Is the Seventh Day Adventist Church orthodox

[BobRyan]

I already explained that Colossians 2:16-17 includes the weekly sabbath day in posts #315 and #319. .

But it does not because the seventh-day Sabbath unlike the annual Sabbaths of Lev 23 - was not a shadow pointing forward to the saving work of Christ. It's origin was not in shadow animal sacrifices pointing to the sacrifice of Christ.

Rather as Ex 20:11 and Gen 2:1-3 show -- the Sabbath was a memorial of creation given to mankind before sin, before any need to look forward to a coming Savior. It already reflected full fellowship with God in the family of God.

And as noted earlier the fact that leading Bible scholars in all major Christian denominations (not just the 100's of Sabbath keeping ones) already agree to this aspect for why all TEN of the TEN Commandments still remain and are applicable to Christians as well as all mankind. The fact that the non Bible-Sabbath keeping groups in that set of denominations chooses to "edit" the Sabbath commandment and point it to week-day-1 after the cross does not delete the fact that they themselves still claim that all TEN (not just NINE) of the commandments remain for Christians and are included in the LAW of God written on the heart under the New Covenant.

 

[BobRyan]

Martin discussed with officials, and wrote a response to their published "Questions on Doctrines." This was the main tool he used to review the church. Of course, there was some internal discussion regarding some of the framing in Questions on Doctrine as well. Or to put it another way, there is some question whether Questions on Doctrine adequately expressed all the views of Adventism.


Home :: Questions on Doctrine

No other book has aroused so much controversy in the history of the Seventh-day Adventist Church as Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine. Published in 1957 as a direct result of the dialogues between evangelicals Walter Martin and Donald Grey Barnhouse and a select group of Adventist leaders, Questions on Doctrine was hailed initially as the apology par excellence of Adventism by its writers and promoters. However, when the book came out, it created great uproar among Adventists who questioned whether it accurately represented Adventist theology and the writings of Ellen White, in particular.

For Leroy Edwin Froom, one of the authors of Questions on Doctrine, the book "completed the long process of clarification, rectification of misconceptions, and declarations of truth before [the Christian] Church and the world." But M. L. Andreasen, a theologian and author on the sanctuary doctrine, saw the book as "the most subtle and dangerous error" and "a most dangerous heresy."

Andreasen was a well respected Adventist theologian, one of the most popular of the previous generation of Adventists, particularly in the area of the sanctuary doctrine.

Froom is an Adventist historian and theologian.

Barnhouse founded Eternity magazine and hosted a radio call in show. He was a Presbyterian minister and theologian.

Your link from Andrews includes this statement

Hence, historian George Knight has noted that Questions on Doctrine "easily qualifies as the most divisive book in Seventh-day Adventist history," while theologian Herbert Douglass has observed that "most, if not all, of the so-called 'dissident' or 'independent' groups of the last 45 years are direct results of the explicit and implicit positions espoused by [Questions on Doctrine] on the atonement and the Incarnation."

On October 24-27, 2007, 50 years after the publication of Questions on Doctrine, scholars, church leaders, and pastors across the theological spectrum of Adventism, along with guest scholars from the evangelical world, who have given careful study to the theology of Questions on Doctrine and Adventist history of the past half-century, will convene at Andrews University for an engaging, reflective, scholarly dialogue.

As much as I agree with QoD the underlying issue is the question of how 2 people can answer questions in detail as if they were the entire GC Session voting on each point and then holding the entire denomination accountable for each answer. I don't think that expectation is reasonable no matter that QoD is a great example of answers to the questions that they got from Martin.

The problem came from what the link calls "dissident groups" trying to parse QoD and bend it to meet their "agenda" as if they would have license to do that since each statement was voted on by the SDA denomination (which of course it was not that sort of document). The fact that they would take advantage of the text that way - does not argue against QoD in my view. Neither do I take it's authors as being infallible - so no matter if one could have found "an even better way to make the statement" or even if they made a minor misstatement here or there - it is still a good answer.

