Is the Seventh Day Adventist Church orthodox

Danthemailman said:

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?

Click to expand...

BobRyan said:

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

Click to expand...

Bob didn't exactly answer the question asked, but rather asked you to speculate on the mindset of the person asking.

It may be that forum rules make it difficult for Bob to answer your question directly. However, we can look at Ellen White's answer on the general issue, and Bob already said he considers her a prophet. So that carries more weight in outlining the Adventist view than Bob.

Satan is the sharpest critic that the world has ever known, and he works to hinder and pervert truth. He has induced men to strive to change the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. Under his dictation the first day of the week has been adopted by the Christian world as the Sabbath. He has used his masterly mind to influence other men to adopt the same views that he himself entertains. But if we turn aside from the fourth commandment, so positively given by God, to adopt the inventions of Satan, voiced and acted by men under his control, we cannot be saved. We cannot with safety receive his traditions and subtleties as truth. {RH, July 6, 1897 par. 4}

He designed that man should worship him upon that day, and engage in no secular pursuits. No one who disregards the fourth commandment, after becoming enlightened in regard to the claims of the Sabbath, can be held guiltless in the sight of God. {RH, July 6, 1897 par. 14}

Here the discourse was broken in upon by questions from one who had kept the Sabbath a short time, but who had recently given it up. Rising in the congregation, he said, "This Sabbath question has been a great trouble to me during the last year, and now I would like to ask a question: Is the observance of the Sabbath necessary to my salvation? Answer, yes or no." I answered promptly, This is an important question, and demands something more full than yes or no. All will be judged according to the light that has shone upon them. If they have light upon the Sabbath, they cannot be saved in rejecting that light. But none will be held accountable for light which they have never received. {HS 234.3}

The Liturgist said:

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.

Click to expand...

I think Bob acknowledges a number of teachings would be considered heterodox. Here is a discussion of some of the issues regarding orthodoxy, whether Adventists are a cult, etc. from Christianity today.

In Kingdom of the Cults Walter Martin, who examined cults rather extensively, did not find that Adventists were a cult. On the other hand towards the end of his life he started to question some of the practices of the denomination again. You can find Youtube videos where he debates some of the points.

The Recent Truth about Seventh-Day Adventism

Thirty years ago, cult expert Walter R. Martin published The Truth About Seventh-day Adventism, offering the controversial opinion that Adventists were not a cult, but an essentially orthodox Christian body with a few unusual teachings that could not be adequately supported from the Bible.


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.

RBPerry said:

How to raise our children, that's a good one because she didn't raise hers, she ran around the country preaching.

Click to expand...

I suppose she learned from her mistakes:

Some statements from her letters while traveling:

Green Spring, Ohio, March 2, 1858 [letter to Henry and Edson]

When you do wrong don't conceal your wrong, but heartily and honestly confess it. This I believe you will do. I have confidence in you that you have tried to do it. Continue to do so, and we shall love you better than if you kept your wrongs concealed. God loves honest-hearted, truthful children, but cannot love those who are dishonest. Be obedient, dear children. God has been very merciful to you and to us. . . . {AY 42.2}


Iowa City, Iowa, March 14, 1860.

My Dear Willie: We have not forgotten you, my dear boy. When we see other little children around, we long to get our little Willie in our arms again, and press his little soft cheek, and receive his kiss. In about five weeks we shall be at home again, and then, Willie, we will work in the garden, and tend the flowers and plant the seeds. You must be a good, sweet, little boy, and love to obey Jenny and Lucinda. Give up your will, and when you wish to do anything very much, inquire, Is it not selfish? You must learn to yield your will and your way. It will be a hard lesson for my little boy to learn, but it will in the end be worth more to him than gold. Learn, my dear Willie, to be patient, to wait others' time and convenience; then you will not get impatient and irritable. The Lord loves those little children who try to do right, and he has promised that they shall be in his kingdom. But wicked children God does not love. He will not take them to the beautiful City, for he only admits the good, obedient, and patient children there. One fretful, disobedient child, would spoil all the harmony of heaven. When you feel tempted to speak impatient and fretful, remember the Lord sees you, and will not love you if you do wrong. When you do right and overcome wrong feelings, the Lord smiles upon you. {AY 61.3}

