Is the Seventh Day Adventist Church orthodox

[RBPerry]

Bob is correct in that Ellen and James White initially heard of the Sabbath message through a tract by Joseph Bates, a fellow Millerite. They did not accept it at first, as Bob said.

Bob was also correct when he said that initially some of the adherents received Sabbath teaching from Seventh-day Baptists. In particular, Rachel Oaks brought such teaching to some.

Ellen White was quite influential, and her visions were seen to confirm their doctrinal positions. But the doctrinal positions were generally formed by others.

Another example is the explanation for the disappointment. Hiram Edson was the first to come up with the notion that Jesus in 1844 went from the holy to the Most Holy Place. Crosier, etc.wrote up the view in the Day Dawn paper which then swayed others.

That's interesting and different from what I was taught at MBA in the mid sixties, and yes that was along time ago. I'll do some research on that and admit my error if that is the case. I'm a book junky and still have most of her books, and my old memory needs some refreshing anyways.

 

[RBPerry]

As an example of what you are speaking about so folks don't think you are remembering incorrectly from your earlier years:

Ellen White:

Would the lightning and thunder of Sinai arouse this church? Would they arouse you, fathers and mothers, to commence the work of reformation in your own houses? You should be teaching your children. You should be instructing them how to shun the vices and corruptions of this age. Instead of this, many are studying how to get something good to eat. You place upon your tables butter, eggs, and meat, and your children partake of them. They are fed with the very things that will excite their animal passions, and then you come to meeting and ask God to bless and save your children. How high do your prayers go? You have a work to do first. When you have done all for your children which God has left for you to do then you can with confidence claim the special help that God has promised to give you. {2T 361.2}

Jesus:

Luke 11: 1 If a son asks for bread from any father among you, will he give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent instead of a fish? 12 Or if he asks for an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? 13 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!”

Jesus shows how even earthly fathers, sinful though they be, want to give good gifts to their children. How much more does our Heavenly father want to bestow the gift of the Spirit?

He has no qualms mentioning an egg as an example of a good gift given by earthly fathers to their children. Yet Ellen White says giving eggs to your children is a problem.

Maybe the dietary issues should be a separate thread with no mention of denomination. That I would have a little advantage because I have studied nutrition for way too many years.

 

[tall73]

That's interesting and different from what I was taught at MBA in the mid sixties, and yes that was along time ago. I'll do some research on that and admit my error if that is the case. I'm a book junky and still have most of her books, and my old memory needs some refreshing anyways.

I know what you mean about memory! I am having to apply some dusty memories myself in this conversation!

Here is Ellen White discussing how Bates initially shared the Sabbath with her, and her reluctance.

Testimonies for the Church, vol. 1

In the autumn of 1846 we began to observe the Bible Sabbath, and to teach and defend it. My attention was first called to the Sabbath while I was on a visit to New Bedford, Massachusetts, earlier in the same year. I there became acquainted with Elder Joseph Bates, who had early embraced the advent faith, and was an active laborer in the cause. Elder B. was keeping the Sabbath, and urged its importance. I did not feel its importance, and thought that Elder B. erred in dwelling upon the fourth commandment more than upon the other nine.

She then relates that she was given a vision which indicated to her its importance.

 

[tall73]

That's interesting and different from what I was taught at MBA in the mid sixties, and yes that was along time ago. I'll do some research on that and admit my error if that is the case. I'm a book junky and still have most of her books, and my old memory needs some refreshing anyways.

Here is a quote where Ellen White refers to a vision which verified the position of Crosier. She notes the Day Star extra article. I initially mentioned the Day Dawn, which was a paper he also published, but the Day Star extra was the one that Ellen White referenced as being shown to her as the correct view.

A Word to the Little Flock

I believe the Sanctuary, to be cleansed at the end of the 2300 days, is the New Jerusalem Temple, of which Christ is a minister. The Lord shew me in vision, more than one year ago, that Brother Crosier had the true light, on the cleansing of the Sanctuary, &c; and that it was his will, that Brother C. should write out the view which he gave us in the Day-Star, Extra, February 7, 1846. I feel fully authorized by the Lord, to recommend that Extra, to every saint.