 

[Danthemailman]

Anecdotal "one person once said to me..." is very different from "such and such denomination has this specific set of beliefs for the entire denomination"

That's by far not the only SDA who demonstrated they teach salvation by grace plus law, faith plus works. Former Adventists share similar information about SDA doctrine on their websites:

Quick Intro to SDA

1. There is no "the nine commandments" statement in all of scripture.
2. There is a reference to the entire unit of TEN in Eph 6:1-2 where we see in that unit of TEN the 5th commandment "is the first commandment with a promise".
3. There is "There remains therefore a Sabbath rest for the people of God" Heb 4
4. There is "every Sabbath" Acts 18:4 Gospel preaching to both gentiles and Jews.
5. There is "to break one is to break them all" in James 2
6. There is "direct quote" from the Sabbath Commandment in both Rev 14:7 and also the book of Acts.
7. There is "All scripture... to be used for doctrine" in 2 Tim 3:16
8. There is Jesus teaching "from all the scriptures" in Luke 24:27
9. There is Commandment of God = Moses said = Word of God in Mark 7:6-13

I already refuted your arguments, but you are still free to believe whatever you want to believe. It's very difficult for certain people to see anything beyond their church indoctrination.

And there is the fact that the command "You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain" is not quoted from at all in 1 Timothy 6:1; James 2:7; James 5:12

Not the "specific" words, yet the same principle is implied. So if God's name is "blasphemed" or you swear by heaven when commanded not to, it's not taking God's name in vain? The answer is obvious.

Even though that Ex 20:7 commandment is still applicable - yet it is never quoted from in all of the NT - which means .... "nothing" at all against keeping it.

There is no command for the body of Christ in the New Testament to keep the sabbath day. Period. But feel free to quote scripture in the New Testament that commands Christians to keep the sabbath day and give the details that go along with it. I'll be waiting. In the meantime. (Colossians 2:16-17)

 

[BobRyan]

Bible instructions on keeping the Sabbath commandment

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

So why is it then that when I ask sabbatarians what keeping the day entails I either get no answer or different answers?

I have not found even one SDA that has said they do not agree with my list above (that I always give) - but everyone has free will I suppose of the 20 million that are out there I might find one.

Keeping the sabbath day under the old covenant of law entailed much more than simply resting from activity. To "keep the sabbath" as it was required under the old covenant of law involved compliance with specific regulations (Exodus 16:23; 35:3; Leviticus 23:32; Jeremiah 17:21) that were strictly enforced.

As even the NON-SDA denominations agree - that affirm all Ten of the TEN commandments and re-point the Sabbath from God's "seventh day" to "week day 1", the civil laws of the theocracy ended when the theocracy ended - and the ceremonial aspects of sacrifices and offerings ended as Hebrews 10 states at the cross.

your statements about why civil punishments are not still applied and why the animal sacrifices and offerings are not still applicable is answered not merely by my SDA response above, but even the "Confessions of Faith" for the Baptists and the Westminster CoF - address that question with the same answer.

 

[Danthemailman]

But it does not because the seventh-day Sabbath unlike the annual Sabbaths of Lev 23 - was not a shadow pointing forward to the saving work of Christ. It's origin was not in shadow animal sacrifices pointing to the sacrifice of Christ.

Rather as Ex 20:11 and Gen 2:1-3 show -- the Sabbath was a memorial of creation given to mankind before sin, before any need to look forward to a coming Savior. It already reflected full fellowship with God in the family of God.

And as noted earlier the fact that leading Bible scholars in all major Christian denominations (not just the 100's of Sabbath keeping ones) already agree to this aspect for why all TEN of the TEN Commandments still remain and are applicable to Christians as well as all mankind. The fact that the non Bible-Sabbath keeping groups in that set of denominations chooses to "edit" the Sabbath commandment and point it to week-day-1 after the cross does not delete the fact that they themselves still claim that all TEN (not just NINE) of the commandments remain for Christians and are included in the LAW of God written on the heart under the New Covenant.

Once again, your arguments have already been refuted. Here is an article that may help shed further light for you on the sabbath.

