The truth about SDA membership "growth"

it means 100% growth instead of 150% growth by that measure.

It means we shot passed the Southern Baptists from early 1980 where we had about 4.5 million and they had over 14 million - to today where we have more than 18.5 million and they are somewhere in the 16's. (Not sure what that exact number is)

This is not a complaint about the SBC - I like the fact that they are not going for evolutionism.

And the ones I have met personally don't appear to go for the "name calling solves every problem" type of solution that you might find other places.

 

Is that how you characterize rapid growth? For a group that shot right passed the SBC?

the Article said

It says this is over a 50 year period.

In that 50 years the church grew by almost 1800% - having less than 1 million members in 1954.



By comparison

I appreciate the interest in making sure the SDA growth is even more efficient in the future - but in the broader context -- trends do exist.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Well, there's this to consider:

And this:

I know you don't think it so, Bob, but the fact is that so long as the SDAs maintain that Ellen White is just as divinely inspired as the Biblical prophets, and so long as they court legalism as a requirement of salvation, they cannot be considered as anything approaching the doctrinal beliefs lined out in the scriptures.

People flock to messages that are close to scriptural truth, but just far enough off base to lead them in damnation and Hell.

 

You may not like it - but it does not matter if you are talking about Ellen White or not - the Bible has a doctrine on prophets as we see in 1Thess 5 and 1Cor 14 etc that simply cannot be ignored.

James 2 says that the issue is "He who said" ... not "what human is being used to convey the message".

If it is determined that some message is actually from God (i.e. a true prophet) then "it matters" what you do with it.

Nobody say "Moses was smarter than Isaiah so his writings matter more".

Also in the case of Agabus, Anna, Philip's daughters, the prophets in 1Cor 14 - nobody is saying "If God speaks to you we don't need to listen - because you are not writing scripture". David did not do that with Nathan - even though Nathan was not writing scripture and David was.

The reason is that this is not a matter of "feelings" or "emotions" or word gimmicks - it is a matter of "HE who said" - regardless of whether Nathan writes a word of scripture - David is obligated once he is convinced that God has spoken to Nathan.

This is all pretty obvious - but if you don't stop and study the subject - it might come as a surprise.

Simply making emotional arguments does not amount to much.

in Christ,

Bob