Although he is in heaven, and you cannot see him, yet he loves you when you do right, and writes it down his book; and when you do wrong, he puts a black mark against you. Now, dear Willie, try to do right always, and then no black mark will be set down against you; and when Jesus comes he will call for that good boy Willie White, and will put upon your head a wreath of gold, and put in your hand a little harp that you can play upon, and it will send forth beautiful music, and you will never be sick, never be tempted then to do wrong; but will be happy always, and will eat of rich fruit, and will pluck beautiful flowers. Try, try, dear boy, to be good. {AY 63.1}

Your affectionate Mother. {AY 63.2}

Her later teaching:


Jesus would have the fathers and mothers teach their children of this beauty of character. He would have them teach their children that God loves them, that their natures may be changed, and brought into harmony with God. Do not teach your children that God does not love them when they do wrong; teach them that He loves them so that it grieves His tender Spirit to see them in transgression, because He knows they are doing injury to their souls. Do not terrify your children by telling them of the wrath of God, but rather seek to impress them with His unspeakable love and goodness, and thus let the glory of the Lord be revealed before them. ("Ye Are Complete in Him," Part 2, Abstract of a sermon at Melbourne, Australia, December 19, 1891,

tall73 said:

Bob didn't exactly answer the question asked, but rather asked you to speculate on the mindset of the person asking.

It may be that forum rules make it difficult for Bob to answer your question directly.

Click to expand...

Actually I missed that question entirely - I have updated the post to say this.


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

Danthemailman said:

Do you agree with them?

Click to expand...

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.

============== end of edited answer

But one thing I do that is consistent - I don't answer questions like that - that are non-Ellen White questions, with an Ellen-White answer

The Liturgist said:

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.

Click to expand...

1. Your comment about annhilatonism is in response to what post by me??

2. I never claimed that all other denominations on CF - are also SDA

SDAs typically don't refer to "annihilatitonism" rather we just say we believe Matt 10:28 is factual.

28 And do not be afraid of those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Or we talk about all the Bible texts that refer to "immortal soul"

tall73 said: ↑
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.

Click to expand...

Albion said:

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

Click to expand...

That's like saying "if we ignore all the details and that my claim is technically not correct -- isn't it correct anyway?"... I don't understand that logic.

Sola Scriptura method of testing/accepting doctrine - making the case to non-Christians and also Christians of other denominations when they look into SDA doctrine and the matter of joining or not joining the SDA church -- would be entirely different - if like the Mormons - our study format was simply "here read what God told Ellen White and if there is a burning in your bosom that this is of God - then join".

It is pretty easy to read the free online bible studies that everyone gets in that situation and "see for yourself" if they are a set of "because Ellen White said so" studies or if they are "look at these Bible texts then decide for yourself if this doctrine fits the Bible".

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.

Click to expand...

True. And I would never claim that once someone concludes that a certain person is getting messages from God - that God then is limited to merely paraphrasing the doctrines already held to. I am always focused on doctrine in the step-1.

Anything else also has to be compared to scripture to be sure it is not in violation - but to take an example -- Agabus warns Paul that if he goes to Jerusalem he will be put in jail. Well there is no OT text telling Ababus that Paul will be put in Jail when he gets to Jerusalem. And also there were people in Jerusalem that were not in jail and that were Christians at that very time.

tall73 said:

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.



View attachment 296456

Click to expand...

True - I do agree with that. Those other writings not only extend beyond what other denominations included in their doctrine - but they also extend beyond what SDAs have listed in our own set of 28 doctrinal statements.

John makes the case that if everything Jesus said had been written down the world would not be big enough to hold it all.

John 21: 25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did, which, if they were written in detail, I expect that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written.

The Bible itself is not an exhaustive account of everything God said, or everything Jesus did or said while on Earth and while teaching His disciples.

BobRyan said:

But one thing I do that is consistent - I don't answer questions like that - that are non-Ellen White questions, with an Ellen-White answer

Click to expand...

I am quite sure you avoid answering things with Ellen White! But then you also said you think she is a prophet.

I post Ellen White to show Adventist teaching.

BobRyan said:

That's like saying "if we ignore all the details and that my claim is technically not correct -- isn't it correct anyway?"... I don't understand that logic.

Click to expand...

The Bible exists. We all know what it is. But if it takes Ellen G. White or Emanuel Swedenborg or some Mormon leader to tell us that his or her vision or prophesy, etc. has revealed the meaning of some part of the Bible...and then we affirm it as so...that is no different, really, from just believing anything out of the mouth of that leader who says it came from God.