Sabbatismos Ministries: Finding Our Rest in Christ - Sign of the Mosaic Covenant

 

[BobRyan]

That's by far not the only SDA who demonstrated they teach salvation by grace plus law, faith plus works. Former Adventists share similar information about SDA doctrine on their websites:

1. I don't go to former SDA websites to find out what my denomination states in its doctrinal statements about the Law or Grace or the Sabbath etc. I go to the source.

2. Even Walter Martin in his book about different groups - agreed on this point that it is not legitimate to only take information from detractors when trying to accurately determine the POV, statement of beliefs of any given denomination.

3. You may find something useful in an anti-sda website then come here and "try it out" to see how it holds up to critical review - that is fine. But the argument that no matter how poorly that works out - the anti-sda POV must be right is not compelling. It has to stand or fall on its own weight.

4. The LAW of God is written on the heart under the New Covenant - under "grace" and even the non-Sabbath keeping denominations argue emphatically that the Law of God complies with grace. God is BOTH just AND the justifier of those that have faith in Him - Romans 3:26. As Paul said "Do we then make void the LAW of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we ESTABLISH the Law" Rom 3:31

No wonder Paul could say "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19

 

[Danthemailman]

1. I don't go to former SDA websites to find out what my denomination states in its doctrinal statements about the Law or Grace or the Sabbath etc. I go to the source.

2. Even Walter Martin in his book about different groups - agreed on this point that it is not legitimate to only take information from detractors when trying to accurately determine the POV, statement of beliefs of any given denomination.

3. You may find something useful in an anti-sda website then come here and "try it out" to see how it holds up to critical review - that is fine. But the argument that no matter how poorly that works out - the anti-sda POV must be right is not compelling. It has to stand or fall on its own weight.

4. The LAW of God is written on the heart under the New Covenant - under "grace" and even the non-Sabbath keeping denominations argue emphatically that the Law of God complies with grace. God is BOTH just AND the justifier of those that have faith in Him - Romans 3:26. As Paul said "Do we then make void the LAW of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we ESTABLISH the Law" Rom 3:31

No wonder Paul could say "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19

"Adding a post" noting that you differ is not the same thing as refuting the details in the point made.

These former SDA's on those websites have gone to the source as well, yet both they and SDA's come to different conclusions. Again, your arguments have already been refuted, but you don't seem interested in listening, but are only interested in your next opportunity to speak. I have found that arguing with a throughly indoctrinated SDA is like arguing with a Philadelphia lawyer who must have the last word in any argument and is out to win his case at all costs. Whatever it takes. Your obsession with the law, the 10 commandments (with a heavy emphasis on the 4th commandment) continues to demonstrate to me that SDA's do teach "salvation by grace plus law, faith plus works" even through certain SDA's try to deny it. I hope and pray that you will seriously consider the truth on this matter.

 

[BobRyan]

These former SDA's on those websites have gone to the source as well, .

Well if you find something useful there - post it here and see if it holds water. Who knows they might have a good idea.

 

[BobRyan]

Whatever it takes. Your obsession with the law, the 10 commandments (with a heavy emphasis on the 4th commandment) continues to demonstrate to me that SDA's do teach "salvation by grace plus law, faith plus works" even through certain SDA's try to deny it. I hope and pray that you will seriously consider the truth on this matter.

already addressed with Bible details here - #426 -- which you are simply ignoring. It shows not only the Bible support for my statements but even the sunday keeping denominations affirm my point - and so also Walter Martin on the detail of not using anti-group sources to address what any given group actually teaches.

you have free will of course and can ignore all the details in the posts that you wish.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

These former SDA's on those websites have gone to the source as well, yet both they and SDA's come to different conclusions. Again, your arguments have already been refuted, but you don't seem interested in listening, but are only interested in your next opportunity to speak. I have found that arguing with a throughly indoctrinated SDA is like arguing with a Philadelphia lawyer who must have the last word in any argument and is out to win his case at all costs. Whatever it takes. Your obsession with the law, the 10 commandments (with a heavy emphasis on the 4th commandment) continues to demonstrate to me that SDA's do teach "salvation by grace plus law, faith plus works" even through certain SDA's try to deny it. I hope and pray that you will seriously consider the truth on this matter.

