Is the Seventh Day Adventist Church orthodox

[JSRG]

The Sunday law was officially confirmed by the Roman Papacy. The Council of Laodicea in A.D. 364 decreed, “Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday but shall work on that day; but the Lord’s day they shall especially honour, and, as being Christians, shall, if possible, do no work on that day. If, however, they are found Judaizing, they shall be shut out from Christ” (Strand, op. cit., citing Charles J. Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church, 2 [Edinburgh, 1876] 316).

The Council of Laodicea was a regional council with attendees from the Province of Asia. As far as I can tell, there were no representatives of the pope there, nor did its decrees apply to him or his territories given that it was a regional council. To claim this was the Roman Papacy "officially confirming" anything makes little sense when the pope had basically no involvement in it.

 

[DamianWarS]

The devil loves when the SDA church who promotes all 10 of God's commandments are referred to as a cult.

Law itself can become an idol that gets in the way of worship to God so a specific focus on law does not automatically equate to a focus on God. And if we remain in a counter-God law focus the devil loves the confusion and division it creates. I think the Pharisees demonstrate this clearly enough. What is important is to establish why a particular focus is deemed orthodox another not. Unfortunately the NT term "God's commandments" is too ambiguous and if used to isolate the 10 commandments it is done so outside of scripture as the NT doesn't make this explicit distinction. So there is a problem with terminology because if party A views it as exclusive to specific laws and party B views it as inclusive of the entire law then the two are in disagreement and cannot be reconciled. This creates a demand to use scripture that is more explicit to build your case and if not the argument will remain unreconcilable.

 

[BobRyan]

The Council of Laodicea was a regional council with attendees from the Province of Asia. As far as I can tell, there were no representatives of the pope there, nor did its decrees apply to him or his territories given that it was a regional council. To claim this was the Roman Papacy "officially confirming" anything makes little sense when the pope had basically no involvement in it.

1. The Catholic church claims it as its own.. regional or not and claim " it is useful in terms of ascertaining practices of the time period"

Council of Laodicea and Scripture

2. In context - the point was to find out if the affirmation of "Venerable day of the Sun" was accompanied by a Saturday - "day off" so as to be the origin for a 2 day weekend. Given that these two decrees are within 35 years of each other - they do not show a "2 day weekend" which was the topic for that post.


Emperor Constantine I Sunday enforcement law of March 7, A.D. 321, reads as follows: “On the venerable Day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed.” (Codex Justinianus 3.12.3, trans. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 5th ed. (New York, 1902), 3:380, note 1.)

The Sunday law was officially confirmed by the Roman Papacy. The Council of Laodicea in A.D. 364 decreed, “Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday but shall work on that day; but the Lord’s day they shall especially honour, and, as being Christians, shall, if possible, do no work on that day. If, however, they are found Judaizing, they shall be shut out from Christ” (Strand, op. cit., citing Charles J. Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church, 2 [Edinburgh, 1876] 316).

 

[BobRyan]

Again, one Christian spanning the years 100 AD to the Reformation. Just one.

I don't know why that game is so fascinating for you as you move the goal posts -- but I will play it "one more time".

So then ... Polycarp

I'm going to take it you don't view anyone before the reformation and after the Apostles as being authentically Christian then.

That game is getting to be tiresome

 

[BobRyan]

Unfortunately the NT term "God's commandments" is too ambiguous and if used to isolate the 10 commandments it is done so outside of scripture as the NT doesn't make this explicit distinction. .

1. I am fine with the term "God's commandments" including more than the TEN certainly Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18 are outside of "just the Ten".

2. the "The Ten" are specifically isolated and referenced in the NT

• Eph 6:1-2 the only unit of Law where the command to honor parents "is the FIRST COMMANDMENT with a promise" - is the TEN.
  
• Heb 9:4 where the two tables of stone are in the ark of the covenant in the most holy place.

 

[Freth]

Law itself can become an idol that gets in the way of worship to God so a specific focus on law does not automatically equate to a focus on God. And if we remain in a counter-God law focus the devil loves the confusion and division it creates. I think the Pharisees demonstrate this clearly enough. What is important is to establish why a particular focus is deemed orthodox another not. Unfortunately the NT term "God's commandments" is too ambiguous and if used to isolate the 10 commandments it is done so outside of scripture as the NT doesn't make this explicit distinction. So there is a problem with terminology because if party A views it as exclusive to specific laws and party B views it as inclusive of the entire law then the two are in disagreement and cannot be reconciled. This creates a demand to use scripture that is more explicit to build your case and if not the argument will remain unreconcilable.

The point I've been trying to make is that God's commandments are also His worship decree (the first four commandments—including the Sabbath). It is central to being a Christian to recognize and abide by the guidelines He set forth for us to worship Him.

