righteousness-by-faith-as-it-relates-to-contemporary-sda-issues/19317188/vintage/?vid=1238199904&mkwid=|dc&pcrid=77378313662347&pkw=&pmt=be&slid=&product=1238199904&plc=&pgrid=1238050402825500&ptaid=pla-4580977772571563&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Shopping - Everything Else&utm_term=&utm_content=|dc|pcrid|77378313662347|pkw||pmt|be|product|1238199904|slid||pgrid|1238050402825500|ptaid|pla-4580977772571563|&msclkid=9c15f4d0c3cc192e3e5991965bb2c6f7

Also his "Questions on Doctrine Revisited" https://www.amazon.com/Questions-Doctrine-Revisited-Leroy-Moore/dp/1597650021 

Richard and Beatrice Neal (Neil?) had a seminar showing how the Ford and Rea side took about half the truth, and how the so called "Historic Adventists" tended to take about the other half of the truth and the two sides use their portions of truth to fight each other. 

Sadly you can only find this in the original 1981 edition of Sanctuary and the Atonement, by  the Biblical Research Committee, but I strongly, very strongly, recommend the 3 chapters "The Mighty Opposites: The Atonement in the writings of Ellen G. White" parts 1 and 2, and "We Must All Appear: The Investigative Judgment in the Writings of Ellen G. White.)

[Kevin H]

Hi again Bonnie:

I felt that the above post was starting to get too rambling, and I'm getting back on topic: We are dealing with Evangelism in Europe. We have Ted Wilson as the General Conference President. What are the chances that the more liberal arm of our church will be leading out in this outreach endeavor? If for some reason someone like Desmond Ford had gotten into the GC president's office, I'd be at least as vocal against the theology that would come under his leadership. But Ford is now sleeping, and it is the view that Ted Wilson has for the church that is behind how we are going to reach out to Europe.  Thus I look like I'm concerned about the conservatives. Yes, I am, but I'm equally concerned of those we are labeling here as liberal. 

In between these two views (or shall I say a more oneness of these two views) with holding to the tradition that Jesus had his own unique nature (and despite the way how people on both sides want to force her words to fit their view, as the trinity became more accepted and even central to Adventism; Mrs. White quoted the best comments of at least one theologian who gave an excellent description of the traditional view). Also, Seventh-day Adventism have two views of hell that we argue over. I believe that one can reach the European mind, as well as the believing in the inspiration of the Bible, but not strict Fundamentalists. *

[Kevin H]

* I mentioned Fundamentalism in both posts. What I mean is that:

1. For much of history, in countries with more of a Christian influence, people tended to believe in God and that the Bible was  his book. Now there were good people and bad people, but they both tended to hold this assumption. 

2. From time to time in Bible study those who had a better understanding of the Greek and Hebrew would notice different writing styles, sometimes you see a story going along, then the story stops as there are other verses in a different writing style, and then the story would pick up right where it was left off. In the 1700s they began calling the looking at the different styles "Higher Criticism" and studying how they all came together as "Lower Criticism." These terms did NOT mean that one was better than the other. Both were seen as equal tools to get a better understanding of the word of God.

3. In the mid-1800s with the rise of evolution as the origin of life, the philosophy of the French Revolution, including what became Marxism, lead to people considering themselves not good or bad people who assumed that God was real and the Bible was his book; but they became atheists'. They started to look for evolution in everything. They latched on to higher criticism to really tear the Bible apart and would say "Hey, if God is supposed to be so perfect, and that He is behind the Bible, then why did it need to have different styles edited together?" and use this to argue that the Bible is a human book only and the editing was a reflection of human evolution.

4. In reaction to the atheists, those who continued to believe in God and the Bible began a new view of how inspiration worked and reasoned "Since God is perfect, then his word must be equally perfect, no errors, no contradictions, no editing." The way the atheists latched on to higher criticism and use it to attack the Bible, so this group latched on to lower criticism ONLY. This super strict view of inspiration was called "Fundamentalism"

5. Most churches then fell (Is this a part of the falling of Babylon) into either modernist who decreased their attachment to the Bible, or Fundamentalists with their over reaction. 

6. Over the worst of this crisis, Seventh-day Adventists had used our mistaken view of the shut door which insulated us from the bulk of this crisis within Christianity. By the time we realized that we did not hold a correct view on the shut door, and rejoined the Christian Church as a whole, the bulk of this crisis had past. We became late comers to the crisis. Over all as we connected with the church as a whole, we tended to lean towards the Fundamentalists side, but just as pioneer Adventism  was a tapestry, we also formed a tapestry in approaches to the inspiration of the Bible. I'm going to point out some exceptions to this rule, but most who have accepted Fundamentalism tended to be more on the liberal side of Fundamentalism. This the crisis did NOT devastate us as it did to so many others. 

