I have been wondering lately whether it has been a good thing for the educated in our church to attempt to evangelicalize our theology and thereby make our denomination more "user friendly" and less "sectarian". Part of this process seems to include rejecting the SOP (or major parts of it) and also our traditional historical grammatical interpretation of the prophecies in Daniel and Revelation. Our SDA Church history has been revised in order to emphasize the 1888 righteousness by faith conferences as the pivotal moment for our church's focus. The touters cite a progressive message that has "unfolded" to accomodate more "believers" in the faith. This seems to advocate a theological pluralism. Is this good for SDA faith? Another thing I have noticed being on an SDA College campus is that we are bending toward a more ecumenical agenda. This has (arguably) positive and negative consequences. What do you think some of those consequences are? Other comments??

Too many SDA's tend to be paranoid about ecumenicalism, even refusing to join in prayer groups and so on. But I see two ecumenical movements at the end of time, one good and one bad.

Here's a corroborating opinion.

Quote:

---

Standard after standard was left to trail in the dust as company after company from the Lord's army joined the foe and tribe after tribe from the ranks of the enemy united with the commandment-keeping people of God.--8T 41

---

Seems to me that we might as well call ourselves "non-denominational" if we do this. This certainly would bring about a great change in attendance.

There is no reason whatsoever that we should give up seeking and preaching the truth. There is a certain term in the Bible, the "very elect", that indicates that there is something that sets apart some believers from others. Truly, this something must be that they really do follow Christ, keep His commandments and share His word.

As long as there is the "Happy Sabbath" greeting heard by people entering the church...I don't expect much in the way of non denominational...

Rom 8:7 filters out many and sabbath morning meetings just are not for the typical conventional religious person out there.

Society is composed of mostly follow the crowd types...and this is even exhibited by SDA's on religious dope.

Hey Ed thanks for the article on the tribulation in Signs

Quote:

---

Hey Ed thanks for the article on the tribulation in Signs

---

My pleasure. The cover article for April is also mine: "Where Was God When Jesus Died?"

Pathetic stats

Attendance at religious services
According to the ARIS survey, in the United States, 76.5% of adults identified themselves as Christians during early 2001. 2 This number is dropping almost one percentage point per year. There has also been a drop in the percentage of American adults who attend religious services regularly. It has gone from 49% in 1991 to 36% in 1996. Reduction in attendance is a worldwide phenomenon among industrialized countries. The US is believed to have the highest attendance rates; Canada has about 20%; Australia, England and the rest of Europe are 10% or less. The general trend is downwards as societies become more secular.

WHAT DO YOU THINK IT IS NOW IN 2005????????????????????????

Some specifics please! You make some generalizations and some accusations. Facts please!

Quote:

---

more "user friendly" and less "sectarian".

---

meaning? who? specifics!

Quote:

---

process seems to include rejecting the SOP (or major parts of it)

---

what parts?

Quote:

---

Our SDA Church history has been revised in order to emphasize the 1888 righteousness by faith conferences as the pivotal moment for our church's focus.

---

and? problem?

This tends to be a two edged situation both used by Satan. There are those who go for the complete sepperation, where we end up becoming such spiritual imbreds that our weaknesses streanthen and control us, and tradition grows and replaces the truths that we have been intrusted with.

To see how this has harmed us, look at 1888 and the issues of the daily, and notice that those who got some of the harshes letters by Mrs. White accusing them of massively quoting her but in a way that was not in accord with her message and thus abusing her writings, and how these men with their use of her writings have become the heros and examples for our more conservative subgroups.

Also it ignores our history. Yes, we started out with the closed door theory, but before the end of the 1800s there was a large amount of interaction between Seventh-day Adventists and non-Adventists. Seventh-day Adventists worked with Billy Sunday. Mrs. White became a very popular speaker in Sunday morning churches for their Sunday services. And let's not forget the interaction of Adventist Archaeologests such as Lynn Harper Wood, Sigred Horn, and Lorinia Runnings (sorry if I mispelled her name) in the world of Biblical studies, our involvement with people such as William Foxwell Albright and the Society of Biblical Literature.

But on the other hand, with your specific question, I am very worried about the attraction and corting of the evangelical movement. In 1923 General Conference leaders that Ellen White hand picked and groomed where accused of being unbelieving liberal higher critical scholars and thrown out of office, demoted, or as in the case of her son Willie, he got to keep his job, but it was striped of all power and influence. They were faithful, but our members wanted to appeal to the Fundamentalists and the conservative parts of Christianity.

I fear the same thing with the Investigative Judgemnt, the truth about Hell, and creating distance from the fields of Biblical Archaeology and the Society of Biblical literature, and honest Bible Study, by instead wanting to appeal to the evangelical movement. Too many of us think that this aspect of Christianity is all there is to Christianity.

Seventh-day Adventism is ballanced between liberals and conservatives, law and grace, and have the principles of historisism while others are either preterists or futurists, but our use of historisism has become majorly corrupted by taking the evidence we have presented but view them from a futerists/fundamentalists perspective.

Satan wants to shove us into one ditch or the other, while the truth is high and narrow between the two.

Well maybe in your own opinion you disagree. Would you like to offer refutations point by point or will we end up in a hopeless argument? I think my initial point is clear enough. But I will try to be more specific.

The current thrust seems to be to make our church into something it was never intended to be. We are not the First-day Adventist Church. We might like to entertain the possibility of the loosening of the percieved restrictive and eschatological emphasis of our traditional Church. Most classes I have taken all renounce the traditional evangelistic efforts of our Church stating that they are historically inaccurate and outmoded. They are too focused on Rome and not enough on Jesus. I wanted to pursue work as a traditional evangelist but after I was exposed to liberal SDAism, I rarely hear positive comments about evangelistic efforts. They complain of them setting dates and bashing Rome. Now if I want to hear accurate and effective evangelists, I need to watch 3ABN or go to one of the local churches to listen to them and receive what should be intertwined into sermons regularly. But that is asking too much I guess.

1888 spawned a certain type of theological division and has placed Waggoner and Jones on the pedestal of the evangelical champions of the Adventist faith. Now, there is rarely an Adventist that knows traditional Adventist doctrine. Everything is Paul Paul Paul. No more interpreting Daniel and Revelation. Forget about the OT. Somebody pinch me. There is a great sermon by Jay Gallimore that you should read if you are so inclined. http://www.greatcontroversy.org/reportandreview/gal-relevancy.php3

My main gripe is that I am surrounded by these issues and it seems when I start to express my concern I am hushed as intolerant and judgmental. When do I get to say my piece? Does God speak to me in His still small manner? Well here is what He is telling me. Dont reject the writings of the prophet EW. Dont sacrifice principle to become relevant. etc...

The problem is that it (1888)shouldnt be eclipsing the three-angels messages and the other pillars that the SOP identifies. Righteousness by faith, sure, but lets not use the argument as a means to undermine Sabbath relevance. IMHO things are way out of hand and need reigning-in. We are getting much too liberal in our interpretation of what liberal arts colleges should focus on as SDA schools.

I hope this supplies some points for you to ponder. I hope you could at least understand these some from my perspective. I am seven years new to this church and I appreciated what I heard initially. I feel lately like that is now something that church pastors and administrators are marginalizing and saying it isnt good enough because that is not how Jesus works. I know it does, I have seen and heard for myself. Praise God for honest and uncompromised evangelistic teams.