Evangelical Adventist

[Adventist Dissident]

I am an Evanglical Adventist is there any one else out there an Evanglical Adventist

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Define Evangelical:
The meaning has changed in the last several years and is often used synomously with Fundamentalist.

As the American Heritage Dictionary defines Evangelical:

adj.

1. Of, relating to, or in accordance with the Christian gospel, especially one of the four gospel books of the New Testament.
2. Evangelical Of, relating to, or being a Protestant church that founds its teaching on the gospel.
3. Evangelical Of, relating to, or being a Christian church believing in the sole authority and inerrancy of the Bible, in salvation only through regeneration, and in a spiritually transformed personal life.
4. Evangelical
   1. Of or relating to the Lutheran churches in Germany and Switzerland.
   2. Of or relating to all Protestant churches in Germany.
5. Of or relating to the group in the Church of England that stresses personal conversion and salvation by faith.
6. Characterized by ardent or crusading enthusiasm; zealous: an evangelical liberal.

 

[Sophia7]

Define Evangelical:
The meaning has changed in the last several years and is often used synomously with Fundamentalist.

Yes, I agree; the term can have different connotations. Take a look at this post in the main Adventist forum (and the subsequent posts if you get a chance). He explained what he meant by Evangelical there.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Define Evangelical:
The meaning has changed in the last several years and is often used synomously with Fundamentalist.

As the American Heritage Dictionary defines Evangelical:

I will it will take some time that is long.

 

[Adventtruth]

I am an Evanglical Adventist is there any one else out there an Evanglical Adventist

I am an Evangelical Adventist Christian.

Here is a link to what I believe.

http://www.presenttruthmag.com/archive/XLIX/49-1.htm


Adventtruth

 

[Adventist Dissident]

I am an Evangelical Adventist Christian.

Here is a link to what I believe.

http://www.presenttruthmag.com/archive/XLIX/49-1.htm


Adventtruth

i am not sure you would quallify as an Evanglical Adventist.. It seem you are a main line traditional adventist, at least by the post you quote. do you except the wrightings of EGW? and do you belive in the investigative judgement? how many contempoary non-sda spiritual books have you read? i've been told you don't believe in adventism and then you quote very traditioanls views. could you expline what you postion is?

 

[Adventist Dissident]

let me switch grears'

Historially The "Evanglical Adventist chruch" was a first day chruch that lasted from 1844 split until some time in the early 20th centuary. does anyone have any information on this denomination.

 

[HeisNear]

I am an Evanglical Adventist is there any one else out there an Evanglical Adventist

Greetings,

Desmond Ford considers himself an evangelical Christian. His followers within Adventism, there are many, believe the following. Remember, this can be very subjective and this is only a general view within the understanding of righteousness by faith. After all, that's the message to be given to the world.

(a) Righteousness by faith and justification by faith are synonymous. It's a legal decaration of God in which He proclaims the believing sinner perfectly righteous based on the doing and dying of Christ.

(b) The gospel is only justification. The moment one "believes" in Christ, His righteousness is imputed. Nothing must be added to this.

(c) Under no circumstances can be permited any subjective experience as part of justification by faith. It is soley a legal (or forensic) declaration. Any attempt to include the new birth (regeneration) is strongly opposed.

(d) Unlike justification, sanctification is never by faith alone, but also involves the believer's own efforts and works. Also, Christ's human nature had to be sinless or His performance would have been marred and He would have been a sinner in need of a Saviour.
------------------------------------

Unfortunately the evangelical fails to distinguish between the legal justification established for all men in the doing and dying of Christ (Rom. 3:23, 24; 5:18, the "good news" of the gospel), and justification by faith, which includes the believers "heartfelt" response created in the hearer by the preaching of Christ crucified.

Because the legal acquital accomplished for all men in Christ is not distinguished from justifcation by faith, the evangelical gospel also fails to present a correct relationship between justification by faith and the new birth. That which was prepared for "all men" in Christ becomes valid to the believing sinner only when he experiences the new birth. It is never that we are justified "because" of our faith. Never does the scripture say so. Faith is only an instrument through which Christ's life is received.

While it is true that sanctification in no way contributes to the righteousness which saves the believer, it must be remembered that sanctification is making real in the believer's life what has already been prepared for him in justification--that is, total obedience to the law.

