An Index of SDA (Seventh Day Adventist) Errors

[Wgw]

See my post above for clarification on the oft misquoted scripture of Acts 10.




In your own mind I'm sure you have convinced yourself but there was no "thoroughly discrediting these malicious unthruths". It's a pattern for you to make a hubric statement and then quote is later as some divine truth.


Nobody I know has ever denied the deity of Christ... as far as the equality of the Godhead, can you provide scripture for that? I can provide dozens that show the Son as deferential and obeisant to the Father. Also why is it they are always referred to as God the Father and our Lord Jesus? I can't find any reference to Lord Father or God the Son...


And yet it's still not found in the Bible...

Please clarify that you are not accusing me of hubris and then we might proceed...

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

My goal, in this post, is simply to enumerate all known doctrinal or practical errors taught by the Seventh Day Adventists under the influence of various false prophets


The format of this post will consist of bullet points expressing the doctrinal statement as they make it. In some cases, where the view is not universally held by all Adventists, this will be noted through a qualification in parentheses:

Theological Errors

• St. Michael and Jesus Christ are the same person.
• Rejection of the Trinity (a belief historically mainstream in Adventism, now a minority view)

Belief in Michael and Christ being the same does not involve denying His deity, we also believe the mighty angel of Rev 10 was Christ if you look at the description given... either way not a salvational issue, just an belief based on exegesis.

Eschatological Errors

• An "investigative judgement" began in 1849
• Annhilationism
• Chiliasm
• Impending enactment of worldwide legislation compelling Sunday worship

• Investigative judgement began in 1844...
• Yes, annihilation is understood and is far more representative of God's character than the eternal suffering proposed.
• We do not believe in a thousand year reign on earth by Christ at His coming... we do believe in 1000 years of a desolated earth that binds Satan until the new Jerusalem comes down and the second resurrection takes place.
• It's closer than you think... this above all things is what will bring people to a right understanding of truth. It will be the crisis for all mankind for each will be making their choice for eternity... think the plains of Dura test.

Mystagogical Errors

• Ellen G. White is an inspired prophet
• The "outpouring of prophecy" refers not so much to Pentecost as to her

• Yes, and she passes the Biblical definition of a prophet...
• Don't know where you got this one from but the Bible does tell us that in the end times that men and women would prophesy. The Holy Spirit will be poured out in greater measure during the time of the latter rain...

Liturgical Errors

• Sunday worship is an evil Roman Catholic conspiracy.
• Christmas is pagan
• Easter is pagan
• Christians are required to keep the Sabbath

• Well, it was officially made doctrine by the RC... not found in the Bible.
• It has pagan origins and is not commanded of us to celebrate as we do.
• Same as above
• As Ubuntu said, we should keep it as that's what is commanded... we are told it won't be a test of salvation until the sunday law crisis.

Practical Errors

• Chrisrians may not consume pork or other "unclean" foods
• Circumcision is mandatory

• none of mankind should as God made us and knows what's best for us.
• Never heard this... although myself, I was born in the 60's to a RN mom.

Historical Errors

• The period 538-1798 corresponds to the "1260 days," despite a clear lack of meaning.
• Albigensians, Cathari, Donatists, Montanists, Waldensians et al were good, proto-Protestant, proto-Adventists

• This a study that would take more space than this post allows... essentially, the time of persecution from the Papal power.
• Never heard them called proto adventists

There are also peculiar Adventist practices like Academy for tweens which are not strictly speaking theological errors, but which are nontheless strange and contribute to a sectarian culture existing in a state of disharmony with the world.

As Ubuntu said, never heard of this... we do apparently have a strong youth movement.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

@Ubuntu claimed Adventists were free to celebrate Christmas...is this not the case?

Apparently so... there are also Adventists that are accepting homosexual officers in the church as well as a litany of other abominations. Some are even holding sunday worship services.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Please clarify that you are not accusing me of hubris and then we might proceed...

While I can't make that statement about you personally because I don't know you, some of your posts would definitely fall into the hubris category.

 

[mmksparbud]

@Ubuntu claimed Adventists were free to celebrate Christmas...is this not the case?

Right from the horses mouth---just a few quotes on the subject:

Interchange of Gifts as Tokens of Affection—The holiday season is fast approaching with its interchange of gifts, and old and young are intently studying what they can bestow upon their friends as a token of affectionate remembrance. It is pleasant to receive a gift, however small, from those we love. It is an assurance that 479we are not forgotten, and seems to bind us to them a little closer.... {AH 478.4}

The Adventist Home, p. 479.1
It is right to bestow upon one another tokens of love and remembrance if we do not in this forget God, our best friend. We should make our gifts such as will prove a real benefit to the receiver. I would recommend such books as will be an aid in understanding the word of God or that will increase our love for its precepts. Provide something to be read during these long winter evenings.3
The Review and Herald, December 26, 1882.