Sola Scriptura method of presenting doctrine

Click to expand...

Sola Scriptura doesn't presume any particular presentation.

tall73 said: ↑
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.

Click to expand...

Albion said:

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

Click to expand...

BobRyan said:

That's like saying "if we ignore all the details and that my claim is technically not correct -- isn't it correct anyway?"... I don't understand that logic.

Sola Scriptura method of testing/accepting doctrine - making the case to non-Christians and also Christians of other denominations when they look into SDA doctrine and the matter of joining or not joining the SDA church -- would be entirely different - if like the Mormons - our study format was simply "here read what God told Ellen White and if there is a burning in your bosom that this is of God - then join".

It is pretty easy to read the free online bible studies that everyone gets in that situation and "see for yourself" if they are a set of "because Ellen White said so" studies or if they are "look at these Bible texts then decide for yourself if this doctrine fits the Bible".

Click to expand...

Albion said:

The Bible exists. We all know what it is.

Click to expand...

Agreed. And a lot of people choose to view the "sola scriptura" method of testing/accepting doctrine as important. So also do SDAs.

Albion said:

But if it takes Ellen G. White or Emanuel Swedenborg or some Mormon leader to tell us that his or her vision or prophesy, etc. has revealed the meaning of some part of the Bible

Click to expand...

A good example of what I just said in that post - that we don't do and that the Bible studies themselves show this to be the case - free and online for view by the public. It is those that we use in our evangelism - especially in the remote-from-home 2020 reality where the online version is the main one people can access "together", rather than waiting for the printed form.

Albion said:

...and then we affirm it as so...that is no different, really, from just believing anything out of the mouth of that leader who says it came from God.

Click to expand...

Another great reason for why we don't use the method you propose there.[/quote]

BobRyan said:

Agreed. And a lot of people choose to view the "sola scriptura" method of testing/accepting doctrine as important. So also do SDAs.

Click to expand...

There's no Sola Scriptura method, Bob. The term means that the Bible contains everything that may be considered doctrine essential for salvation.

A good example of what I just said in that post - that we don't do and that the Bible studies themselves show this to be the case

Click to expand...

and yet it's been admitted to on this very thread.

tall73 said:

I am quite sure you avoid answering things with Ellen White! But then you also said you think she is a prophet.

I post Ellen White to show Adventist teaching.

Click to expand...

I agree and I think you are correct on this - I just note that when I answer those questions I never quote Ellen White unless the person is specifically asking what she taught on that point.

I understand that you are using it show that this is not just something you are saying off the top of your head and that she is a good SDA source to indicate what many SDAs think so from your context it probably is logical in that regard. And when you do it you don't have any risk that someone will say you are giving that answer because Ellen White told you to not because you have a conviction about it from the Bible - since you are posting as a former-SDA and not a current one. So I am not complaining about anything you are doing.

But I do have that risk since I am still SDA. So I tend not give Ellen-Whitte-Answers because it would give the impression that my belief on a given topic is not from the Bible but from whatever I think Ellen White said - .

So while I fully admit that I think she wrote a lot of things fully inline with the Bible - I don't look for her answers to the questions that come up because I am not trying to make the case that she said "A" and the Bible also agrees with "A" -- I just point to the fact that the Bible says "A".

BobRyan said: ↑
Agreed. And a lot of people choose to view the "sola scriptura" method of testing/accepting doctrine as important. So also do SDAs.

Albion said:

There's no Sola Scriptura method, Bob.

Click to expand...

well then... we differ on that point

Albion said:

and yet it's been admitted to on this very thread.

Click to expand...

Not by anyone who claims they are SDA.

And the actual evidence of the Bible studies we are giving are already evidence freely available for all to see.

BobRyan said:

So while I fully admit that I think she wrote a lot of things fully inline with the Bible - I don't look for her answers to the questions that come up because I am not trying to make the case that she said "A" and the Bible also agrees with "A" -- I just point to the fact that the Bible says "A".

Click to expand...

Well, let's take an example, to see how it plays out. This is unrelated to the usual hot button issues, but with possible implications for the Great Controversy scenario.

Matthew 13:24 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way. 26 But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared. 27 So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’ 29 But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.”

36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him, saying, “Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field.”

37 He answered and said to them: “He who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of the kingdom, but the tares are the sons of the wicked one. 39 The enemy who sowed them is the devil, the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are the angels. 40 Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age. 41 The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, 42 and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear!