7. Now there was at least one major minister who believed that both sides were wrong and wanted to offer a moderate view of inspiration, still believing in God, still believing that the Bible was inspired of God, but not latching on to the extreme of Fundamentalism. This minister (sorry, I've heard his name a few times, but don't have it memorized or where I can easily get his name.) ended up loosing his ministry when a woman claimed that she and this minister was having an affair. This sandal ruined his influence. Eventually the lady admitted that she was lying, that she never had an affair with this pastor. But she said that it was an appropriate lie because she was protecting the Bible from his horrible view of inspiration. 

8. While most of our even most conservatives would be considered on the more liberal side of Fundamentalism; there were a few people, specifically D. M. Canright, who did become a very strict Fundamentalist. Also W. W. Prescott read a couple of books on Fundamentalism and began teaching it, and A. G. Daniels was also acquiring a taste for Fundamentalism. When Mrs. White learned about this she asked all three to come and work for her. She then gave them assignments that terrorized them because they went against their Fundamentalist ideas. Prescott and Daniels started to move away from Fundamentalism. Canright latched on to it even harder and ended up leaving the church because Mrs. White did not fit into his Fundamentalism views. When you read his writings, this is the one point that keeps coming up. If he, like Daniels and Prescott, started to loosen his grip on Fundamentalism, he would have had no reason for leaving the church. Elder Jones eventually left the church and again his reason was because he became a strict Fundamentalist. Elder Spicer ended up coming to believe that God uses two different types of inspiration: that the Bible fit the Fundamentalist view, but that post and extra Biblical prophets, such as Mrs. White received a different/ non-Fundamentalist inspiration. 

Now, Elder Haskell insisted that Mrs. White does indeed fit Fundamentalism. He and Mrs. White had some intense arguments well, they were not loud or angry, but lets say intense discussions on how inspiration worked. There is a little bit of correspondence between them on this topic, with indications of a lot of talking. Haskell kept quoting the Fundamentalists theologians in telling Mrs. White how her visions and inspiration works. What we have of her replies, we keep finding her quoting the pastor from point #7, with one exception. The pastor saw inspiration as more of a subjective experience. Mrs. White made it clear that inspiration was very much an objective experience, but with that one change, she kept using that minister's views to describe inspiration. When writing the forward to Great Controversy she used a lot of quotes from him. And you can also find a number of quotes from him in the section of Selected Messages. Despite their disagreement over how inspiration works, they were polite and remained close friends. After her death Haskell and Willie continued to discuss the issue, but he was less friendly to Willie. I'm glad that Mrs. White choose not to accept his marriage proposal. Would he have been as friendly in this discussion if he was her husband? How about with Willie if Willie became his stepson? It may have split the church in half. 

9. At the start of the 20th century there were Seventh-day Adventist members worried about Mrs. White having become an apostate. Some of their arguments included that she had become a trinitarian. That she was critical of some of the most faithful pastors, and that she no longer believed that she was inspired because she did not see herself as inerrant and infallible 

10. The 1919 Bible Conference tried to encourage the more moderate view of inspiration. It was rejected in the 1922 general conference. (but they still were on the more moderate side of the Fundamentalists.

So when I mentioned Fundamentalism, I am talking about that movement that started around the middle to late 1800s which went into the opposite ditch than the atheists fell into. And I try to hold a view of inspiration that is in harmony with Mrs. White's side of the discussions with Haskell, the side of that pastor in point #7 (with Mrs. White' modification to seeing inspiration as definitely an objective experience,) and the 1919 Bible Conference. 

11. I understand both the "conservatives" as well as the "liberals" as in Ford, and even more so Rea, are united in that they are both definitely Fundamentalists. Each have their favorite quotes and texts that they fling at each other.  In a lot of ways, our church continues the friction between the 1919 Bible Conference and the 1922 General Conference, and the 1922 people split into the more evangelicals, "liberals" and the more "Historical Advents" conservatives. 

 

[Kevin H]

Hi again Bonnie:

Please let me specifically address the quote you wish for me to address:

any liberal ideas which is so dangerous that we need to run to conservative church power and force to protect us from them, even if it is the same methods as the Pope.

