A thread on objectivity and fairness - can bring in views opposing it

Since my earlier thread is about to close - then lets take a look at the aspects of "objectivity" we see in the following examples..

========================================================
Kingdom of the Cults: appendix

On p. 551 from the section: Adventist Theology and Classical Orthodoxy, Martin writes,

It is unnecessary to document at great length the fact that Seventh-day Adventists adheres tenaciously to the foundational doctrines of Christian theology as these have been held by the Christian church down through the centuries. Dr. Anthony Hoekema, who believes that Seventh-day Adventism is a non-Christian cult, makes this interesting admission, and since Dr. Hoekema is no friend of Adventism, his testimony on this point could hardly be called prejudiced:

“I am of the conviction that Seventh-day Adventism is a cult and not an evangelical denomination. . . . It is recognised with gratitude that there are certain soundly scriptural emphases in the teaching of Seventh-day-Adventism. We are thankful for the Adventists’ affirmation of the infallibility of the Bible, of the Trinity and of the full deity of Jesus Christ. We gratefully acknowledge their teachings on creation and providence, on the incarnation and resurrection of Christ, on the absolute necessity for regeneration, on sanctification by the Holy Spirit, and on Christ’s literal return.”​

Says Martin,

“It is puzzling to me, as a student of non-Christian cult systems, how any group can hold the above doctrines in their proper biblical context, which Dr. Hoekema admits the Adventists do, and still be a non-Christian cult. However we shall deal with this aspect of the critics of Adventism at the end of the chapter; therefore, suffice it to say that the Adventists do have a clean bill of health where the major doctrines of Christian theology are concerned.”
​

p.561. We earlier mentioned Dr. Anthony Hoekema’s book, The Four Major Cults, in which he classifies Seventh-day Adventism as a non-Christian cult system. It is necessary for me to take exception with Dr Hoekema in this area because, in my opinion, the reasons that Dr. Hoekema gives cannot be justified by the Word of God, historical theology, or present-day practices in denominational Christianity as a whole. To illustrate this point, Dr. Hoekema stated, “I am of the conviction that Seventh-day Adventism is a cult and not an evangelical denomination. In support of this evaluation I propose to show that the traits we have found to be distinctive of the cults do apply to this movement.” (389).

Martin writes -

It is Dr. Hoekema’s contention that Ellen White is an extrabiblical authority in that her counsels are taken to be manifestations of the gift of prophecy (1 Corinthians 12). But granting that the Adventists are entitled to believe that this gift was manifested in White as evidence of the charismata (a fact that Dr. Hoekema could hardly honestly challenge, since the gifts of the Spirit have been and are still manifested in the Christian church), why does he not take into consideration the repeated emphasis of Adventist writers concerning their official pronouncement – Questions on Doctrine – to the effect that they do not consider White to be an extrabiblical authority, but that her writings are only authoritative in those areas where they are in agreement with the Word of God, which is the final standard for judging all the gifts of the Spirit?
​

 

Martin writes;

It is a serious charge to maintain that any professing Christian group denies justification by grace alone as the basis of eternal salvation; and, if the Adventists were guilty of this, surely there would be ground for considering them as a cultic system. However, literally scores of times in their book Questions on Doctrines, and in various other publications, the Adventists affirm that salvation only come by the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ’s sacrifice upon the cross.

Why is it necessary again for Dr. Hoekema to question the sincerity of the Adventists in this area and yet accept at face value their other statements concerning their faith in the Scriptures, the Trinity, the full deity of Jesus Christ, the absolute necessity of regeneration, sanctification by the Holy Spirit, and Christ’s literal return, is a puzzling inconsistency in his presentation, (See The Four Major Cults, 403).

Dr. Hoekema insists that the investigative judgment and the keeping of the seventh-day Sabbath are part of the reasons why he classifies Seventh-day Adventists as cultists, but, in doing this, he makes his Calvinistic interpretation of theology the criterion, while ignoring the claims of the Arminian school and of the semi-Arminian and semi-Calvinistic theologians, many of whom take strong exception to Dr. Hoekema’s pronounced Calvinism.