Without consulting or referencing Ellen White, what do you think Jesus was saying by this parable and the explanation?

tall73 said:

Well, let's take an example, to see how it plays out. This is unrelated to the usual hot button issues, but with possible implications for the Great Controversy scenario.

Matthew 13:24 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way. 26 But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared. 27 So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’ 29 But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.”

36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him, saying, “Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field.”

37 He answered and said to them: “He who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of the kingdom, but the tares are the sons of the wicked one. 39 The enemy who sowed them is the devil, the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are the angels. 40 Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age. 41 The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, 42 and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear!


Without consulting or referencing Ellen White, what do you think Jesus was saying by this parable and the explanation?

Click to expand...

I think that it is about various people responding to the Gospel in different ways. What is really fascinating to me is that the rocky ground case is one where "the dead come to life" and accept the Gospel fully with great joy - "springs to life" - but then die out because they had no deep root.

Notice that "accepting the gospel with great joy" and "springing to life" is the perfect start - the perfect "you were dead in your sins" and then the new birth - -- LIFE.

The problem was not "accepting the Gospel with joy" - the problem was not "springing to life". In other words the start was just fine... but what happens next?

======================
so then that is the case of one of the kinds of soil.

BobRyan said:

I think that it is about various people responding to the Gospel in different ways. What is really fascinating to me is that the rocky ground case is one where "the dead come to life" and accept the Gospel fully with great joy - "springs to life" - but then die out because they had no deep root.

Notice that "accepting the gospel with great joy" and "springing to life" is the perfect start - the perfect "you were dead in your sins" and then the new birth - -- LIFE.

The problem was not "accepting the Gospel with joy" - the problem was not "springing to life". In other words the start was just fine... but what happens next?

======================
so then that is the case of one of the kinds of soil.

Click to expand...

Er well I have to admit, the results of this particular application of sola scriptura was not what I expected.

You appear to have interpreted a different parable than posted.

tall73 said:

Er well I have to admit, the results of this particular application of sola scriptura was not what I expected.

You appear to have interpreted a different parable than posted.

Click to expand...

I thought it was Matthew 13 ending with vs 23 -- oops! Sorry about that - it was the second part starting with vs 24 not the first.... will take another shot at it.

BobRyan said:

I thought it was Matthew 13

Click to expand...

Same chapter, different verses.

You looked at the parable of the soils or sower, and I has posted the parable of the tares/weeds, etc.

Want to try again?

Thanks for the opportunity for "do over"

tall73 said:

Well, let's take an example, to see how it plays out. This is unrelated to the usual hot button issues, but with possible implications for the Great Controversy scenario.

Matthew 13:24 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way. 26 But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared. 27 So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’ 29 But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.”

36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him, saying, “Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field.”

37 He answered and said to them: “He who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of the kingdom, but the tares are the sons of the wicked one. 39 The enemy who sowed them is the devil, the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are the angels. 40 Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age. 41 The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, 42 and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear!


Without consulting or referencing Ellen White, what do you think Jesus was saying by this parable and the explanation?

Click to expand...

Ok - that part of Matt 23 is pointing out that there is a very tight connection between saints and sinners in this life and simply uprooting the lost from the saved would risk losing the saved. So for example Christ could not simply ban Judas because the disciples would not understand - and God did not simply kill Lucifer because good angels would not understand.

So in many cases the saints and the sinners are fish in the same pond and one cannot simply "delete the sinners" without causing harm to the saints. So for example if your sister is a saint but one of your brothers is the known-to-God-sinner - God would do damage to your family by simply deleting that brother and even the church would have to be very careful about taking any action against that brother. So then often times it is the situation of all living together and letting things sort out, let both manifest their fruit. (By their fruit you shall know them Matt 7, is a rule that Christ said would be accurate)

Now that is not to say there are not 1 Cor 5 cases where church discipline has to happen in extreme cases. But "in general" the Matt 13 example serves as a good warning to the group about how far you can go.

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

In the parable the point comes where there is the end of the world and the wicked are destroyed while the saints are saved. A process exists in God's kingdom where what He knows to be the case is so fully conveyed to non-God beings like angels (for example) that even they can be sent to take action and separate saints from sinners at the harvest.

So for example in Matt 24 - the angels are sent out
1 And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet blast, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other