A worry I have for the so called "Historic Adventists"

[Kevin H]

There is a sub group in Seventh-day Adventism who call themselves "Historic Adventists". I tend to have a number of concerns and criticisms about them. However I tend to see them as a valid voice with in the Adventist community. (I big concern is that they like to think they are the only true voice and want the rest of us to shape up and join them. I see them as preaching part of the truth and tending to use it against the rest of the truth and building traditions on this.)

 

However, traditionally they have held to our Methodist/Wesleyan foundation. They have been vigorous defenders of this tradition against encroachments of Calvinism.  

 

Sadly, in their opposition to women's ordination, they have latched themselves on to the "Headship" theology which is very anti-Methodist and very Calvinistic. I fear as to what this compromise with their traditional foundation will do to them.

[Kevin H]

Some good points brought up by Ray Hartwell:

 

"Strange Fire" is accepted at face value as fact, by many conscientious individuals. but there are many questions that beg to be answered, which the authors do not address at all. In this concluding section, we will look at what a historic Adventist should ask and should be able to receive an answer.

Part 11.
Some of the exact same arguments used today to claim that women should not serve in the gospel ministry in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, were used by critics of Ellen White and the Adventist Church in the day of Ellen White.

Why do the authors ignore these criticisms and the answers our early Adventist pioneers gave to answer the charge that God could not use a women as a prophet or a spiritual leader?

What do they do with J.N. Andrews (Who Ellen White called our ablest man, and who was our first foreign missionary, and who had committed to entire New Testament to memory) when he answers these critics who had cited 1 Timothy 2:12 that women were not to teach?

“This her colleagues consistently refuted, not by pleading that she as a prophet constituted a special category, but by arguing that the verse was wrongly applied to prohibiting women ministers in general (cf. Lt 17a, 1880, in 10 MR 70). J.N. Andrews cited Paul’s female coworkers (Philippians 4:3), Phoebe the deaconess (Romans 16:1), Priscilla’s role in ‘instructing Apollos’ and the leadership roles of other New Testament women to prove that Paul’s ‘general rule with regard to women as public teachers’ did not constitute a rigid or universal prohibition. Andrews argued that Romans 10:10 requires public confession of the faith as integral to salvation, and therefore ‘must apply to women equally with men’ (J.N. Andrews, “May Women Speak in Meeting?” Review and Herald, January 2, 1879) – quoted from The Ellen White Encyclopedia, page 1279, Review and Herald Publishing Association, copyrighted 2013.

Other historical examples:
1857: D. Hewitt states that the force of Joel 2 supports women’s public ministry.
Review and Herald, Oct. 15, 1857, p. 190.

1858: James White challenges Review and Herald readers.
Urges that Joel 2 be viewed inclusively, noting that men and man in Scripture "generally means both male and female." Review and Herald, Jan. 7, 1858, p. 69.

1859: B. F. Robbins decries rules in any church that invoke 1 Cor. 14 and 1 Tim. 2 to silence women. Review and Herald, Dec. 8, 1859, pp. 21, 22.

1860: S. C. Welcome supported women’s equality, claiming the "authority of divine revelation that male and female are one in Christ Jesus." Review and Herald, Oct. 15, 1860, pp. 109, 110.

1861: J. A. Mowatt declared it "a woman’s right" to participate publicly in worship.
Review and Herald, July 30, 1861, p. 65.

1861: Editor Uriah Smith supports women’s public ministry. He quoted with approval a long extract from the Portadown News, "Women as Preachers and Lecturers." Review and Herald, July 30, 1861.

1868: M. W. Howard said Bible women (like Priscilla) were viable role models for modem women. Review and Herald, Aug 18, 1868, p. 133.

If today you are not in favor of women in the gospel ministry (it's not their role, only males could be priests, etc.), then can you even call yourself a historic Adventist, standing in agreement with the founders and pioneers of the church?

If you have "moved away" from the founding pioneers of the church, then are you not indeed, yourself, proclaiming some kind of "New Theology?"

[aka]

The 60th General Conference Session in San Antonio on July 2-11

.....is going to be very 'historic' for Historic Adventists.

 

The session’s theme: “Arise! Shine! Jesus is Coming!” and theme song, “We Have This Hope.” 

 

World Membership is 18,143,789 baptized 

 

East-Central Africa Division    (ECD) 2,856,708

Euro-Asia Division                     (ESD) 116,013

Inter-European Division            (EUD) 178,199

Inter-American Division            (IAD) 3,686,255

North American Division            (NAD) 1,184,395

Northern Asia-Pacific Division (NSD) 679,907

South American Division           (SAD) 2,263,194

Southern Africa-Indian Ocean Division (SID) 3,167,259

South Pacific Division                (SPD) 420,936

Southern Asia-Pacific Division  (SSD) 1,222.546

Southern Asia Division              (SUD) 1,520,326

Trans-European Division           (TED) 84,428

West-Central Africa Division   (WAD) 769,609

GC Attached Territories (MENA & Israel Field) 3.946

 

BTW... the business session will not only be about Woman Ordination.

[Gregory Matthews]

According to the above figures, the NAD is the 7th largest of the 14 listed groups.

[aka]

Now that brings me to wondering....

 

America is the origins of SDAism.  One would readily surmise that globalwise increase of membership ought to come from NAD.

Americans can identify with the basics of the Church's history. The ensueing development of church customs was American made. That would help for converts when they enter into church community after their baptism, assumedly.

Cultural is SDA's NAD way of being strict with certain lifestyle influenced by scripture and words of EGW.

Now why doesn't NAD have a way higher number in membership?

 

I wonder what attracts the foreign countries members to even ever want to join the Church?