On the basis that Dr. Hoekema would call Adventists a cult, the same charge could be leveled at all devoted Calvinists who consider the Institutes of the Christian Religion and Calvin’s Commentaries every bit as much illumination and guides in the study of Scriptures as the Adventists do where White’s writings are concerned. In addition to this, the Seventh-day Baptists are Arminian in their theology, and keep the seventh-day Sabbath. Are they too a non-Christian cult? They certainly meet some of Dr. Hoekema’s qualifications.​

 

Hoekema's argument was totally destroyed by Walter Martin's book "Kingdom of the Cults" where Martin placed the SDA Christian denomination in the appendix giving it a huge amount of space for discussion and totally annihilated Hoekema's shallow arguments addressing Hoekema's book specifically - explicitly.

Martin was no SDA at all - but he knew a bogus argument when he saw it. Martin pointed out that half the time Hoekema was not even using the SDA published statements of belief for his straw-man arguments!! How sad that anyone could be snookered by Hoekema.


As Christianity Today pointed out in 2015 - the SDA denomination is the 5th largest Christian denomination in the world and fastest growing (incidentally it is now over 25 million in attendance each Sabbath world wide.)

Martin's book based on dialogue with SDA leaders and actually "reading" SDA statement of faith. That dialogue was published in the book "Question on Doctrine" in the 1950's.

And a number of editions since that time.

Including:
1985 edition of “The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary Volume 7A” containing Volumes 1-7. QoD is in Appendix A, B, C

Nov 18, 2003 "the book “Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine” - new print edition. Andrews University Press, part of the church-owned university and seminary in Berrien Springs, Michigan, recently released the 597-page, annotated edition of the book"

 

So then we must ask "did Walter Martin" know that the Seventh-day Adventists did not condemn the Commandments of God? Did not condemn the Ten Commandments? Did not condemn even the 4th Commandment?

What do you suppose Martin thought Adventists were teaching?

=========================================================

Probably something like this


1. "The seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD" Ex 20:10
2. The Seventh day Sabbath is "a day of holy convocation" Leviticus 23:2
3. "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall all mankind come before Me to bow down" Isaiah 66:23
4. Jesus was resurrected on week-day-1 Sunday... which means everyone knows what day is the 7th
5. Exodus 16:23 "tomorrow is the Sabbath"


"from Sabbath to Sabbath shall all mankind come before Me to bow down" Isaiah 66:23

Isaiah 56:6-8
6 “Also the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord,
To minister to Him, and to love the name of the Lord,
To be His servants, every one who keeps from profaning the Sabbath
And holds fast My covenant;
7 Even those I will bring to My holy mountain
And make them joyful in My house of prayer.
Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be acceptable on My altar;
For My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations.”
8 The Lord God, who gathers the dispersed of Israel, declares,
“Yet others I will gather to them, to those already gathered.”

Mark 2:27 "the Sabbath was made for MANKIND"

Christians have no argument for "taking God's name in vain" or committing any sin against the LAW of God. The LAW written on the heart under the NEW Covenant - includes the TEN Commandments as even the "Baptist Confession of Faith" freely admits.
.
One "notices the details" in the Commandment of God regarding the sanctified blessed weekly holy day (the 7th day is the Sabbath of the Lord Thy God).. the other ignores it.

 

Walter Martin would probably also have known about this Baptist document

===========================================================


===========================================
19. The Law of God

1. God gave to Adam a law of universal obedience which was written in his heart, and He gave him very specific instruction about not eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. By this Adam and all his descendants were bound to personal, total, exact, and perpetual obedience, being promised life upon the fulfilling of the law, and threatened with death upon the breach of it. At the same time Adam was endued with power and ability to keep it.

2. The same law that was first written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the Fall, and was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai in the Ten Commandments, and written in two tables, the first four containing our duty towards God, and the other six, our duty to man.

3. Besides this law, commonly called the moral law, God was pleased do give the people of Israel ceremonial laws containing several typical ordinances. These ordinances were partly about their worship, and in them Christ was prefigured along with His attributes and qualities, His actions, His sufferings and His benefits. These ordinances also gave instructions about different moral duties. All of these ceremonial laws were appointed only until the time of reformation, when Jesus Christ the true Messiah and the only lawgiver, Who was furnished with power from the Father for this end, cancelled them and took them away.

4. To the people of Israel He also gave sundry judicial laws which expired when they ceased to be a nation. These are not binding on anyone now by virtue of their being part of the laws of that nation, but their general equity continue to be applicable in modern times.

