Is the Seventh Day Adventist Church orthodox

[BobRyan]

I hadn’t heard that, but if its true, it would be unsettling.

I hadn't heard that either and I have been SDA all my life.

But I wlll say this - I have heard a great many things from former-sdas where I could not find a single SDA I knew - also finding to be true. So I am not surprised that some statements are a bit subjective and foggy.

 

[BobRyan]

SDA is often considered to be a cult, because of accepting Ellen G. White's teachings as prophesy, but also because of the doctrine called "soul sleep." Neither of those would, however, cause us to classify the church as non-Christian.

If we had to discount all Christian/Charismatic/Pentecostal groups that claimed any sense of prophecy and also all witness/testimony of atheist and Muslims had to be rejected if they claimed to have a direct encounter with an Angel or Christ ... it would be a much small CF forum.

Some people headline 1 Thess 4:13-18 as "Soul sleep" and others do not.

 

[BobRyan]

I would never view the SDA as a cult and consider their members as brothers and sisters in Christ.
One question I do have is do their academies (Monterey Bay Academy) still require reading Mrs. Whites writing?

And if so then they also require the reading of Luther since Great Controversy includes the writings of Martin Luther.

A great many non-SDA denominations require the reading of Luther, Spurgeon, Wesley, Wycliffe , Augustine, etc.

I think some of this appears to be "surprising" to some readers - until they look around and see the landscape a bit more.

 

[Albion]

I would never view the SDA as a cult and consider their members as brothers and sisters in Christ.
One question I do have is do their academies (Monterey Bay Academy) still require reading Mrs. Whites writing?

It takes understanding the modern meaning of the word cult in order to answer the question well. It's not about religious hippies and gurus in communes and mind control, but doctrinal deviations from the rest of Christianity, whether orthodox or heterodox. Usually, three beliefs are said to indicate a cult. Any one of these would cause the church or movement to be classified as a cult:

1. Denial of the nature of God
2. Denial of the nature of Man
3. Adding other writings to the Holy Bible (supplementing the Bible).

 

[Cis.jd]

My questions are based on my SDA education during the 1960s and early 70.

The SDA church was based a lot on Ellen G Whites dreams or visions

The SDA insist that Saturday is the only day that can be observed as a sabbath day.

The SDA teach that references to wine in the bible is actually grape juice.

The SDA teach that drinking alcohol, coffee, tea is unhealthy therefore a sin.

The SDA teach that eating meat is unhealthy and therefore is a sin. Especially pork products.

The SDA teach that eating eggs, butter, and milk is unhealthy (based on Mrs. Whites dreams)

The SDA teach that women should not wear makeup or jewelry.

Most SDA will not become involved with other Christian denominations.

Most SDA will disassociate themselves from anyone that leaves the denomination and joins another denomination or church outside of the SDA.

The SDA has been extremely critical of the Catholic church.

The SDA denomination was founded in 1863 but the movement started in the early 1830s. Ellen G White’s dreams and teaching were the main motivating factor for the foundation of the SDA.

Today we also have the reformed SDA denomination and I haven’t studied the differences, but it is just another split of denominations.

I would greatly appreciate anyone involved in the SDA denomination especially Elders or theologians to comment as well at other theologians and pastors.

My background, seven years of SDA schools and four years at Loma Linda (SDA college). Left the SDA denomination in 1974 so I’m not current on present day SDA teachings.

no. They are operating under bad theology that was never passed down by the Apostles

 

[BobRyan]

1. Denial of the nature of God
2. Denial of the nature of Man
3. Adding other writings to the Holy Bible (supplementing the Bible).

1. None of that applies to Adventists.
2. No additions or changes to the Bible are made by Adventists.

If we had to discount all Christian/Charismatic/Pentecostal groups that claimed any sense of prophecy and had to reject all witness/testimony of atheist and Muslims if they claimed to have a direct encounter with an Angel or Christ ... it would be a much small CF forum.