SDA defend hosts a copy of the Day Star Extra if you wish to read it.

www.sdadefend.com/Our Firm Foundation/Crosier-sanctuary.pdf

 

[tall73]

This is from Christian Experience and Teachings. Ellen White relates how she first heard about conditional immortality as a young person, during the Millerite movement, before she had any visions.

Christian Experience and Teachings of Ellen G. White

One day I listened to a conversation between my mother and a sister, in reference to a discourse which they had recently heard, to the effect that the soul had not natural immortality. Some of the minister's proof texts were repeated. Among them I remember these impressed me very forcibly: “The soul that sinneth, it shall die.” Ezekiel 18:4. “The living know that they shall die: but the dead know not anything.” Ecclesiastes 9:5. “Which in His times He shall show, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; who only hath immortality.” 1 Timothy 6:15, 16. “To them who by patient continuance in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life.” Romans 2:7. “Why,” said my mother, after quoting the foregoing passage, “should they seek for what they already have?” I listened to these new ideas with an intense and painful interest. When alone with my mother, I inquired if she really believed that the soul was not immortal. Her reply was, that she feared we had been in error on that subject, as well as upon some others. “But, mother,” said I, “do you really believe that the soul sleeps in the grave until the resurrection? Do you think that the Christian, when he dies, does not go immediately to heaven, nor the sinner to hell?” She answered: “The Bible gives us no proof that there is an eternally burning hell. If there is such a place, it should be mentioned in the Sacred Book.” “Why, mother!” cried I, in astonishment, “this is strange talk for you! If you believe this strange theory, do not let anyone know of it; for I fear that sinners would gather security from this belief, and never desire to seek the Lord.” “If this is sound Bible truth,” she replied, “instead of preventing the salvation of sinners, it will be the means of winning them to Christ. If the love of God will not induce the rebel to yield, the terrors of an eternal hell will not drive him to repentance. Besides, it does not seem a proper way to win souls to Jesus by appealing to one of the lowest attributes of the mind,—abject fear. The love of Jesus attracts; it will subdue the hardest heart.” It was some months after this conversation before I heard anything further concerning this doctrine; but during this time my mind had been much exercised upon the subject. When I heard it preached, I believed it to be the truth. From the time that light in regard to the sleep of the dead dawned upon my mind, the mystery that had enshrouded the resurrection vanished, and the great event itself assumed a new and sublime importance. My mind had often been disturbed by its efforts to reconcile the immediate reward or punishment of the dead with the undoubted fact of a future resurrection and judgment. If at death the soul entered upon eternal happiness or misery, where was the need of a resurrection of the poor moldering body? But this new and beautiful faith taught me the reason why inspired writers had dwelt so much upon the resurrection of the body; it was because the entire being was slumbering in the grave. I could now clearly perceive the fallacy of our former position on this question.

 

[tall73]

Maybe the dietary issues should be a separate thread with no mention of denomination. That I would have a little advantage because I have studied nutrition for way too many years.

That would be fine. I don't have a particular burden for the topic in any case. However, as it relates to formation of doctrine, and the role visions played, this article from the White Estate shows development as it related to unclean foods. I mentioned that arguably this is the doctrine that most came from the visions. However, even that is only partly true. Some were urging abstaining from pork and such earlier than her vision in 1863. At first Ellen and James did not agree with the position against eating pork. The vision did obviously influence Ellen White. However, the position was already being urged by others before then.

Beyond that it took some time to develop a more thorough view of the overall situation on unclean meats, and especially discussion of the Levitical law as it relates to the topic.

You can read a summary of the development of such views here:

Ellen G. White® Estate: Clean and Unclean Meats

 

[Danthemailman]

1. Paul says it is the TEN in Eph 6:1-2 where we find it is that unit of Law where "honor your father and mother" is the first commandment with a promise.

Paul said nothing here about the 4th commandment. Paul simply said - Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. "Honor your father and mother," which is the first commandment with promise: Paul never once commands Christians to keep the sabbath day under the new covenant.

. Christ quotes from the TEN in Matt 19 when saying that we are to "keep the Commandments" and then is asked "which ones?"