5. The moral law ever binds to obedience everyone, justified people as well as others, and not only out of regard for the matter contained in it, but also out of respect for the authority of God the Creator, Who gave the law. Nor does Christ in the Gospel dissolve this law in any way, but He considerably strengthens our obligation to obey it.

6. Although true believers are not under the law as a covenant of works, to be justified or condemned by it, yet it is of great use to them as well as to others, because as a rule of life it informs them of the will of God and their duty and directs and binds them to walk accordingly. It also reveals and exposes the sinful pollutions of their natures, hearts and lives, and using it for self-examination they may come to greater conviction of sin, greater humility and greater hatred of their sin. They will also gain a clearer sight of their need of Christ and the perfection of His own obedience. It is of further use to regenerate people to restrain their corruptions, because of the way in which it forbids sin. The threatenings of the law serve to show what their sins actually deserve, and what troubles may be expected in this life because of these sins even by regenerate people who are freed from the curse and undiminished rigours of the law. The promises connected with the law also show believers God's approval of obedience, and what blessings they may expect when the law is kept and obeyed, though blessing will not come to them because they have satisfied the law as a covenant of works. If a man does good and refrains from evil simply because the law encourages to the good and deters him from the evil, that is no evidence that he is under the law rather than under grace.

7. The aforementioned uses of the law are not contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but they sweetly comply with it, as the Spirit of Christ subdues and enables the will of man to do freely and cheerfully those things which the will of God, which is revealed in the law, requires to be done.

============================

Some Baptists also agree that the Bible has 66 books in it... do you agree with them??[

 

Martin would also have to have already known about the Adventist acceptance of these Bible details in their opposition to OSAS

=======================================

Matthew 18 is specifically about forgiveness revoked.

32 Then his master, after he had called him, said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you begged me. 33 Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had pity on you?’ 34 And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him. 35 “So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses.”

Indeed -- Christ shows us the "fully forgiven" about whom it is said "I forgave you ALL" and yet due to subsequent actions of the "fully forgiven" -- they experience forgiveness revoked. until he should pay all that was due

Question for the reader -- In your POV is there such a thing as "Salvation where you pay your own debt of sin" -- having been "forgiven all" he then had to "repay all".. OR is Christ simply mistaken in your POV?

OSAS does not survive the sola-scriptura test in Matthew 18 nor in Romans 11 nor in Ezekiel 18 (nor even Matthew 6)

You are quoting the chapter that says the chosen people - Israel FELL and would only be grafted in again IF they did not "continue in unbelief" -- you knew that right?
20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; 21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.


Romans 11
19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” 20 Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith. Do not be conceited, but fear; 21 for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either. 22 Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off. 23 And they also, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut off from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and were grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these who are the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree?

And you think that refutes what Christ teaches in Matthew 18???
32 Then his master, after he had called him, said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you begged me. 33 Should you not also have had compassion on your fellow servant, just as I had pity on you?’ 34 And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him. 35 “So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses.”

 

Well it is true that the Christian church was called a "sect" of Judaism by the authorities among the Jews. And it is also true that various groups are always considered "unpopular" by someone else. However my point here is that though Martin spends a lot of time saying just where he differs with the SDA group - he still retains the objectivity to point out that those differences only go so far when it comes to declaring some group to be Christian or not.

What his real contribution is - comes in the form of condemning the idea of 'making stuff up for other denominations to believe' which was a favorite tactic of Anthony Hoekema - who had written a similar book previously to Martin.

(and you can find a few people with a certain level of devotion to that same stunt - tried out here almost every day)

You and I are good examples of how this discussion could work "the right way".

For example "soul sleep".

I could post that I agree with that doctrine for reasons "A" , "B", and "C"
And you could say you agree with the immortal soul doctrine for "A", "B", "C" and therefore do not agree with me on this particular doctrine

There is no "added requirement" that we also "make stuff up" to claim that the other person believes.

This may seem "obvious" to the objective unbiased reader - but there are in fact a few people that struggle with this concept. Believe it or not.

 

Not true in real life so far as I know. When you read the 28 Fundamental beliefs - nothing in their written response to Martin violates the statement of beliefs.

As Martin pointed out -- it is the voted statements of the denomination - the "official beliefs" that are used to evaluate the church.

Your "creative writing skills" are showing.. I prefer actual facts. That book was published for all to see - and is still available in various published forms ...it was not some dark-corner "for Martin's eyes only" meeting that you appear to speculate.