We are saved by grace (His gift) through our faith, the commandments have not been destroyed says our Savior. Mathew 5:17,18.

We are also told this Revelation in 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books.

and

Revelations 22:14 Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.

 

[Freth]

These former SDA's on those websites have gone to the source as well, yet both they and SDA's come to different conclusions. Again, your arguments have already been refuted, but you don't seem interested in listening, but are only interested in your next opportunity to speak. I have found that arguing with a throughly indoctrinated SDA is like arguing with a Philadelphia lawyer who must have the last word in any argument and is out to win his case at all costs. Whatever it takes. Your obsession with the law, the 10 commandments (with a heavy emphasis on the 4th commandment) continues to demonstrate to me that SDA's do teach "salvation by grace plus law, faith plus works" even through certain SDA's try to deny it. I hope and pray that you will seriously consider the truth on this matter.

I'm sorry you think we're indoctrinated. It's an unfortunate misconception.

I left SDA for thirty years and lived in the world, professing to be an agnostic. I could've stayed agnostic. I could've professed any other denomination. I could've gone any number of ways. What brought me back to SDA wasn't my upbringing, it was my thirty year search for truth, my coming to truth (scripture) and my decision to go back to the church that best matched that truth.

That said, let's address this "salvation by grace plus law, faith plus works".

Grace is the gift of God. It's His to give and His to take away; something Christians seem to overlook.

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.​

In the very next verse, it says we were created in Jesus unto good works.

Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.​

Faith without works is dead.

James 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
​

The key distinction here is that works are a product of selflessness (the lack of sinful motive), faith and love for God; i.e. the Christian walk. Good works are not selfish, nor self-serving.

Likewise, obedience is not self-serving, it is out of love for God. We obey the Sabbath, because it is a commandment and because it is a delight.

It would be quite shallow for any Christian to think that obedience guarantees salvation. No, obedience brings forth righteous character and makes us holy; sanctification.

Any ulterior motive, whether it be works or obedience, is just sin. It's important to make that distinction, because I don't know any professed SDA who greedily obeys the commandments because they think it saves them.

No, we're called to something greater. We're called to heaven, to our inheritance. To turn away from sin, the world and look to and love God. To shine our light to the world, through good works. To obey Him, because it is what He wants, our alignment with His will.

 

[Danthemailman]

We are saved by grace (His gift) through our faith, the commandments have not been destroyed says our Savior. Mathew 5:17,18.

We are saved by grace through faith, not works. (Ephesians 2:8,9) Nobody said the commandments have been destroyed, yet the old covenant has been made obsolete by the new covenant. (2 Corinthians 3:6-9; Hebrews 8:13)

We are also told this Revelation in 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books.

The dead will be judged according to their works, yet not to determine whether or not they did enough works to earn salvation. The spiritually dead will receive their just punishment in the lake of fire and some will receive greater condemnation. Matthew 23:14 - Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation. The works of believers works will be tested to determine rewards and loss of rewards at the judgment seat of Christ, yet they are still saved. (1 Corinthians 3:11-15)

and

Revelations 22:14 Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.

"Do His commandments" does not mean that we earn eternal life based on the merits of doing His commandments, but it is evidence that we have been granted eternal life through faith and are born of God. Some translations read, "Blessed are those who wash their robes," which symbolizes those who have been forgiven of their sins through the blood of the Lamb. (Romans 3:24-26) *Also see Revelation 7:14.

Those who by faith that have trusted in Christ as the ALL-sufficient means of their salvation have received the imputed righteousness of God. (Romans 4:4-6; Philippians 3:9) Unbelievers are all in the same boat with those in Revelation 22:15.

Your post seems to further confirm to me that SDA's do teach "salvation by grace plus law, faith plus works."

 

[Danthemailman]

Faith without works is dead.

James 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
​

The key distinction here is that works are a product of selflessness (the lack of sinful motive), faith and love for God; i.e. the Christian walk. Good works are not selfish, nor self-serving.