Jesus quotes from the 10, but He doesn't mention the 4th commandment here. Instead, Jesus said, ‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not bear false witness,’ 19 ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ Even if all 10 were still in force here under the old covenant it's because Jesus had not yet died and the new covenant had not yet been ratified. (Matthew 26:28; Hebrews 9:16)

Jesus showed the rich young ruler how short he falls of keeping the first commandment (Exodus 20:3) which is the first of the two great commandments (Deuteronomy 6:5; Matthew 22:37). The rich young ruler confidently and (self righteously) declared that he has kept the commandments from his youth up and qualified for heaven under those terms. That sounds familiar. Yet Jesus knew the man's wealth had become his idolatrous god, which kept him from believing in Jesus unto salvation. (John 3:15,16,18)

3. leading scholarship in all major Christian denominations today affirm that the TEN are included in the moral law of God written on the heart under the New Covenant - because of texts such as the ones just given.

Those texts do not confirm your argument no matter how many scholars you say agree with that. NOWHERE under the new covenant are Christians commanded to keep the sabbath day holy. Period.

When stating that the Bible Sabbath of the Ten Commandments is part of the moral law of God and is applicable to all mankind I am stating a Bible detail so obvious that all major Christian denominations agree - the TEN are part of the moral law of God written on the heart (see the "Baptist Confession of Faith" sectn 19 and the "Westminster Confession of Faith" section 19 and the Catholic Catechism on the TEN Commandments... etc)

Hmm... Apparently not all Baptists agree with your argument on the sabbath.

Sabbath or Sunday?
Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2

Christians are not required to observe the Sabbath, but could we explain why to Sabbath-keepers? I want to share 11 reasons why we gather for worship in Sunday, the first day of the week, the Lord’s Day.

1. The Saturday Sabbath was given to Israel.
It was a sign of the Mosaic Covenant [Ex. 31:15-17], “Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord; whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath Day, he shall be put to death. The children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign between me and the children of Israel forever: for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day He rested, and was refreshed.” The Hebrew word means “to cease,” the cessation of work because God rested after the creation and a reminder of deliverance from Egypt. Christians are under the New Covenant and are not required to observe the Sabbath. “Who hath made us able ministers of the New Covenant,” 2 Cor. 3:6.

2. There is no commandment in the New Testament for Christians to observe the Sabbath. [Ex. 20:8-11]
The 4th commandment is not mentioned in the New Testament. Why? It was for Israel. Col. 2:16, “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [substance] is of Christ.” The shadow is no longer binding on us since the substance has come [Jesus].

3. The O.T. neither commanded the Gentile nations to observe the Sabbath nor condemns them for failing to do so.
This is proof the Sabbath was given to Israel.

4. There is no record in the Bible of anyone observing the Sabbath before the time of Moses.
5. The Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 did not impose Sabbath-keeping on the Gentile believers.
The issue was being circumcised to be saved. There ruling was in Acts 15:24, “Some trouble you by saying you must be circumcised and keep the Law: to whom we gave no such command.”

6. The New Testament warns Gentile believers about many sins, but never about breaking the Sabbath.
7. Paul rebukes the Galatians for thinking that God expected them to observe special days, such as the Sabbath.
Gal. 4:10-11, “You observe days, and months, and seasons, and years. I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain.”

8. To observe the Sabbath was to be a matter of personal preference until they understood their Christian liberty.
Romans 14:5, “One man esteems one day above another: another esteems every day alike. Let every man be fully convinced in his own mind.” The weaker brother is to grow in his Christian liberty.

9. The book of Acts and the writings of early church fathers make it clear that the early church met for worship on Sunday.
Why no rebuke from the Lord?

10. Christ’s resurrection and His post-resurrection appearances were on Sunday and the Holy Spirit came on Sunday.

11. The Sabbath commemorates the Father’s finished work of creation, while the Lord’s Day commemorates Christ’s finished work of redemption, the “new creation.”
God worked for six days and rested, the Son suffered six hours and rested. Jesus fulfilled the Sabbath and we cease from works and rest in Him.

Sabbath or Sunday?

In regards to the Westminister Confession of faith, like Baptists, not all other Protestants are on the same page with you, so using your argument does not settle the issue.

It doesn't sound to me like Catholics are on the same page with you either.

From the catholic.com website - Some religious organizations (Seventh-day Adventists, Seventh-Day Baptists, and certain others) claim that Christians must not worship on Sunday but on Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath. They claim that, at some unnamed time after the apostolic age, the Church “changed” the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday.