 

[BobRyan]

no. They are operating under bad theology that was never passed down by the Apostles

This is the claim about all theology where person A - differs with person-B on theology. You might as well say "they are not members of my denomination"

 

[Cis.jd]

This is the claim about all theology where person A - differs with person-B on theology. You might as well say "they are not members of my denomination"

Some theological can be refuted based on the apostles. For example, Jesus being the Archangel Micheal.. Do some people reference interpreted scripture support? yes. You look at a Mormon's page, you'll see verses and counter arguments to specific verses. However, they run into a problem - the apostles never passed this down.

 

[Albion]

1. None of that applies.
2. No additions or changes to the Bible are made by Adventists.

If we had to discount all Christian/Charismatic/Pentecostal groups that claimed any sense of prophecy and had to reject all witness/testimony of atheist and Muslims if they claimed to have a direct encounter with an Angel or Christ ... it would be a much small CF forum.

Not much here that relates to the points I laid out.

 

[BobRyan]

no. They are operating under bad theology that was never passed down by the Apostles

This is the claim about all theology where person A - differs with person-B on theology. You might as well say "they are not members of my denomination"

Some theological can be refuted based on the apostles.

My point is not that when people differ they cannot have a sola-scriptura debate/discussion -- just that everyone claims that "the other denomination" has doctrinal errors and the NT church did not have that problem.

That is not exactly "news" that we all think that about "the other guys".

 

[BobRyan]

For example, Jesus being the Archangel Micheal.. Do some people reference interpreted scripture support? yes. You look at a Mormon's page, you'll see verses and counter arguments to specific verses. However, they run into a problem - the apostles never passed this down.

1. We also think the Mormon doctrine is in error that states that Jesus was simply an Archangel named Michael before the incarnation - and not what He really was - which is infinite God the Son second person of the Trinity. We have that debate with Mormons from time to time - including on CF.

2. SDAs have 28 doctrinal statements - and "Jesus is Archangel Michael" is not one of them.

3. Our claim is more along the lines of Gen 18.
Now the Lord appeared to Abraham by the oaks of Mamre, while he was sitting at the tent door in the heat of the day. 2 When he raised his eyes and looked, behold, three men were standing opposite him; and when he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them and bowed down to the ground, 3 and said, “My Lord, if now I have found favor in Your sight, please do not pass Your servant by. 4 Please let a little water be brought and wash your feet, and make yourselves comfortable under the tree;

Now almost all denominations on planet Earth will admit that these "men" were in fact YHWH and two angels as the text points out. The fact that they were functioning and relating to Abraham "as 3 men" did not change the reality of what they really were. Christ is God the Son - in the Adventist view His warrior name and persona is Michael, and as Savior He is Jesus Christ -- but still infinite God the Son. the difference for us is that he was incarnate as Jesus Christ , but was never incarnate as Michael - rather Michael was just an assumed form for a specific purpose as when he appeared "as a man" to Abraham in Gen 18. That was not an incarnate God the Son - rather it was God the Son appearing in the form of a man to Abraham.

by contrast - as the baby in Bethlehem - that was God the Son incarnate in human flesh.

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

So then by way of "opposition" someone might claim that "yes YHWH as God the Son did appear in the form of a man to Abraham but would never appear in the form of an Archangel to Angels" - they are free to have that preference. Everyone has free will and could speculate that restriction of they so chose.

In Heb 1 "Let all the Angels of God worship Him" - speaking of God the Son being worshiped by His angels. In John 1 Jesus created everything and that includes Angels. So Jesus has Angels.

But in Rev 12 Michael has His angels and Satan has Angels that joined him in rebellion. For many Adventists this means that God the Son has a warrior role, a warrior name - Michael.

 

[KingsK.H.R.R.S]

I have a soft spot in my heart for SDA because it was through that denomination that I saw how awesome Jesus is. Being raised Catholic though, I did find it funny how anti-Catholic SDA could be while also being so alike Catholicism in structure.

For example, instead of the Pope you have the General Conference President. Instead of Dioceses you have Unions/Conferences. Instead of Bishops it's Presidents. Even more than that, for the really conservative churches it's just as ritualistic as mass. People have to wear specific clothes on specific days, the worship program follows the exact same formula and structure literally down to which foot people use to climb the steps up to the alter.