482
The Adventist Home, p. 482.1
“Shall We Have a Christmas Tree?”—God would be well pleased if on Christmas each church would have a Christmas tree on which shall be hung offerings, great and small, for these houses of worship. [Note: reference is made in this article to current building projects. As the principles set forth in this connection are applicable today, these specific references are left in the article.] Letters of inquiry have come to us asking, Shall we have a Christmas tree? Will it not be like the world? We answer, You can make it like the world if you have a disposition to do so, or you can make it as unlike the world as possible. There is no particular sin in selecting a fragrant evergreen and placing it in our churches, but the sin lies in the motive which prompts to action and the use which is made of the gifts placed upon the tree. {AH 482.1}

• The Adventist Home, p. 482.2

The tree may be as tall and its branches as wide as shall best suit the occasion; but let its boughs be laden with the golden and silver fruit of your beneficence, and present this to Him as your Christmas gift. Let your donations be sanctified by prayer.9
The Review and Herald, December 11, 1879.

e Adventist Home, p. 482.3
Christmas and New Year celebrations can and should be held in behalf of those who are helpless. God is glorified when we give to help those who have large families to support.10
Manuscript 13, 1896.


The Adventist Home, p. 482.4
A Tree Laden With Offerings Is Not Sinful—Let not the parents take the position that an evergreen placed in the church for the amusement of the Sabbath school scholars is a sin, for it may be made a great blessing. Keep before their minds benevolent objects. In no case should mere amusement be the object of these gatherings. While there may be some who will turn these occasions into seasons of careless levity, and whose minds will not receive the divine impress, to other minds and characters 483these seasons will be highly beneficial. I am fully satisfied that innocent substitutes can be devised for many gatherings that demoralize.11
The Review and Herald, December 9, 1884.

The Adventist Home, p. 483.1
Provide Innocent Enjoyment for the Day—Will you not arise, my Christian brethren and sisters, and gird yourselves for duty in the fear of God, so arranging this matter that it shall not be dry and uninteresting, but full of innocent enjoyment that shall bear the signet of Heaven? I know the poorer class will respond to these suggestions. The most wealthy should also show an interest and bestow their gifts and offerings proportionate to the means with which God has entrusted them. Let there be recorded in the heavenly books such a Christmas as has never yet been seen because of the donations which shall be given for the sustaining of the work of God and the upbuilding of His kingdom.12
Ibid.

 

[Ubuntu]

@Wgw,

1. Circumcision is not something adventists support. I'd definitively consider religiously motivated circumcision as a serious theological mistake. (I'm not fond of the word “heresy”.) Are you sure that the person in question was an adventist? Not all Sabbatarians out there are adventists, for instance, Messianic Jews often practise circumcision and they also keep the Old Testament feasts.

2. About sexuality and Kellogg… Kellogg was a child of the Victorian era, and if his ideas were actually quite mainstream when you have a look at the medical literature of the time. In this respect you're barking up the wrong tree, you have an issue with the Victorian era, not with adventism. That said, adventists today are generally on the conservative side when it comes to sex and morality.

3. About our brother @EastCoastRemnant... I respect him and I know him as a passionate guy. I hope I won't offend him by saying this, but he belongs to the adventist fringe in some respects. He is among those who thinks that the adventist church is in apostasy because we've adopted “heresies” which according to him includes trinitarianism. (Correct me if I'm wrong about this, ECR.) So if I'm not mistaken he is in opposition to our official beliefs in some important ways. In other words, you can think of him as the adventist equivalent of my catholic sedevacantist acquaintance.

It's true that many of the adventist pioneers were non-trinitarians, but you need to view this in its proper historical context. The adventist movement begun as an ecumenical movement, and a disproportional large amount of millerite ministers came from a denomination called Christian Connexion where non-trinitarianism was common. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Connection So basically, in the formative days of the adventist church our theology was in flux, and many of our theological beliefs developed gradually. I don't think this is any different from what happens in other new churches. Theology isn't static, and I'm sure that there has been a development in Orthodox theology too. You might not have any iconoclasts in your church today, but at one point in time you certainly did...