However, passages of Scripture such as Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 16:2, Colossians 2:16-17, and Revelation 1:10 indicate that, even during New Testament times, the Sabbath is no longer binding and that Christians are to worship on the Lord’s day, Sunday, instead.

The early Church Fathers compared the observance of the Sabbath to the observance of the rite of circumcision, and from that they demonstrated that if the apostles abolished circumcision (Gal. 5:1-6), so also the observance of the Sabbath must have been abolished.

What the Early Church Believed: Sabbath or Sunday?

I have two customers on my mail route (one is a SDA and and the other is an Armstrongite (attends the Worldwide Church of God) and they both told me that I need to tell my employer that I can't work on Saturday because it's the sabbath day and they both implied that if I continue to work on Saturday I won't be saved for breaking one of God's 10 commandments. Do you agree with them? This is the type of legalism that results from turning keeping the sabbath day into a legalist prescription for Christians under the new covenant.

Those who insist that sabbath keeping is a command for Christians today can't even decide on what all that entails. I understand what it entailed under the old covenant, which has been made obsolete by the new covenant. (Hebrews 8:6-13) Sabbath keeping with all it's rules and regulations, was part of a covenant with Israel (Exodus 16:23, 29; 31:12-18; 35:1-3; Leviticus 19:30; 23:2-3, 32; Numbers 15:32-36; 28:1-10; 29:39-40; I Chronicles. 23:30-31; II Chronicles 31:2-4; Isaiah 1:13; Amos 8:5; Nehemiah 10:31) that is not binding on Christians under the new covenant. (Colossians 2:16-17)

 

[BobRyan]

What commandments is Paul referring to in the New Testament here under the new covenant? You think it’s the 10 commandments with all the rules, regulations and death penalties still attached under the law of Moses?

1. Paul says it is the TEN in Eph 6:1-2 where we find it is that unit of Law where "honor your father and mother" is the first commandment with a promise.

2. Christ quotes from the TEN in Matt 19 when saying that we are to "keep the Commandments" and then is asked "which ones?"

3. leading scholarship in all major Christian denominations today affirm that the TEN are included in the moral law of God written on the heart under the New Covenant - because of texts such as the ones just given.​

Paul said nothing here about the 4th commandment.

And never mentions the 3rd commandment , and never mentions "Love God with all your heart".

But he did provide that Eph 6:1-2 reference to the entire unit of TEN - where "the first commandment with a promise" is the 5th commandment.

Paul simply said - Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. "Honor your father and mother," which is the first commandment with promise: Paul never once commands Christians to keep the sabbath day under the new covenant.

Jesus quotes from the 10, but He doesn't mention the 4th commandment here. (In Matt 19)

And did not mention "do not take God's name in vain" there either. In fact he did not mention the first four commandments at all in Matt 19, nor did he mention "Love God with all your heart" in Matt 19.

Even if all 10 were still in force here under the old covenant it's because Jesus had not yet died and the new covenant had not yet been ratified. (Matthew 26:28; Hebrews 9:16)

The exact same list is given by Paul in Rom 13.

No wonder then that leading scholarship in almost every Christian denomination on planet Earth agrees that all TEN of the TEN Commandments are written on the heart under the NEW Covenant of Jer 31:31-34 and apply to all mankind -- so that would include this list:

The Baptist Confession of Faith,
the Westminster Confession of Faith ,
D.L. Moody,
R.C Sproul,
Matthew Henry,
Thomas Watson
Eastern Orthodox Catechism
The Catholic Catechism

Those texts do not confirm your argument no matter how many scholars you say agree with that.

You have free will and can ignore all the detail and "go it alone" just as you wish. My point that they all argue for "all TEN" as included in the New Covenant and applicable to all mankind - is irrefutable.

 

[BobRyan]

. NOWHERE under the new covenant are Christians commanded to keep the sabbath day holy. Period.

NEW Covenant:

Jer 31:31-34
31 “Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers on the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them,” declares the Lord. 33 “For this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord: “I will put My law within them and write it on their heart; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 They will not teach again, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the Lord, “for I will forgive their wrongdoing, and their sin I will no longer remember.”