One of the most puzzling beliefs of evangelicals is that Christ had a sinless nature, a mere cousin of the teaching of the immaculate conception. Christ actually did assume our sinful nature, yet without sinning. This belief is essential in understanding that Christ not only condemned the acts of sin but the sin problem itself which is the principle in our members (the law of sin and death). Romans 7 through 8:4. Christ had to condemn sin in the same flesh we have, otherwise He could not be our Saviour from sin.

I am not a "traditionalist" either. The problem I have observed, because of the tremendous legalism within the church, many have taken an extreme swing to the other side, not balancing justification and sanctification in the light of the gospel.

This is by no means condemnation but simply some concepts to consider for discussion. (Gal. 6:3).

blessings,
John

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Greetings,

Desmond Ford considers himself an evangelical Christian. His followers within Adventism, there are many, believe the following. Remember, this can be very subjective and this is only a general view within the understanding of righteousness by faith. After all, that's the message to be given to the world.

(a) Righteousness by faith and justification by faith are synonymous. It's a legal decaration of God in which He proclaims the believing sinner perfectly righteous based on the doing and dying of Christ.

(b) The gospel is only justification. The moment one "believes" in Christ, His righteousness is imputed. Nothing must be added to this.

(c) Under no circumstances can be permited any subjective experience as part of justification by faith. It is soley a legal (or forensic) declaration. Any attempt to include the new birth (regeneration) is strongly opposed.

(d) Unlike justification, sanctification is never by faith alone, but also involves the believer's own efforts and works. Also, Christ's human nature had to be sinless or His performance would have been marred and He would have been a sinner in need of a Saviour.
------------------------------------

Unfortunately the evangelical fails to distinguish between the legal justification established for all men in the doing and dying of Christ (Rom. 3:23, 24; 5:18, the "good news" of the gospel), and justification by faith, which includes the believers "heartfelt" response created in the hearer by the preaching of Christ crucified.

Because the legal acquital accomplished for all men in Christ is not distinguished from justifcation by faith, the evangelical gospel also fails to present a correct relationship between justification by faith and the new birth. That which was prepared for "all men" in Christ becomes valid to the believing sinner only when he experiences the new birth. It is never that we are justified "because" of our faith. Never does the scripture say so. Faith is only an instrument through which Christ's life is received.

While it is true that sanctification in no way contributes to the righteousness which saves the believer, it must be remembered that sanctification is making real in the believer's life what has already been prepared for him in justification--that is, total obedience to the law.

One of the most puzzling beliefs of evangelicals is that Christ had a sinless nature, a mere cousin of the teaching of the immaculate conception. Christ actually did assume our sinful nature, yet without sinning. This belief is essential in understanding that Christ not only condemned the acts of sin but the sin problem itself which is the principle in our members (the law of sin and death). Romans 7 through 8:4. Christ had to condemn sin in the same flesh we have, otherwise He could not be our Saviour from sin.

I am not a "traditionalist" either. The problem I have observed, because of the tremendous legalism within the church, many have taken an extreme swing to the other side, not balancing justification and sanctification in the light of the gospel.

This is by no means condemnation but simply some concepts to coider for discussion. (Gal. 6:3).

blessings,
John

thanks for your reply, not exactly whta I was looking for

 

[HeisNear]

thanks for your reply, not exactly whta I was looking for

Dear Brother,
Just for christian courtesy sake you can share with me what you're looking for. Oh, how often I've been looking for something and God brought me something else that I wasn't looking for.
blessings in Christ,
John S.

 

[freeindeed2]

i am not sure you would quallify as an Evanglical Adventist.. It seem you are a main line traditional adventist, at least by the post you quote. do you except the wrightings of EGW? and do you belive in the investigative judgement? how many contempoary non-sda spiritual books have you read? i've been told you don't believe in adventism and then you quote very traditioanls views. could you expline what you postion is?

I believe his position has changed significantly since he posted that in November of last year. "AT" also posts over on CARM on the SDA forums.

 

[HeisNear]

i am not sure you would quallify as an Evanglical Adventist.. It seem you are a main line traditional adventist, at least by the post you quote. do you except the wrightings of EGW? and do you belive in the investigative judgement? how many contempoary non-sda spiritual books have you read? i've been told you don't believe in adventism and then you quote very traditioanls views. could you expline what you postion is?