It's not about legalism, it's about the urgency of getting it right in these last days, because it will be a worship issue, as per Revelation. If it weren't important, we wouldn't be stressing it so much.

If you break one commandment, you break them all. The saints are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus (Revelation 14:12).

Revelation 14:9
And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,

Revelation 14:11
And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

Revelation 16:2
And the first went, and poured out his vial upon the earth; and there fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and upon them which worshipped his image.

Revelation 19:20
And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

Revelation 20:4
And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

 

[Albion]

Ellen White includes a long section on church history in her book "Great Controversy" extolling a number of reformers including Luther.

read more before resorting to false accusations.

First, point to any false accusations. There aren't any in that post.

 

[BobRyan]

First, point to any false accusations. There aren't any in that post.

ok I expanded my post to show that "affirming Luther" does not include the negative view of him that you appeared to imply for Ellen White, and have removed the statement about "false accusation" for the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Albion]

ok I expanded my post to show that "affirming Luther" does not include the negative view of him that you appeared to imply for Ellen White, and have removed the statement about "false accusation" for the benefit of the doubt.

"Appeared to imply?"

Here's what I wrote:

"Just about everything in historic Christianity that the SDA church rejects is said by her* to have been the creation of the Catholic Church, and anybody else who continues such beliefs and practices must, therefore, just be following along in the RCC's errors, false doctrines, etc.

"Yet, as we know, Luther was a religious conservative who maintained or continued many Catholic teachings that even Lutherans of later generations rejected."

* = The church
.............................................................................................................
I cannot find a thing in those paragraphs that attributes a negative view of Luther to Ellen G. White personally. Her version of history is full of mistakes, but I didn't say she denounced Luther. The fact is, though, that the church itself (and many posts put up here by SDA members) accuses anyone who holds a number of historic doctrines of doing so only because the Catholic Church (allegedly) invented them, and Luther certainly did retain a lot of Catholic teachings not agreed to by the SDA.

 

[DamianWarS]

I am fine with the term "God's commandments" including more than the TEN certainly Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18 are outside of "just the Ten".

What is missing is the rational and motivation behind these laws that have been isolated (why these laws and not others?). It's great that you're "fine" with it but what is the criteria? We can't fruitfully discuss this until we know the criteria used.

the "The Ten" are specifically isolated and referenced in the NT

• Eph 6:1-2 the only unit of Law where the command to honor parents "is the FIRST COMMANDMENT with a promise" - is the TEN

Single commandments are isolated within a context but what is missing is the link between the term "God's commandments" and this list of laws seemingly arbitrary deemed to fit in it (apparently more than 10) without knowing the criteria or a refusal to be transparent regarding it speaks a bias.

Heb 9:4 where the two tables of stone are in the ark of the covenant in the most holy place.

Hebrews 9 opens with "Now the first covenant had..." Then it goes on to list things and items in the first covenant, including the tablets. What rational are you using to use this verse that mentions the tablets as a part of the first covenant and conflate it with the second covenant's use of the term "God's commandments" because to be honest I don't see the connection.

 

[Freth]

"Appeared to imply?"

Here's what I wrote:

"Just about everything in historic Christianity that the SDA church rejects is said by her* to have been the creation of the Catholic Church, and anybody else who continues such beliefs and practices must, therefore, just be following along in the RCC's errors, false doctrines, etc.

"Yet, as we know, Luther was a religious conservative who maintained or continued many Catholic teachings that even Lutherans of later generations rejected."

* = The church
.............................................................................................................

If you read her writings, Ellen puts supreme blame on Satan, not the Catholic church. I can provide quotes if you'd like.

 

[BobRyan]

"Appeared to imply?"

Here's what I wrote:

"Just about everything in historic Christianity that the SDA church rejects is said by her* to have been the creation of the Catholic Church, and anybody else who continues such beliefs and practices must, therefore, just be following along in the RCC's errors, false doctrines, etc.

Yet, as we know, Luther was a religious conservative who maintained or continued many Catholic teachings that even Lutherans of later generations rejected."

I cannot find a thing in those paragraphs that attributes a negative view of Luther to Ellen G. White personally.

I am not complaining about that - my complaint is about this

So how is it that Luther gets named as an example of a person who had a genuine faith in Christ...in view of the Ellen G. White version of church history which the SDA church still agrees with??