All Bible scholars agree with the exegetically correct statement that Jeremiah and his readers understood the LAW of God to include the TEN commands of Sinai spoken directly by God Himself.

This is irrefutable.

So while Jer 31 does not single out "do not take God's name in vain" -- yet that command is still being affirmed in Jer 31.

This too - is irrefutable.

Is 66:23 says that for all eternity after the cross in the New Earth "from Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to worship" - and Paul knew it.

This too - is irrefutable.

Acts 18:4 says that Paul engaged in gospel preaching "Every Sabbath" to BOTH gentiles AND Jews in the synagogue - so that means that even believers were in attendance since it was "Every Sabbath" and many were accepting his gospel message.

there is "no" every week-day-1 gospel preaching mentioned in the entire Bible.

This too - is irrefutable.

And it is not just SDAs that notice this Bible detail

Hence in Heb 4 "There REMAINS therefore a Sabbath rest for the people of God"

"the saint keep the Commandments of God AND their faith in Jesus" Rev 14:12

As Paul said "what matters is keeping the Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19 where "the first commandment with a promise" Eph 6:1-2 in the moral law of God included in "the Commandments of God" - is the 5th commandment.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
When stating that the Bible Sabbath of the Ten Commandments is part of the moral law of God and is applicable to all mankind I am stating a Bible detail so obvious that all major Christian denominations agree - the TEN are part of the moral law of God written on the heart (see the "Baptist Confession of Faith" sectn 19 and the "Westminster Confession of Faith" section 19 and the Catholic Catechism on the TEN Commandments... etc)

Hmm... Apparently not all Baptists agree with your argument on the sabbath.

And then you proceed to provide some quotes that do NOT show that the Baptist Confession of Faith objects to "The TEN" or that D.L.Moody (also in my list) objected to "the TEN" or that C.H. Spurgeon objected to "The TEN". (all of them in my list")

How "instructive"

======================================
The Baptist Confession of Faith - Section 19 (As refined by C.H. Spurgeon - that maps well to the "Westminster Confession of Faith" sectn 19)


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.

 

[BobRyan]

It doesn't sound to me like Catholics are on the same page with you either.

From the catholic.com website - Some religious organizations (Seventh-day Adventists, Seventh-Day Baptists, and certain others) claim that Christians must not worship on Sunday but on Saturday,

My specific claim was that the RCC affirms the TEN as included in the moral law of God written on the heart under the New Covenant - you do not provide a Catholic Website denying that specific point


So here is the Catechism:

2068 The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians and that the justified man is still bound to keep them;28 The Second Vatican Council confirms: "The bishops, successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord . . . the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments."


“The Faith Explained: by Leo Trese -- The Catholic commentary on the Baltimore catechism post Vatican II


( "The Faith Explained" - page 242-243.)
"we know that in the Old Testament it was the seventh day of the week - the Sabbath day - which was observed as the Lord’s Day. That was the law as God gave it...'remember to keep holy the Sabbath day..the early Christian church determined as the Lord’s Day the first day of the week. That the church had the right to make such a law is evident...the reason for changing the Lord’s Day from Saturday to Sunday lies in the fact that to the Christian church the first day of the week had been made double holy...nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord’s Day from Saturday to Sunday..that is why we find so illogical the attitude of many non-catholic who say they will believe nothing unless they can find it in the bible and yet will continue to keep Sunday as the Lord’s Day on the say-so of the catholic church.


The Faith Explained (Page 242)

changing the Lord's day to Sunday was in the power of the church since "in the gospels ..Jesus confers upon his church the power to make laws in his name".



"The Faith Explained" (page 243.)

"we know that in the O.T. it was the seventh day of the week - the Sabbath day - which was observed as the Lord's day. that was the law as God gave it...'remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.. the early Christian church determined as the Lord's day the first day of the week. That the church had the right to make such a law is evident...


"The reason for changing the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday lies in the fact that to the Christian church the first day of the week had been made double holy..."