Likewise, obedience is not self-serving, it is out of love for God. We obey the Sabbath, because it is a commandment and because it is a delight.

In James 2:14, we read of one who says/claims he has faith but has no works (to evidence his claim). That is not genuine faith, but a bare profession of faith. So when James asks, "Can that faith save him?" he is saying nothing against genuine faith, but only against an empty profession of faith/dead faith. *So James does not teach that we are saved "by" works. His concern is to show the reality of the faith professed by the individual (James 2:18) and demonstrate that the faith claimed (James 2:14) by the individual is genuine.

So "faith without works is dead" does not mean that faith is dead until it produces works and then it becomes a living faith or that works are the source of life in faith. That's like saying a tree is dead until it produces fruit and then it becomes a living tree and the fruit is the source of life in the tree. James is simply saying faith that is not accompanied by evidential works demonstrates that it' dead. Again, if someone merely says-claims then have faith but lack resulting evidential works, then they demonstrate that they have an empty profession of faith/dead faith and not authentic faith.

Obedience is not forced or legalistic and is produced/expresses itself out of love for those who are born of God. (Galatians 5:6; 1 John 3:7-10; 1 John 4:7-8) The sabbath is a commandment for the Israelites under the old covenant (Exodus 20:2) but is not a commandment for Christians under the new covenant. (Colossians 2:16-17)

 

[SabbathBlessings]

I'm sorry you think we're indoctrinated. It's an unfortunate misconception.

I left SDA for thirty years and lived in the world, professing to be an agnostic. I could've stayed agnostic. I could've professed any other denomination. I could've gone any number of ways. What brought me back to SDA wasn't my upbringing, it was my thirty year search for truth, my coming to truth (scripture) and my decision to go back to the church that best matched that truth.

That said, let's address this "salvation by grace plus law, faith plus works".

Grace is the gift of God. It's His to give and His to take away; something Christians seem to overlook.

Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.​

In the very next verse, it says we were created in Jesus unto good works.

Ephesians 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.​

Faith without works is dead.

James 2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
​

The key distinction here is that works are a product of selflessness (the lack of sinful motive), faith and love for God; i.e. the Christian walk. Good works are not selfish, nor self-serving.

Likewise, obedience is not self-serving, it is out of love for God. We obey the Sabbath, because it is a commandment and because it is a delight.

It would be quite shallow for any Christian to think that obedience guarantees salvation. No, obedience brings forth righteous character and makes us holy; sanctification.

Any ulterior motive, whether it be works or obedience, is just sin. It's important to make that distinction, because I don't know any professed SDA who greedily obeys the commandments because they think it saves them.

No, we're called to something greater. We're called to heaven, to our inheritance. To turn away from sin, the world and look to and love God. To shine our light to the world, through good works. To obey Him, because it is what He wants, our alignment with His will.

Very well-stated.

 

[BobRyan]

We are saved by grace through faith, not works. (Ephesians 2:8,9)

As addressed here

4. The LAW of God is written on the heart under the New Covenant - under "grace" and even the non-Sabbath keeping denominations argue emphatically that the Law of God complies with grace. God is BOTH just AND the justifier of those that have faith in Him - Romans 3:26. As Paul said "Do we then make void the LAW of God by our faith? God forbid! In fact we ESTABLISH the Law" Rom 3:31

No wonder Paul could say "what matters is KEEPING the Commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19

Nobody said the commandments have been destroyed,

So you did not "downsize them to nine"?

yet the old covenant has been made obsolete by the new covenant. (2 Corinthians 3:6-9; Hebrews 8:13)

The old covenant is "obey and live" according to Gal3 and Romans 3. under that covenant all mankind is lost. It includes the command to no take God's name in vain Ex 20:7

The new covenant Jer 31:31-34 includes the new birth and is the "one" Gospel covenant Gal 1:6-9 under which all mankind is saved that accept the Gospel, that also includes "do not take God's name in vain" and that was "preached to Abraham" Gal 3:8

The dead will be judged according to their works, yet not to determine whether or not they did enough works to earn salvation.