You don't appear to even know what you are talking about. Why in the world do you think we keep including the IJ in our published statements of beliefs??? Nothing in the response to Martin suggested otherwise which is why QoD is still valid. How many ways to say this???

I prefer actual published fact.

1. That has never been a published doctrine of the SDA church and still is not.
2. In Genesis 18 says Abraham saw "3 men" -- that were in fact 2 Angels and God Himself--- every child in Sunday school knows it.

Then the Lord appeared to him by the terebinth trees of Mamre, as he was sitting in the tent door in the heat of the day. 2 So he lifted his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing by him; and when he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them, and bowed himself to the ground, 3 and said, “My Lord, if I have now found favor in Your sight, do not pass on by Your servant.

This does not mean "Angels are really just humans" and also does not mean that God is in fact human. He merely appeared "in that form".

This is the same thing Adventists have claimed all along about God the Son in the various forms in which He chose to appear.

Nothing in our voted statements of belief contradicts this. Nothing in QoD contradicts this.. and we both know it.

Why mislead with the creative writing in your post? I don't think Martin failed to notice this not-so-subtle detail - that every child reading Genesis 18 saw. Not to mention the many scholars even today that admit that the "Angel of the LORD" is often - GOD - YHWH Himself in the OT. And does not mean God is merely "an angel"

The point remains.

Which belief are you referencing?
Do you really imagine to yourself that Martin thought Ellen White never spoke to the SDA church? Seriously? IF so -- what a great imagination you must have.

BTW - Deborah - both a prophet and a judge of Israel.
Priscilla and Aquilla instructing Apollos
Philip's 4 daughters - prophets... which 1 Cor 12 says are second only to Apostles.

Prophetic message ONLY have value in that it is God who is speaking - we do not say "Moses was very smart so his writing is good".. all that is nonsense. 2 Tim 3:16 "given by inspiration from God AND to be used for doctrine".. we test all doctrine and practice "sola scriptura".

Give me the Bible "And the Words IN the Bible" and that includes the Words the Bible speaks as it informs us about God's gift of prophecy and how it works.

Seriously.. more Bible.. more reality... less creative writing please

Is it your wild claim that Martin was clueless about 2 Peter 1:20-21 and did not know that Numbers 12:6-12 defines exactly how the gift of prophecy works - ?? Or that we deny the gift of prophecy either in QoD or in our published statements of beliefs?

Your list is mere emotional surface reading so far.

Do you have a point that will hold up to close consideration of "actual fact"??

As Martin knew - SDA escatology teaches that there will come a day in the future when the Rev 14 statement about "Keeping the commandments of God" and specifically focused on an attack on the 4th commandment - will be the crisis facing humanity. There are Baptists on this board who would "predict" that such a future event will never happen.

Fine... let's see if it does. But that is a difference in what you "predict" will happen in the future.

Do you think that Martin was clueless as to what we "predicted" would happen in the future - and in fact what we still predict .. not change.. not one iota???

If so - where are you getting such imagination??

Your attempt at eisegesis "noted". Try exegesis instead. Try at least a ounce of "context".

1. There is no doctrinal statement in our 28 beliefs or in anything we teach that denies the assurance of salvation.
2. There is no Bible support for OSAS.

Martin knew that we had both of these as our views and in fact we STILL have that as our view.

Please be serious. Emotional argument is not a funny sort of "proof" of the soundness of your position - and we both know it.

(I beg you not to make this so easy for me.. I am easily bored)

Walter Martin - a non-SDA who could muster a certain measure of objectivity... can you do the same?

Bob

 

Interesting creative writing - but not a good example of something that it actually true in real life.

In real life Jesus said this

Matthew 10
21 “Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. 22 You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. 23 When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

24 “The student is not above the teacher, nor a servant above his master. 25 It is enough for students to be like their teachers, and servants like their masters. If the head of the house has been called Beelzebul, how much more the members of his household!

Your post "re-imagines this" into "a cult" and declares his disciples would have to fear Jews and hate Jews.

That is total nonsense.

And there are way too many ex-Catholics among Adventists who were not 'ex-Catholics' when they first joined to argue your fictional "hate Catholics" mantra.

So while it is probably a fair example of creative writing on your part -- it has not basis in actual fact.