"nothing is said in the bible about the change of the Lord's day from Saturday to Sunday..that is why we find so illogical the attitude of many non-Catholic who say they will believe nothing unless they can find it in the bible and yet will continue to keep Sunday as the Lord's day on the say-so of the Catholic church"

=====================
But in my quote you are referencing I simply point out that they claim to affirm all TEN of the TEN Commandments


==== quote parenthesis mine

Dies Domini pt 11

"the rest of the Sabbath..discloses something of the nuptial shape of the relationship which God wants to establish with the creature made in his image, by calling that creature to enter a pact of love". Pt 15 "unlike many other precepts it (the Sabbath) is set not within the context of strictly cultic (Jewish) stipulations but within the Decalogue, the "ten words" which represent the very pillars of moral life inscribed on the human heart".


Dies Domini pt 13 -
"the Sabbath ...is therefore rooted in the depths of God's plan. This is why unlike many other laws - it is not within the context of strictly cultic (Jewish) stipulations but within the Decalogue the "ten words" which represent the very pillars of moral life inscribed on the human heart!! In setting this commandment within the context of the basic structure of ethics, Israel and then the church declare that they consider it not just a matter of community religious discipline but a defining and indelible expression of our relationship to God, announced and expounded by biblical revelations.

end quote

 

[BobRyan]

I have two customers on my mail route (one is a SDA and and the other is an Armstrongite (attends the Worldwide Church of God) and they both told me that I need to tell my employer that I can't work on Saturday

Why would an SDA tell you that a non-SDA can't work on Sabbath? Anyway not doubting that you found one... just curious.

And .. sorry but I missed this question in your post -- am updating this reply

Do you agree with them?

No I never tell non-Sabbath keeping Christians that they need to tell their employer that they can't work on Sabbath... as my question shows above - I don't understand the logic in doing that.

 

[BobRyan]

Those who insist that sabbath keeping is a command for Christians today can't even decide on what all that entails.

also not true.

Ex 20:8-11 rest
Lev 23:3 Holy Convocation -- see also Is 66:23
Is 58:13 refrain from all secular activity

 

[BobRyan]

I know what you mean about memory! I am having to apply some dusty memories myself in this conversation!

Here is Ellen White discussing how Bates initially shared the Sabbath with her, and her reluctance.

Testimonies for the Church, vol. 1

In the autumn of 1846 we began to observe the Bible Sabbath, and to teach and defend it. My attention was first called to the Sabbath while I was on a visit to New Bedford, Massachusetts, earlier in the same year. I there became acquainted with Elder Joseph Bates, who had early embraced the advent faith, and was an active laborer in the cause. Elder B. was keeping the Sabbath, and urged its importance. I did not feel its importance, and thought that Elder B. erred in dwelling upon the fourth commandment more than upon the other nine.

She then relates that she was given a vision which indicated to her its importance.

No doubt Ellen White had visions that "corrected her own doctrinal view" and often those visions included the Bible texts that make the point. But she never presented this to the SDA church as a basis for church doctrine (as you already noted). It was usually in the form of SDAs bringing the topic up with her from the Bible - then she objected - then she had a vision showing that her objection was not correct (which you have also documented here - and thanks for posting that)

 

[The Liturgist]

But @BobRyan with all due respect, all of that is irrelevant, because Annhilationism is considered unorthodox on CF.com and can only be discussed in Controversial Christian Theology. I think its obvious that denominations which adhere to doctrines which can only be discussed in CCT are in a suboptimal situation.

 

[RBPerry]

I know what you mean about memory! I am having to apply some dusty memories myself in this conversation!

Here is Ellen White discussing how Bates initially shared the Sabbath with her, and her reluctance.

Testimonies for the Church, vol. 1

In the autumn of 1846 we began to observe the Bible Sabbath, and to teach and defend it. My attention was first called to the Sabbath while I was on a visit to New Bedford, Massachusetts, earlier in the same year. I there became acquainted with Elder Joseph Bates, who had early embraced the advent faith, and was an active laborer in the cause. Elder B. was keeping the Sabbath, and urged its importance. I did not feel its importance, and thought that Elder B. erred in dwelling upon the fourth commandment more than upon the other nine.

She then relates that she was given a vision which indicated to her its importance.

I remember that now, however that was well before the official establishment of the SDA denomination. She fully embraced the Saturday sabbath in some of her later writings.

 

[tall73]

I remember that now, however that was well before the official establishment of the SDA denomination. She fully embraced the Saturday sabbath in some of her later writings.