If they found the love of Jesus and forgiveness by God through the SDA's I could understand.

But many join the church as such and have not found a relationship to God.

Whatever causes them to get baptized while unconverted and take on the burden of strange customs of lifestyle and restrictions?

[Johann]

Yentyl, you have raised a number of quetions. Why are there so many more converts to Adventism in Africa, Latin America, and parts of Asia?

I wonder if one reason could be that "souls" can be "bought" much cheaper in those areas with the American Dollars than elsewhere in the world?

But the American Dollar no longer buys votes at the GC sessions.

[aka]

But the American Dollar no longer buys votes at the GC sessions.

​I certainly hope it won't have monetary influence in the minds of the voters.

Sadly, history shows that the blending of money and politics makes bad sewage results.

As for new members in other Divisions, the missionary adage of "rice christians" probably still holds true for many. They are seeking personal advantage materially, perhaps, when joining.

I don't know....Our God knows only.

[Aliensanctuary]

I was raised up as a member of the Wesleyan Methodist denomination, which is probably similar to many other denominations. I was too young to care much about the finer points of doctrine.

I have also attended several Historic Adventist meetings at an historic SDA camp meeting in WA. I suppose their message is primarily just Historic Adventism, EGW, KJV only, etc. Many like the mainstream SDA Club, while a few others prefer the Historic Adventist Club. It probably doesn't really make much difference since our example of the Kingdom occurred in the days of Moses, which points us to the future Kingdom of YHVH. Maybe joining a denomination or sub-denomination makes a difference, maybe not. Maybe wearing the same clothes that EGW and family wore, eating the same food that she did, and studying and quoting her writings will make some "better" Adventists.

[aka]

Do tell if you know of Historic Adventist groups that dress the part.

I haven't heard of this before.

Or are you meaning it could be an incentive to be a better SDA if some would start up such a practice?

 

Edited May 4, 2015 by Yentyl

[B/W Photodude]

America is the origins of SDAism.  One would readily surmise that globalwise increase of membership ought to come from NAD.

Americans can identify with the basics of the Church's history. The ensueing development of church customs was American made. That would help for converts when they enter into church community after their baptism, assumedly.

Cultural is SDA's NAD way of being strict with certain lifestyle influenced by scripture and words of EGW.

Now why doesn't NAD have a way higher number in membership?

People have, in my readings, noted a lot that there is a perceived superiority attitude of the American/European Adventists to the rest of the world. And now, with respect to WO, the rest of the world is just supposed to shut up and sit-down because we in the NAD just know so much better what is good for everyone! It is interesting to note the disdain for people in the other divisions who are not just lock stepping into this movement.

Edited May 4, 2015 by B/W Photodude

[aka]

Lyndon, your new choice of display name doesn't 'do' it for me, sorry. Maybe if I were to visit a url with a whole lot of your b/w photos I might change my opinion. Who knows?

The topic of this thread is historic Adventists. I did get off on a tangent wondering about motives for doing a church membership. sorry.

Do feel free to vent your feelings or observations pertaining to pride, arrogance, and delusions that you believe American SDA's are harboring towards other SDA Divisions in the rest of the world. Pride of opinion has gotten to be a personal idol of many in the Western world.  There might be a thread already in the mix somewhere where you can smoothly insert your messages. Here is not an appropriate topic to carry on the theme. 

[Aliensanctuary]

I should have said that Historic Adventists tend to dress somewhat conservatively: women wearing long dresses and bonnets, never pants, and men always in long-sleeved shirts, and maybe suspenders. Not exactly the style of EGW, but on the same order.

[Johann]

About 75 years ago I experienced a childhood in something like a Historic Adventist environment. At that time the total church membership was under 500,000, so the important concern was to discover how many of these would not make the 144,000. It was fairly easy to see which of the women in the church would not make the 144,000. We were certain none of those wearing short dresses, high heels, red lipstick or jjewelry would be accounted worthy. No curled hair but only those wearing a knot in the back were acceptable. Those outward signs were strong indications the people had the right understanding of rightouness by faith and other important SDA doctrines.

Since alll of the men in church wore a suit for Sabbath it was more difficult to judge their motives and knowledge of the TRUTH. We presumed they would not change into other clothes before sundown.

[Aliensanctuary]

As humans we tend to look on the outside, at the clothing and the behaviors, but the LORD can read the thoughts which we cannot hide. Pick your church club, any club will do, but in the end, they will all be discarded and replaced with the one true system.

[Kevin H]

Getting back to the issue of this point. We can have different views of these brothers and sisters. I tend to see them as having about half the truth and often times because of this they point out issues that maybe the rest of us end up missing. My big concerns with them have been the criticisms and sharp letters that Mrs. White and Willie wrote to who they see as their spiritual heroes. How sometimes there is a sharpness in them that chases people away. (as a child I thought that the verse "Suffer the little children to come unto me." meant that Jesus was a member of this group because they loved to make little children suffer as they pushed us to Jesus.)  And a huge criticisms has been their extreme fundamentalism.

However, one thing that you could always count on with them has been their strict adherence to our Methodist/Wesleyan foundation, even if their (what I understand to be misapplications) causes them to spin like a tire in a mud puddle. They have always been quite stubborn on this point and had a history of being inflexible refusing to accommodate for anything, even refusing to accommodate for Mrs. White's criticisms of them.

However here they are giving up their stanch Methodism to accommodate for headship theology. This is unlike them, and I am worrying that compromise will open them up to even worst heresies. That this is starting a trend from standing up for their principles to willingness to compromise on these principles and make alliances with the devil if the enemy of your enemy is our friend mentality.