I do feel that SDA tries to walk this line between Grace alone but also follow Sabbath and Dietary laws. When pressed, they will say something like, "well we know it's not Sabbath-keeping that saves, but you should do it anyway". For what it's worth, I'm grateful for SDA for bringing up the idea of having Sabbath as a spiritual practice in my life.

The Ellen White stuff was the real straw for me as to why I don't consider myself SDA even if I go to an SDA church sometimes. The pastor will pull up a Bible verse or two, talk about it a bit, and then the rest of the sermon is quoting Ellen White. I for sure have heard White quotes way more than Scripture in some churches, and while people will say she's not a prophet, they sure do act like her writings are Scripture. This isn't even mentioning some of the controversy surrounding claims of plagiarism, her childhood head injury, or anything like that.

There are some theological stuff in SDA I do like, and I feel like any denomination that puts a focus back on Jewish roots of our faith, even misguided, is getting closer to the mark. Like any church, if you find a good church it doesn't matter the denomination because they love God and love others well.

 

[BobRyan]

1. Denial of the nature of God
2. Denial of the nature of Man
3. Adding other writings to the Holy Bible (supplementing the Bible).

1. None of that applies to Adventists.
2. No additions or changes to the Bible are made by Adventists.

If we had to discount all Christian/Charismatic/Pentecostal groups that claimed any sense of prophecy and had to reject all witness/testimony of atheist and Muslims if they claimed to have a direct encounter with an Angel or Christ ... it would be a much small CF forum.

Not much here that relates to the points I laid out.

In that case - Not sure if we are differing

 

[BobRyan]

I have a soft spot in my heart for SDA because it was through that denomination that I saw how awesome Jesus is. Being raised Catholic though, I did find it funny how anti-Catholic SDA could be while also being so alike Catholicism in structure.

The Adventist structure is more like Methodists than the Catholic structure, so then for example there are no doctrinal statements or infalliblity claimed for the President of the Adventist denomination. His role is purely administrative the way that some other denominations are also organized.

I believe a great many Catholic scholars would agree that the Protestant Reformers were all Catholics that were raising the need for "reform" - and that Adventists by in large point to pretty much the same reforms and being valid.

For example, instead of the Pope you have the General Conference President.

Hmmm - if the Pope had no ability to speak anything infallible ex cathedra, could make no laws , could rule on no disputes, could pass no "decisions" about who is a saint in heaven and who is not, could ratify no Catholic teaching/doctrine, could appoint no bishops... IF his "powers" consisted in performing a marriage and baptism and participation in ordinations just as all local pastors do. ... you would be getting close to "the same".

 

[BobRyan]

Even more than that, for the really conservative churches it's just as ritualistic as mass. People have to wear specific clothes on specific days, the worship program follows the exact same formula and structure literally down to which foot people use to climb the steps up to the alter.

I have to admit - I have no idea what you are talking about there - I assume you think that this has something to do with SDA church service... but I don't recognize it. Our services are as per the culture all around the world in terms of dress/attire and what people in that culture would consider to be "Best" or "most honoring" within their own culture.

 

[BobRyan]

I do feel that SDA tries to walk this line between Grace alone but also follow Sabbath and Dietary laws.

In the same way that almost all Christian denominations would choose to affirm "grace" -- saved by grace through faith -- and yet also follow the command to "Not take God's name in vain".

What is more almost all Christian denominations have well accepted scholarship affirming that all ten of the Ten commandments are written on the heart as being included in moral law of God - under the New Covenant... and that includes the Catholic denomination.

When pressed, wel say something like, "well we know it's not Sabbath-keeping that saves, and not the fact that we don't take God's name in vain that saves - but you should honor God's Word in that regard anyway".

 

[BobRyan]

The Ellen White stuff was the real straw for me as to why I don't consider myself SDA even if I go to an SDA church sometimes.