Daniel 11 has conflict between the king of the north and the king of the south. From ancient Jerusalem if you take the road north, you will eventually turn east and end up in Babylon. If you take the road south you will eventually turn west and get to Egypt and the Nile River. While both the king of Egypt and Babylon saw themselves as enforcing order over chaos; in Daniel 11 it was Babylon who had been the great super power enforcing it's view on to the world. And if you move beyond the government in Babylon and go to the Nile River, the Nile with it's delta helped to give the chaos monster, the leviathan as a 7 headed dragon. Thus you have the king of the north which either should be God or someone claiming to be God. And for the king of the south the chaos monster. 

We find the same picture in Revelation 12 and 13. We have the 7 headed dragon, and the beast with 7 heads. Along with the false prophet composes a counterfeit trinity. In heaven Lucifer was upset with God's law. He wanted everyone to be their own law. If this happens we end up allowing our feelings to define what is right or wrong. Our will becomes destroyed. There is the philosophy of existentialism which is based on this. When people say "you have your truth and I have mine" you are right in the mindset of the dragon, Existentialism is that we look for truth in our existential experience as the final authority.

As we look at the trinity: we have God the Father who represents God as final authority and power. God the Son is personal and approachable our good friend. These two manifestations are both objective, but like God, he made us both objective and subjective. Thus God the Holy Spirit is God working with our subjective existential experience to help us where we are and to lead us into deeper truth. 

The dragon focusing on our subjective existential experience is thus a counterfeit Holy Spirit. The beast on the other hand represents authority, the king of the north, either God or someone in the place of God. The spirit of pharaoh, and the emperors from Babylon through Rome and beyond to have destroyed the chaos monster with force and control. While the dragon represents having your existential experience to be your final authority, the beast is any organized group that replaces God by being the final authority. With the dragon you look inward for truth. With these emperors, including the papacy over the years  are willing to tell you what is truth and you simply obey.  

Thus in many ways we find the dragon and the beast, the king of the north and the king of the south  as in a lot of ways opposite of each other. Small c catholic Europe was where church and state told you what to do and what to believe. It is authoritarianism. in contrast to the dragon's existentialism. 

The French revolution was based on the king of the south, the dragon, existentialism. While Lucifer originally saw this as ideal, over the French Revolution he and the demons found it to be a headache. They needed to personalize each temptation, and they hate us too much to want to individualize so many temptations. Over Babylon, Medio-Persia, Greece, Rome, catholic Europe including Papal supremacy was so much easier. So they decided to try that outside force telling people what is right and what is wrong and giving a mass temptation, so we got Hitler. When they were done with the man they threw him away like a lab rat when done. Now they are discussing how they can try again but in a way that would also deceive people like Bonhoeffer and Churchill.

In the statement: any liberal ideas which is so dangerous that we need to run to conservative church power and force to protect us from them, even if it is the same methods as the Pope, I remember listening to a non-Adventist pastor on the radio. He gave an excellent cry of warning against existentialism, but his solution was that we need the power of the church and state to control this lawlessness. I've seen other Christians who are very concerned again about all the messages in the media to look for what is true for you, and thus the warnings against the dragon, but you don't hear the same worry over the church state placing of force. I've recently started reading a book by a far right author. She is looking at the horrors of the French Revolution and how it has grown into our general culture. I am in full agreement with her on this. I got the book because she has done homework that I need to do. But it is painful to read with how she is looking to the religious right taking control of the country as the solution to the problem. 

In all three of these situations, two of them both are looking for the religious right taking control of the government to be the solution, and the third (various groups that warn about the cries in media about following your heat and not the rules) leaves the solution blank, but they are not giving equal warning about the religious right. Both that radio preacher I heard many years ago, and this book that I'm trying to read, are doing an excellent job of warning against the dragon/existentialism/you have your truth and I have mine/ ignore your parents and follow your heart... and I am in full agreement with their concern, but while they clearly see the danger of the dragon; too many are looking for the religious right, the beast, to be the solution.

Listening to some voices in Adventism, I am starting to see no longer a clear trumpet of warning against both the dragon and the beast. I'm finding more of a sympathy with the religious right, and as long as it is not specifically from the Vatican,  not specifically the pope, and on other topics than specifically Sunday Laws; like I said, I am not normally a worrier of the slippery slope worries, I very much fear that they are compromising too much with the religious right, becoming more comfortable with the religious right. Supporting politicians who sound like who Mrs. White warns us about in the book Great Controversy. I fear that they are becoming too friendly with the beast in their running away from the dragon. And that when the test comes, even when looking at the Sabbath Sunday issue, I worry that they will figure out a loop hole that they will use as an excuse to go along with what is happening and expecting some other form of the Sabbath Sunday issue that they will see is wrong, but that it will be ok with what they see happening. 