Rom 2:4-16 shows them going to either heaven or hell based on that review of works
Matt 7 - Christ said they go to heaven or hell based on what they did, because what they do "is the FRUIT" that shows if they are born again or not.


"Do His commandments" does not mean that we earn eternal life based on the merits of works - as you point out. The sinner cannot "earn heaven" by not taking God's name in vain.

Really easy concepts but often times bias can keep a person from seeing it.

 

[BobRyan]

In James 2:14, we read of one who says/claims he has faith but has no works (to evidence his claim). That is not genuine faith, but a bare profession of faith.

agreed.

 

[Freth]

In James 2:14, we read of one who says/claims he has faith but has no works (to evidence his claim). That is not genuine faith, but a bare profession of faith. So when James asks, "Can that faith save him?" he is saying nothing against genuine faith, but only against an empty profession of faith/dead faith. *So James does not teach that we are saved "by" works. His concern is to show the reality of the faith professed by the individual (James 2:18) and demonstrate that the faith claimed (James 2:14) by the individual is genuine.

Did you read my post? This is what I said about being saved: "It's important to make that distinction, because I don't know any professed SDA who greedily obeys the commandments because they think it saves them." I had one scriptural quote that mentions being saved: "Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." Are you arguing against scripture?

Only God knows who is saved and who isn't. Other denominations might profess to know who is saved and who isn't and use it as a scare tactic (i.e. "you're going to hell"), but SDA do not. We do, however, stress commandment keeping and Sabbath observance—but so does scripture.

So "faith without works is dead" does not mean that faith is dead until it produces works and then it becomes a living faith or that works are the source of life in faith. That's like saying a tree is dead until it produces fruit and then it becomes a living tree and the fruit is the source of life in the tree. James is simply saying faith that is not accompanied by evidential works demonstrates that it' dead. Again, if someone merely says-claims then have faith but lack resulting evidential works, then they demonstrate that they have an empty profession of faith/dead faith and not authentic faith.

I think that was the point. If someone claims to have faith, but don't, it's dead. If someone actually has faith, works manifest. You're trying to put a square peg in a round hole.

Obedience is not forced or legalistic and is produced/expresses itself out of love for those who are born of God. (Galatians 5:6; 1 John 3:7-10; 1 John 4:7-8) The sabbath is a commandment for the Israelites under the old covenant (Exodus 20:2) but is not a commandment for Christians under the new covenant. (Colossians 2:16-17)

It's not legalistic to obey God, but disobedience is sin and the wages of sin is death. Again, you're trying to say that SDA are legalists for obeying cut and dry, black and white scripture.

And you can't say the Sabbath commandment is for the Israelites, when Jesus said the Sabbath is made for man. You can't say the Sabbath isn't binding when Isaiah prophesied that the Sabbath will be observed in heaven.

 

[Danthemailman]

So you did not "downsize them to nine"?

We are under the new covenant and not the old covenant.

The old covenant is "obey and live" according to Gal3 and Romans 3. under that covenant all mankind is lost. It includes the command to no take God's name in vain Ex 20:7

Who has perfectly obeyed? None. (Romans 3:23)

The new covenant Jer 31:31-34 includes the new birth and is the "one" Gospel covenant Gal 1:6-9 under which all mankind is saved that accept the Gospel, that also includes "do not take God's name in vain" and that was "preached to Abraham" Gal 3:8

Galatians 3:8 - And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, "In you all the nations shall be blessed."

Yet in Galatians 1:11-12, we read - But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ. Today we have the full content of the gospel which includes the death, burial and resurrection of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:1-4) which is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that BELIEVES.. (Romans 1:16) To "believe" the gospel is to trust in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ as the ALL-sufficient means of their salvation.

Rom 2:4-16 shows them going to either heaven or hell based on that review of works

If one reads Romans 2:6-10 in isolation from the rest of the book of Romans, one might conclude that Paul was teaching salvation by works. However, as you study these passages, it is imperative to keep in mind that these verses do not describe how one becomes saved, but the way the saved (and unsaved) conduct their lives. These works done are the result of, not the means or basis of receiving salvation.