Greetings,
I believe when it comes to an understanding of "traditional Adventism" it would be a matter of your own definition through your own peer group and community consensus. I do not consider myself evangelical or a traditional Adventist. I do believe that God has always sent messengers to his church that are highly recognized, but are highly criticized, nothing new under the sun. We don't like reproof, it goes to the heart of our massive ego. I love Jesus, but .... A thought that strikes my own heart indeed!

I suppose we are all entitled to come up with our own definition of what a "traditionalist" is unless you can find evidence in the BIBLE that you have some true annointed definition that God ascribes to.

Since you have given your "opinion" let me give you mine. So I suppose neither one of us have a leg to stand on since our words mean nothing and God's words mean everything. Gal. 6:3. We think our opinions are worth so much that once we have concluded something it must stand forever as the final authority. How smug WE are. May we get on our knees and beg for mercy. We are rich and increased with goods, O Lord, save us from our self-justification and fall on our faces.

My worthless opinion is that traditional righteousness by faith is the preaching of the law, the law, and the law, without grace and mercy, pre-1888, if you will.

It's interesting to note that the evangelical gospel is bad news for the suffering sinner. It demands that you take the initiative for your own salvation. By the way, that is also the traditional view. It's called arminianism.

The better good news is that Christ actually acomplished something for every single human being on this planet. He actually had to TAKE our sinful nature (Romans 8:1-4) in order to redeem us. The evangelical world cannot accept this premise and hang on to a cousin of the immaculate conception.

I did not grow up in the Adventist church so I'm not subjected to the peer pressure and community consensus of cultural Adventism as so many are. May we free ourselves from our own opinionated traditions and come in line with God's word. Yes, I believe in a judgment, don't you? Yes, I believe that EGW was used by God, don't you?

I don't believe the majority of evangelicals when they say that Christ really didn't die on the cross, but went to heaven to collect his reward. To them, it was only a physical death of 33 years. They have no clue that it was an eternal death. The equivelant of the second death, that's the wages of sin He had to endure. The mortality of the soul has a deeper meaning than the cold doctrine that we go to sleep when we die. It has to do with the very cross of Christ and gospel we preach. Why would I want to read nonsda authors that will charm you, make good and clever sayings to become enchanted with and then turn around a give you a evil grin telling you how decieved I am. Let's grow up, shall we?

I was in a coma for over 30 days not long ago and had all these great controversy dreams. That's right, don't let anyone ever tell you that someone in a coma has nothing going on inside the brain. I was homeless in my early years for four years and stumbled upon a book called The Great Controversy and two weeks later I met my first Adventist by "accident." What I'm so tired of is all the smug intellectuals that think they know everything. It usually means they were born into the church and have never ever had a "born again" experience. A heart melting manifestaion of the love of God. May we be willing to learn something new from someone else. I've had to change my positions constantly as I have gotten on my knees and pleaded for truth as He lead me into the church I believe Jesus will lead me all the way to heaven. Let's go together, shall we? Perhaps God is speaking straight talk to you today.

In Christ,
John

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Dear Brother,
Just for christian courtesy sake you can share with me what you're looking for. Oh, how often I've been looking for something and God brought me something else that I wasn't looking for.
blessings in Christ,
John S.

Take traditional Adventism

- Ellen white. + jesus as only source of authority
- the investigative judgement, but keep 2300 day prophecy + new interpation
- SDA chruch as the remnant,+ special purpose of SDA chruch in stead of exclusive remnant.
+ emphisize the need to be born again and personal relationship with God
+ discipleship emphisis on christian living and way of life.
+ concern for recreating the kingdom of God on this earth, i.e. ministry to the poor the suffering

that will give you Evanglical Adventism

 

[DrStupid_Ben]

I think that you might not be speaking for everyone who calls themself evangelical. Designations of belief are quite fluid these days.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

I think that you might not be speaking for everyone who calls themself evangelical. Designations of belief are quite fluid these days.

I never clamed to speak for every one, but what would you add or change or substract?

There are other postions

progressives
Liberals

 

[DrStupid_Ben]

I understand.

I think that instead of the defining factors of an evangelical being the variations of doctrinal beliefs (which are secondary issues), it is really a case of the general approach to religion.
For example, there is something quite universal about fundamentalists, that reaches further than the particular doctrines. For example, there are doctrinal dissagreements between fund. Baptists and fund. Adventist (most notably the Sabbath), however, they are both fundamentalist groups.