Given that her view of church history included this -

But God “left not Himself without witness.” Acts 14:17. Workers were raised up who ably defended the faith once delivered to the saints. History bears record to the fortitude and heroism of these men. Like the apostles, many of them fell at their post, but the building of the temple went steadily forward. The workmen were slain, but the work advanced. The Waldenses, John Wycliffe, Huss and Jerome, Martin Luther and Zwingli, Cranmer, Latimer, and Knox, the Huguenots, John and Charles Wesley, and a host of others brought to the foundation material that will endure throughout eternity. And in later years those who have so nobly endeavored to promote the circulation of God’s word, and those who by their service in heathen lands have prepared the way for the proclamation of the last great message—these also have helped to rear the structure. {AA 598.1}

With his mind stayed upon God, Luther prepared for the struggle before him. He thought upon the plan of his answer, examined passages in his own writings, and drew from the Holy Scriptures suitable proofs to sustain his positions. Then, laying his left hand on the Sacred Volume, which was open before him, he lifted his right hand to heaven and vowed “to remain faithful to the gospel, and freely to confess his faith, even should he seal his testimony with his blood.”—Ibid., b. 7, ch. 8. {GC 157.2}
When he was again ushered into the presence of the Diet, his countenance bore no trace of fear or embarrassment. Calm and peaceful, yet grandly brave and noble, he stood as God’s witness among the great ones of the earth. The imperial officer now demanded his decision as to whether he desired to retract his doctrines. Luther made his answer in a subdued and humble tone, without violence or passion. His demeanor was diffident and respectful; yet he manifested a confidence and joy that surprised the assembly. {GC 158.1}

Her version of history is full of mistakes, but I didn't say she denounced Luther.

I was pointing to the fact that not only did she not "denounce Luther" -- she held him and other reformers up as examples of a godly reformer doing the Lord's work.

The fact is, though, that the church itself (and many posts put up here by SDA members) accuses anyone who holds a number of historic doctrines of doing so only because the Catholic Church invented them, and Luther certainly did retain a lot of Catholic teachings not agreed to by the SDA.

There are SDAs pointing out doctrinal error when it comes up - but that is how it goes in Christian discussion boards. AND there is a lot of distanced-from-fact pejorative summary statements made about SDA views - where no actual fact is needed to support the accusation and I think that between the two of them a false narrative evolves.

But your point is a valid one when you say that the SDA view is that some historic error of the past is "left over" in some protestant groups, because a reform hardly ever uncovers all the problem with a single pass. There are cases of "new error" introduced by this or that denomination as well - but the old errors are hard to let go of if they were not immediately noticed and rejected by the reformer that a given group is following.

 

[BobRyan]

What is missing is the rational and motivation behind these laws that have been isolated (why these laws and not others?). It's great that you're "fine" with it but what is the criteria? We can't fruitfully discuss this until we know the criteria used.

You and I have repeatedly had the conversation where I point out that it is the same one already detailed by the Baptist Confession of Faith (section 19 ) and the Westminster Confession of Faith section 19 as they both admit that the division in law are
moral law -- that defines sin and includes the TEN
civil law - that applies only to the theocracy and ends with the theocracy
ceremonial law - that is based in animal sacrifice and ends at the cross -- where those sacrifices are declared as ended

And I would add -

Health law - where we all know that biology did not change at the cross.

That is why in 1 Cor 7:19 when contrasting circumcision with the "Commandments of God"

 

[DamianWarS]

If you break one commandment, you break them all. The saints are those who keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus (Revelation 14:12).

Modern Sabbath keepers do not keep the Sabbath according to the letter of the law translated into a modern context which would forbid partipation in non essential labour-driven services (like the non essential use of the electrical grid as an example). Instead they elect to keep a version of the Sabbath amended to ensure modern conveniences and comforts are untouched.

Read the 4th commandment yourself, it has as much or more focus on those in our reach keeping the Sabbath as it does yourself. Modern Sabbath keepers hoard the Sabbath and are no different than modern Jews who view everyone on the outside as Gentiles and out of their peripheral concern (which is debilitatingly near sighted) and grossly misses the point of the Sabbath.

 

[Albion]

If you read her writings, Ellen puts supreme blame on Satan, not the Catholic church. I can provide quotes if you'd like.

Supreme blame on him for having acted through the Catholic Church?

Here's something to read that addresses the issue we are dealing with --

Adventist Anti-Catholicism

Catholics may suppose that anti-Catholicism is part of Adventism’s radical fringe. Unfortunately, this is untrue. Adventists who are moderate on Catholicism are a minority. Anti-Catholicism characterizes the denomination because it is embraced in White’s “divinely inspired” writings. A few illustrations help indicate the scope of the problem:

“Babylon the Great, the mother of harlots . . . is further declared to be ‘that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.’ Revelation 17:4–6, 18. The power that for so many centuries maintained despotic sway over the monarchs of Christendom is Rome.” (The Great Controversy, 338).