So patient continuance in well doing, seeking for glory, honor, and immortality; (vs. 7) is not at all set forth as the means of their procuring eternal life, but as a description of those to whom God does render life eternal. Notice that ALL who receive eternal life are described as such, everyone who does good (vs. 10). Good deeds flow from a heart that is saved and evil deeds flow from a heart that is unsaved. Verse 8 - but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness--indignation and wrath. Notice that ALL who do not receive eternal life are described as such, everyone who does evil (vs. 9).

What those passages convey is that though our deeds are judged by God, it's not the good deeds themselves which are the basis or means of receiving salvation, but the type of deeds expose whether our heart was saved, or not.

Matt 7 - Christ said they go to heaven or hell based on what they did, because what they do "is the FRUIT" that shows if they are born again or not.

In Matthew 7:15-23, we read about false prophets and many people who Jesus never knew, even though they thought they were doing all the right things in their efforts to obtain eternal life.

"Do His commandments" does not mean that we earn eternal life based on the merits of works - as you point out. The sinner cannot "earn heaven" by not taking God's name in vain.

Amen!

Really easy concepts but often times bias can keep a person from seeing it.

Easy, yet people still make it complicated, along with double speak.

 

[Danthemailman]

Did you read my post? This is what I said about being saved: "It's important to make that distinction, because I don't know any professed SDA who greedily obeys the commandments because they think it saves them." I had one scriptural quote that mentions being saved: "Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." Are you arguing against scripture?

Yes I read your post, yet I hear a lot of double speak from SDA's. I don't argue against scripture.

Only God knows who is saved and who isn't. Other denominations might profess to know who is saved and who isn't and use it as a scare tactic (i.e. "you're going to hell"), but SDA do not. We do, however, stress commandment keeping and Sabbath observance—but so does scripture.

You constantly stress commandment keeping (with a heavy emphasis on sabbath observance). BTW to "keep" His commandments means to guard, observe, watch over. We are not flawless.

1 John 5:11 - And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. 12 He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. 13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.

I think that was the point. If someone claims to have faith, but don't, it's dead. If someone actually has faith, works manifest.

Exactly!

It's not legalistic to obey God, but disobedience is sin and the wages of sin is death.

It's not legalistic to obey God for the right purposes and with the right motivation, but it's legalistic otherwise.

Again, you're trying to say that SDA are legalists for obeying cut and dry, black and white scripture.

A legalist promotes works righteousness and does not rightly divide the word of truth, which results from mixing the old covenant with the new covenant.

And you can't say the Sabbath commandment is for the Israelites, when Jesus said the Sabbath is made for man.

The Israelites are of man. The Word of God makes it quite clear that Sabbath observance was a sign between God and Israel: "The Israelites are to observe the Sabbath, celebrating it for the generations to come as a lasting covenant. It will be a sign between me and the Israelites forever, for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested." (Exodus 31:16-17)

Moses gives the reason the Sabbath was given to the nation Israel: "Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the Lord your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the Lord your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day." (Deuteronomy 5:15)

You can't say the Sabbath isn't binding when Isaiah prophesied that the Sabbath will be observed in heaven.

I already covered this in multiple posts.

 

[Freth]

We are under the new covenant and not the old covenant.

Isaiah pointed forward to Jesus magnifying the law, not doing away with it:

Isaiah 42:21 The Lord is well pleased for his righteousness' sake; he will magnify the law, and make it honourable.​

Jesus in Matthew 5, concerning the law.

Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
​

Old Testament and New Testament agree. Heaven and earth haven't passed.

Who has perfectly obeyed? None. (Romans 3:23)

Verse 31, same chapter:

Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.​

You left out the important part.

Matthew 7:20-23 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.​

Fruits = Works

There are good fruits (works) and bad fruits (works).

Romans 7:For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

Colossians 1:10 That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God.
​

You're trying to make a point that "SDA" are wrong, but we're only quoting scripture here. SDA is beside the point.