[bonnie1962]

5 hours ago, Kevin H said:

I'm sorry that I'm sounding too much like attacking the conservative and sadly thus leave the possibility that whoever is reading that I am thus embracing the liberal. I am uncomfortable with both sides.

It does sound as if you are attacking conservatives and far more comfortable with liberalism.

I believe you had something more specific in mind when you stated "any liberal ideas which is so dangerous that we need to run to conservative church power and force to protect us from them.

I am curious as to what liberal ideas  you were referring to

 

 Conservatives are tying  God's hands in us wanting these only to call glory to conservative Christianity, and our narrow version of Adventism instead of the wideness of Christ.,

This is just plain insulting but if true and conservatives are actually doing this kind of damage they should not be members in good standing in the church. There are off the wall conservatives as wll as off the wall liberals,but it is conservatives you focus on.  Not just in this thread but I have seen you and others do so in other threads.

I have yet to read on this forum where anyone admits to being a liberal while condemning conservatives. Disagreement with liberalism gets honorable mention but as you say conservatives actually tie God's hands.

When conservatives push back against the ever reaching liberals then they are the problem. In most issues of today that have taken so much headline space it is liberalism pushing and pushing boundries, never enough and never liberal enough.  Whether it is abortion, a drag queen in a children's library, giving my child hormone blockers in secret  from parents, or a young child claiming to be another sex, I don't care what you do with your family. I care when you want your ideas to become law for my child. When I object suddenly I am the problem.

There are wacko conservatives. Know some of them, also some wacko liberals. I was gone from this forum for a long time. This was one of the reasons. I didn't say anything,didn't consider it a big deal. I ran across several that had been active here on facebook. Each and everyone stated same. The attitude that conservatives are less than. I wonder what others think reading that conservatives are tying God's hands. Look at the lack of participation with the exception of a very small handful compared to what it was at one time.

Maybe you don't mean it the way it sounds but it leaves a very bad taste.

[Kevin H]

Once again: This is about the work that our church is currently doing for outreach in Europe, but under the Ted Wilson General Conference. While his father was much more of a step back and do the administration and supervision while letting a broader approach to Adventism alone, Ted is much more hands on, and much more seeing the views of Robert Pierson and the 1922 General Conference as being the ideal. Therefore I do not expect much on the liberal side to be involved in this outreach to Europe. If the conditions were more likely to support the liberal 

As for the phrase: I believe you had something more specific in mind when you stated "any liberal ideas which is so dangerous that we need to run to conservative church power and force to protect us from them.

Yes, I do. I'm sorry I was too wordy for you to notice. There is the danger of the liberals to see no absolute truths, to see everything as subjective, of our existential experience as the final authority. We have a lot of Christians who clearly see that this is a danger. But the ideas of surrendering our liberty of conscience to avoid this is what worries me. 

And what I mean by: Conservatives are tying  God's hands in us wanting these only to call glory to conservative Christianity, and our narrow version of Adventism instead of the wideness of Christ.,

While there is probably more than this, what I'm aware of here is the health message. As I understand the Bible and Mrs. White, God wants to perform some amazing things through the health message. The health message is to teach us about how the natural and the supernatural will work together. It is a consistent God who cooperates with his laws, instead of the inconsistent god who will do instant healings or nothing depending on his current whim and if the faith healer can come up with the proper words, no matter what your diet or habits. 

If we were to find God suddenly doing amazing things through the health message, I'm afraid that there is too much of a spirit of wanting to bring praise to the messenger instead of to God. That someone like Elder Wilson would use it to say "See my version of Adventism is the true form of Adventism" and that he would use this to add even more teeth in pushing his view. Or even more extremes, the  so called "Historic Adventists" who even see Elder Wilson as too liberal, would really push for the church to become completely their version. Or lets say that some of our Fordite evangelicals using the health message and God does the amazing things he wants to do, then they will say "See, we are right, so give up 1844..." And if God was to work equally through all of these groups, I fear that  our spirit would not be to respect the whole tapestry of Adventism as a vessel to share God with the world, but again just argue among ourselves about who's version of Adventism is the true one and for it to be enforced onto the whole church. Thus for now God is mostly focused on the natural of the health message. Once we stop arguing over which version of Adventism is the greatest and respect each other, and respect the tapestry of Adventism, then God can put more of the supernatural into the results of our health message. 

Oh, and also, don't forget, it was several letters that Mrs. White wrote that were critical of the ideas that became the more conservative side of Adventism that I've been reading. 

I hope this helps.