Luther himself - a Catholic. Everyone he was evangelizing - "a catholic"

 

We can report the actual events in history with resorting to your wild claiming of "hating people".

Remember this?

John 1:11 "He came to His OWN and His own received Him not" ?? Christ had special care and regard for the Jews.
John 4 "Salvation is of the Jews"

yet none of that stopped Christ from "reporting history" without suppressing/editing unpopular "details".

Matthew 23
: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; 3 therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them. 4 They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger. 5 But they do all their deeds to be noticed by men; for they broaden their phylacteries and lengthen the tassels of their garments. 6 They love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues, 7 and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called Rabbi by men. 8 But do not be called Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ. 11 But the greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted.
Eight Woes

13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. 14 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense you make long prayers; therefore you will receive greater condemnation.]

15 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.

16 “Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘Whoever swears by the temple, that is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple is obligated.’ 17 You fools and blind men! Which is more important, the gold or the temple that sanctified the gold? 18 And, ‘Whoever swears by the altar, that is nothing, but whoever swears by the offering on it, he is obligated.’ 19 You blind men, which is more important, the offering, or the altar that sanctifies the offering? 20 Therefore, p]">[p]whoever swears by the altar, swears both by the altar and by everything on it. 21 And whoever swears by the temple, swears both by the temple and by Him who dwells within it. 22 And whoever swears by heaven, swears both by the throne of God and by Him who sits upon it.

23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others. 24 You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!

25 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence. 26 You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also.

27 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness. 28 So you, too, outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

29 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, 30 and say, ‘If we had been living in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partners with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ 31 So you testify against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32 Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers. 33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?

34 “Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, 35 so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. 36 Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.

========================

Have you read the Great Controversy?? IF so then you know that its report of the actions of the RCC during the dark ages is primarily a quote of well-known protestant historians and scholars. IT is not written in the form of "I was shown that - contrary to popular belief - the RCC did a few bad things in the dark ages ". That was not "contrary to popular belief" in the 1800's and early 1900's and it was the published statement of most Protestant historians at that time.

So when we report on things like the supposedly infallible ecumenical council of LATERAN IV calling for the "extermination of heretics and Jews" -- it is not from hate of any given person - it is reporting the facts of history.

That is not a "prediction" about a future event that you might wish to "predict" would not happen - it is real life history

This is also not a prediction of the form "the unblemished character of the RCC from the dark ages will suddenly have a stain upon it at some point in the future".

Rather it is a prediction of the "return" to practices already documented by non-SDA historians in the past.

If you had actually read the "Great Controversy" you would know those details about what it says. (So I am a little bit surprised that you wish to focus on that in this thread)

 

Paul was a pharisee and was very frank about his former non-Christian activity as a Pharisee. But neither Paul nor Christ claimed that they 'hated pharisees' - just because they were able to point to areas where the Pharisees were in error.

Hence my list given where Jesus points to things that they had done in error.

Yet as John 1:11 points out - Jesus died for them "he came to His OWN and His Own received Him not"' .

It does not say "he hated the pharisees and they received him not"
It does not say 'since he told the truth about Pharisees - he must have hated them".

I never said that. And I don't even know that you know if your ancestors were Catholic in the dark ages.
I am pretty sure mine were Vikings.

Should I go on a crusade of the form "if you don't approve of what Vikings did in the past - you must be a hater"???

 

Indeed.. you make that point any time someone finds a historic fact about the dark ages. As if we could only admit to that fact if today we go around hating each Catholic that we find.

Total nonsense.

When someone tells me they find some objectionable deeds done by Vikings in those early dark ages I do not refer to them as "haters".

Not in real life. I real life we get along so well that Catholics end up converting to the SDA denomination. Not exactly the "extermination decree of LATERAN IV" on the part of SDAs toward Catholics.

We both know I have never done that.

Which is my point

On the contrary - I don't say anything at all about you.

What is more - the "future prediction" is not merely that the RCC revives its old ways in Europe and South America -- it is also that Protestant America takes up the practices of the RCC in the dark ages to implement them in America as well.

Is this where you then wish to "imagine" that the rapid evangelism and growth rate of the Adventist church comes by telling each person that we hate them?? You are simply imagining a narrative that simplifies the problems you find here.

What is more there is a great many Evangelicals that "predict" a strong persecution against Christians world wide - will come in the future. Is this where you insist that Evangelicals must then "hate all mankind"??

Seriously??