So then the Bible teaching on spiritual gifts and the gift a prophecy and what the Christian response to a prophet should be according to scripture was your issue??

IF we take examples alike Agabus in the NT or Anna in the temple in the New Testament or Philip's 7 daughters who were prophets or almost everyone in the church of Corinth in 1Cor 14 -- all that is a problem in your view??

1 Cor 14
Pursue love, yet earnestly desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy. 2 For the one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people, but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries. 3 But the one who prophesies speaks to people for edification, exhortation, and consolation.

26 What is the outcome then, brothers and sisters? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. All things are to be done for edification. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, it must be by two or at the most three, and each one in turn, and one is to interpret; 28 but if there is no interpreter, he is to keep silent in church; and have him speak to himself and to God. 29 Have two or three prophets speak, and have the others pass judgment. 30 But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, then the first one is to keep silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted; 32 and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets; 33 for God is not a God of confusion, but of peace.

 

[KingsK.H.R.R.S]

In the same way that almost all Christian denominations would choose to affirm "grace" -- saved by grace through faith -- and yet also follow the command to "Not take God's name in vain".

What is more almost all Christian denominations have well accepted scholarship affirming that all ten of the Ten commandments are written on the heart as being included in moral law of God - under the New Covenant... and that includes the Catholic denomination.

When pressed, wel say something like, "well we know it's not Sabbath-keeping that saves, and not the fact that we don't take God's name in vain that saves - but you should honor God's Word in that regard anyway".

The question then becomes are Gentiles grafted into the family of Abraham bound by Torah law? If so, then like James says if you fail one you fail them all, therefore we should follow ALL of the Torah. Just because they are the 10 commandments doesn't mean that the other 609 laws can be changed or ignored. Paul spends his entire ministry making the point that the Torah does not save, it's Jesus' sacrifice that does. This is even solidified in Acts when the Apostles don't require Gentile converts to become circumcised, there is absolutely 0 mention of sabbath or dietary laws. Now, if people want to try and follow Torah, cool go for it. But the second you put that requirement on someone for salvation you take off the yolk of Christ.

 

[KingsK.H.R.R.S]

So then the Bible teaching on spiritual gifts and the gift a prophecy and what the Christian response to a prophet should be according to scripture was your issue??

IF we take examples alike Agabus in the NT or Anna in the temple in the New Testament or Philip's 7 daughters who were prophets or almost everyone in the church of Corinth in 1Cor 14 -- all that is a problem in your view??

1 Cor 14
Pursue love, yet earnestly desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy. 2 For the one who speaks in a tongue does not speak to people, but to God; for no one understands, but in his spirit he speaks mysteries. 3 But the one who prophesies speaks to people for edification, exhortation, and consolation.

26 What is the outcome then, brothers and sisters? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. All things are to be done for edification. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, it must be by two or at the most three, and each one in turn, and one is to interpret; 28 but if there is no interpreter, he is to keep silent in church; and have him speak to himself and to God. 29 Have two or three prophets speak, and have the others pass judgment. 30 But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, then the first one is to keep silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted; 32 and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets; 33 for God is not a God of confusion, but of peace.

Who said anything about spiritual gifts? I also never said people can't have the gift of prophecy. I was critiquing some SDA churches who put Ellen White's writings on par with Scripture and even put more weight in it with how they live their lives. You can keep attacking the strawman you put up though.

 

[Freth]

For example, instead of the Pope you have the General Conference President. Instead of Dioceses you have Unions/Conferences. Instead of Bishops it's Presidents. Even more than that, for the really conservative churches it's just as ritualistic as mass. People have to wear specific clothes on specific days, the worship program follows the exact same formula and structure literally down to which foot people use to climb the steps up to the alter.

I have never heard of such a thing and I was born and raised SDA. We have normal church services, just like any other Protestant denomination. I've been to plenty of other denominational churches as well and have experienced the same reverent services that I grew up with. I'm not sure where you saw this, but it's definitely not SDA. You can watch SDA church services on YouTube, they are normal church services.

I think BobRyan covered the other topics nicely.