In relation to Adventism (which is the context to which you are refering, I think) there is still difference in the surface beliefs of evangelical adventists, but they all have the characteristics of an evangelical. One example could be my lecturers at college. I would say that most of them are evangelical and they all exhibit the same approach to religion, however there are some subtle differences in their surface beliefs.

An evangelical adventist could very well hold a belief in the investigative judgement (as in the 28 fundamentals).

By the way, I think your last three points are spot on

+ emphisize the need to be born again and personal relationship with God
+ discipleship emphisis on christian living and way of life.
+ concern for recreating the kingdom of God on this earth, i.e. ministry to the poor the suffering

ideally, these should be characteristics of any Christian

 

[Adventist Dissident]

I understand.

I think that instead of the defining factors of an evangelical being the variations of doctrinal beliefs (which are secondary issues), it is really a case of the general approach to religion.
For example, there is something quite universal about fundamentalists, that reaches further than the particular doctrines. For example, there are doctrinal dissagreements between fund. Baptists and fund. Adventist (most notably the Sabbath), however, they are both fundamentalist groups.

In relation to Adventism (which is the context to which you are refering, I think) there is still difference in the surface beliefs of evangelical adventists, but they all have the characteristics of an evangelical. One example could be my lecturers at college. I would say that most of them are evangelical and they all exhibit the same approach to religion, however there are some subtle differences in their surface beliefs.

An evangelical adventist could very well hold a belief in the investigative judgement (as in the 28 fundamentals).

By the way, I think your last three points are spot on

ideally, these should be characteristics of any Christian

ding ding ding we have a winner. You have absloutely nailed it on the head. it is an approch to things. it includes doctrinal differences but usually those differences are rooded in the apporoach. nicely said.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

hum

 

[Adventist Dissident]

the approach to things that fundamentalist, conservative liberals and progressives all have in common is a mind set. the beliefs define them. with Evanglicals the belief are a means to an experience/ encounter. the beliefs help us with the encounter. if the beliefs get in the way of the encounter Get rid of the belief. Beliefs about God are not the end only the road map to the ene. if we have the wrong directions turn around and go the right direction. no biggie. I am not locked into my beliefs, I am locked into my encounter. Incomplete or wrong beliefs take away from the experience, distort it, pollute it and destroy it so dumping them is a good thing not a bad thing.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Upon reflection thee are 2 way we are using the term Evanglical Adventist

1. as mentiontined earlier a general approach to faith. The evanglical seekes to encounter God. The need to be born again is a prerequiset.

2. The second way is to define a teaching difference.


Historics(fundimentalist)
traditional Adventisim
+human nature of christ
+cermonial Law in Galataion
+Remenant chruch
+6000 year creation of earth
+ Sabbath Seal of God
+2300 in 1844 jesus enter heavenly sancturay begin review records
+ visble 2nd coming

Conservatives (traditional Adventist)

Take traditional Adventisim
+divine nature of christ
+ law in Galatains 10 commandment
+Remenant chruch
+6000 year creation of earth
+ Sabbath Seal of God
+2300 in 1844 jesus enter heavenly sancturay begin review records
+ plus visible 2nd coming

Evanglical Adventism
take traditional Adventisim
+human nature of christ
+cermonial Law in Galataion
-Remnant chruch + special purpose
+6000 year creation of earth
+ Sabbath confirmation of eden,sancitatifation and promise of future rest at 2nd coming
+2300 in 1844 , something important but IJ lacks support
+ visible second coming

Progressives
take traditional Adventisim
? nature of christ?
+ Law in Galataion 10 commandment
-Remenant chruch
?6000 year creation of earth(unknown)?
+ Sabbath I am uncertian about their view on sabbath
+2300 in 1844 jesus enter heavenly sancturay begin review records
+ 6th centuary date for daniel, but antiocus little horn of daniel 8

Liberal
take traditional Adventisim
+human nature of christ
+cermonial Law in Galataion ? unknown
-Remenant chruch
-6000 year creation of earth
-Sabbath Seal of God
-2300 in 1844 jesus enter heavenly sancturay begin review recoc
+2nd second centrary dating of book of daniel and anticous little horn
- life style