Oh very much so. The point Bob was making was that she was not the source of their teachings. Others presented them (as well as a great number of other views), and in vision she would confirm them.

If you continue to read the same source she said that there was so much disagreement among the millerite hold-overs who held the Sabbath teaching at that time, and who they were meeting with, that they were ineffective at spreading the message. They didn't agree on much. But over time those who became the Seventh-day Adventist church coalesced around a few shared views. They were former Millerites who held to the view that the Millerite movement was proclaiming the first two angel's messages. They still held that something happened in 1844, and they accepted the Sabbath. They came to see the sabbath message as the fulfillment of the third angel's message.

Here is an article that spells out the major events in the Sabbath doctrine acceptance. This is from Ministry magazine. It is published for Adventist clergy, but also has alternating issues for non-Adventist clergy.

Prophetic Guidance in Early Days

The founding of the church formally is also related to what Bob said about them rejecting creeds. Because they saw it as a movement they rejected for some time the formalizing of a denomination. And they wanted only the Bible as their creed. Over time they decided to formalize in order to be more effective, be able to own property, make an ordination system, etc. as many churches wind up doing.

Even today there is discussion among delegates to the GC sessions that they don't want the 28 to be used as a creed. Though personally I think that ship has sailed, as it is functionally a creed at this time.

 

[Albion]

Oh very much so. The point Bob was making was that she was not the source of their teachings. Others presented them (as well as a great number of other views), and in vision she would confirm them.

...which amounts to approximately the same thing, doesn't it? I mean, it's a difference, technically speaking, but that's about all. In addition, Bob was careful to speak of her revelations as they concerned church doctrine. There is much more that characterizes a belief system and yet isn't doctrine, strictly speaking.

 

[tall73]

...which amounts to approximately the same thing, doesn't it? I mean, it's a difference, technically speaking, but that's about all.

Yes and no. Partly because a number of them did not accept Ellen White's visions at the time either! That also came about over time.

However, it was only retrospectively that it was used as more of a convincing argument within the larger church.

Without reading a lot of their writings it is hard to understand the situation for those who were part of the Millerite movement in that time. There were a lot who just came to the conclusion they were wrong. There were some who were convinced by their experience there was more to it (Ellen White, etc.)

The group of those who thought there was something to it had little else in common. Because the Millerite movement involved a number of denominations, and some were kicked out of their denominations, there was a huge number of teachings on all kinds of subjects. And many were looking for a new group to worship with and share these beliefs. Eventually those who came to similar views wound up gathering together, not just in what would become the Seventh-day Adventist church, but also in other groups. Much of this was driven by published tracts. Due to technological advancement these were now being cranked out by a number of individuals. The Millerite movement had been driven by these papers that were sent around. And now those who wanted to continue some meaning for the Millerites used the same methods.

If you read the papers (I linked to Crosiers for instance) there were many spelling out views that the others then weighed where ever they received the papers throughout the country.

So while we think of a group getting together and forming, it was in many cases individuals or small pockets of individuals with a shared past experience in Miller's movement that were still following the written thoughts of those trying to explain the experience.

The larger impact was later once her visions were accepted by the majority in the church. Because then the visions cemented Scriptural interpretations. And in this regard I mentioned that few will disagree with her scriptural interpretation. So whether they claim to put her on par with Scripture, and she claimed you shouldn't, in reality they do. And it is hard to avoid the problem. If she is inspired, then she comments on Scripture, is that interpretation not to be inspired? By their logic it would be.

And it is this aspect that also leads some Adventists to react poorly to people leaving the faith. They see it as a rejection of inspired messages.

But at first their were actually multiple people in the movement claiming visions, and folks were fairly skeptical.

 

[tall73]

In addition, Bob was careful to speak of her revelations as they concerned church doctrine. There is much more that characterizes a belief system and yet isn't doctrine, strictly speaking.

She certainly wrote on a large number of topics. To give an idea of the scale here is a stack of her published writings. And yes, they extend beyond what most denominations would consider doctrine. This does not include all of her writings, as some were not initially published. They have later put out various manuscript releases from her estate. And some of the writings still have not been published. The estate estimates around 100k total pages.

They include specific testimonies to individuals which she definitely claimed God inspired and the person should obey.

Bob will admit to that as well, as he already indicated she is a prophet.