“It is one of the leading doctrines of Romanism that the pope is the visible head of the universal Church of Christ . . . and has been declared infallible. He demands the homage of all men. The same claim urged by Satan in the wilderness of temptation is still urged by him [Satan] through the Church of Rome, and vast numbers are ready to yield him homage” (ibid., 48).

“Marvelous in her shrewdness and cunning is the Roman Church. She can read what is to be. She bides her time, seeing that the Protestant churches are paying her homage in their acceptance of the false Sabbath. . . . And let it be remembered, it is the boast of Rome that she never changes. The principles of Gregory VII and Innocent III are still the principles of the Roman Catholic Church. And has she but the power, she would put them in practice with as much vigor now as in past centuries” (ibid., 507–8).

“God’s word has given warning of the impending danger; let this be unheeded, and the Protestant world will learn what the purposes of Rome really are, only when it is too late to escape the snare. She is silently growing into power. Her doctrines are exerting their influence in legislative halls, in the churches, and in the hearts of men...

She is piling up her lofty and massive structures, in the secret recesses of which her former persecutions will be repeated. Stealthily and unsuspectedly she is strengthening her forces to further her own ends when the time shall come for her to strike. All that she desires is vantage ground, and this is already being given her. We shall soon see and shall feel what the purpose of the Roman element is. Whoever believe and obey the word of God will thereby incur reproach and persecution” ( ibid., 508–9).

Bear in mind that these quotes are not taken from an obscure work of White’s that nobody ever reads. They are from what is probably her single most popular volume, The Great Controversy.

See Seventh-day Adventism

 

[BobRyan]

2. the "The Ten" are specifically isolated and referenced in the NT

• Eph 6:1-2 the only unit of Law where the command to honor parents "is the FIRST COMMANDMENT with a promise" - is only true of -- the TEN.
  
• Heb 9:4 where the two tables of stone are in the ark of the covenant in the most holy place.

Hebrews 9 opens with "Now the first covenant had..." Then it goes on to list things and items in the first covenant, including the tablets. What rational are you using to use this verse that mentions the tablets as a part of the first covenant and conflate it with the second covenant's use of the term "God's commandments" because to be honest I don't see the connection.

You would see it if you read Jer 31:31-34 where the New Covenant writes the Law of God known to Jeremiah and his readers "on heart and mind" -- and is unchanged in the NT - according to Heb 8:6-12. (As I have mentioned many times in our conversations on this point).

It is the same moral law of God in both covenants that defines what sin is - so then it is sin under the Old Covenant "to take God's name in vain" and also sin to do it under the New Covenant.

As the two Confessions of Faith already pointed out state - the same TEN are written on the heart under the New Covenant.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Modern Sabbath keepers do not keep the Sabbath according to the letter of the law translated into a modern context which would forbid partipation in non essential labour-driven services (like the non essential use of the electrical grid as an example). Instead they elect to keep a version of the Sabbath amended to ensure modern conveniences and comforts are untouched.

Read the 4th commandment yourself, it has as much or more focus on those in our reach keeping the Sabbath as it does yourself. Modern Sabbath keepers hoard the Sabbath and are no different than modern Jews who view everyone on the outside as Gentiles and out of your peripheral concern which grossly misses the point of the Sabbath.

Interesting you would know what Sabbath keepers do, when you admit you do not keep the Sabbath yourself. The SDA church alone has over 20 million members. Unless you're God you would have no idea how over 20 million people who claim to keep God's 4th commandment keep it. That's also something between each Sabbath keeper and God as He is our judge and yours.

 

[BobRyan]

Modern Sabbath keepers do not keep the Sabbath according to the letter of the law

sounds like a by-faith-alone statement hoping for evidence.

Ex 20:8-11 calls for rest
Lev 23:3 calls for holy convocation
Is 58:23 calls for avoiding secular labor.

And so "modern Sabbath keepers DO keep the Sabbath as the Bible defines it"

 

[DamianWarS]

You and I have repeatedly had the conversation where I point out that it is the same one already detailed by the Baptist Confession of Faith (section 19 ) and the Westminster Confession of Faith section 19 as they both admit that the division in law are
moral law -- that defines sin and includes the TEN
civil law - that applies only to the theocracy and ends with the theocracy
ceremonial law - that is based in animal sacrifice and ends at the cross -- where those sacrifices are declared as ended

And I would add -

Health law - where we all know that biology did not change at the cross.

That is why in 1 Cor 7:19 when contrasting circumcision with the "Commandments of God"

So your criteria is the Baptist Confession of Faith and the Westminster Confession of Faith both of which do not keep the Sabbath? I'll be more explict, I was looking for biblical ceritera as to which laws are imported over to the new convenant. (Hint: this is a show your work answer)

 

[BobRyan]

the non essential use of the electrical grid as an example). .

what "non essential use of electrical grid" are you monitoring??