4. The adventist Church is a non-liturgical denomination in the sense that we don't follow the church calendar. This is of course something you'd disagree with, but just keep in mind that this isn't something unique to the adventist church, it's quite common among evangelical churches. Celebration of Christmas and Easter is left to the individual member's conscience. The celebration of Christmas and Easter are not mandatory, but most adventists will celebrate at least Christmas. You mentioned Christmas concerts in adventist Churches, and yes, it's quite common with such things.

5. About Waldensians and other dissenters… I think it's an overstatement to call them “proto-adventists”. The millerites is the only group that strictly speaking can be referred to as “proto-adventists”. However, Adventists often like to point out that there have been many religious dissenting groups that have been ruthlessly persecuted by the dominant Church, and that many of these groups can be considered to be the spiritual forerunners of the protestant movement, (and by extension, our own church). Even before the reformation there were dissidents who pointed out what we think is error and apostasy in the Church. There are also some evidence about possible Sabbath keeping among dissident groups prior to the protestant reformation. This is of course something adventists think is very interesting, and some of us might talk of “proto-adventists” based on this. I personally wouldn't use such a term, though.

6. About Chiliasm. We believe in a variation of premillennialism, but Chiliasm is definitively the wrong theological term to describe our beliefs. According to the dictionary, Chiliasm is the belief that Jesus returns and establishes an Earthly Kingdom for 1000 years.

This is in fact the exact opposite of what we teach, we vigorously oppose this concept. Instead we believe Jesus returns to Earth in order to judge the unrepentant and then take his people to heaven, we won't be left behind here on Earth. When the Millenium is over, then the New Jerusalem will descend from heaven to earth, and this is when God will create “A New Heaven and a New Earth.”

Revelation 21:1-4, John 14:2-3

 

[Kersh]

I'm trying to figure out the point of thos thread. What benefit is there to claiming that a certain denomination is wrong aboit x, y, and z. Why not rather preach the truth (as you understand it) let the Holy Spirit convict. Nearly every Chrisitian believes something that is in error. The important thing is not theological perfection, but spiritual openness and willingness to allow the Holy Spirit to correct us where our beliefs, attitudes, and actions are not holy and right.

 

[Wgw]

Apparently so... there are also Adventists that are accepting homosexual officers in the church as well as a litany of other abominations.

Some are even holding sunday worship services.

What is wrong with holding Sunday worship even if your main day of worship is Saturday? Nothing, according to the Jews.

 

[mmksparbud]

Kellogg's history with the church is quite something. He and his brother ended up in a quite bitter split. Kellogg's views made him an outcaste of the SDA church. He left it--it was a mutual agreement. There was a silly movie made about him, I think Anthony Hopkins played him, I could be wrong.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Kellogg's history with the church is quite something. He and his brother ended up in a quite bitter split. Kellogg's views made him an outcaste of the SDA church. He left it--it was a mutual agreement. There was a silly movie made about him, I think Anthony Hopkins played him, I could be wrong.

Your right....along with Matthew Broderick....

 

[Wgw]

I'm trying to figure out the point of thos thread.

Well, I've been trying for mamy montjs to figure out the point of the numerous threads in General Theology psted by varipus Adventist members, attacking the mainstream churches for everything from celebrating Christmas, to the Eucharist, in some cases ecen accusing us of paganism.

What benefit is there to claiming that a certain denomination is wrong aboit x, y, and z.

Ask the members who continually bash the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, et cetera.

Why not rather preach the truth (as you understand it) let the Holy Spirit convict. Nearly every Chrisitian believes something that is in error. The important thing is not theological perfection, but spiritual openness and willingness to allow the Holy Spirit to correct us where our beliefs, attitudes, and actions are not holy and right.

Because doctrine matters. See Galatians 1:8. That said, were ir not for the torrent of threads posted by Adventists attackimg the traditional churches, I would not post this. I disagree vehemently with Lutheranism, but have not yet felt compelled to post a single thread on the errors of various Lutheran churches, owing to a mutual respect that exists between them and the Orthodox.

 

[Kersh]

Well, I've been trying for mamy montjs to figure out the point of the numerous threads in General Theology psted by varipus Adventist members, attacking the mainstream churches for everything from celebrating Christmas, to the Eucharist, in some cases ecen accusing us of paganism.


Ask the members who continually bash the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, et cetera.

So, if you beat them, join them?

Seriously, the correct response to Christians behaving badly is not to do the same thing. Teaching truth is generally far more effective than complaining about untruths.

Because doctrine matters. See Galatians 1:8. That said, were ir not for the torrent of threads posted by Adventists attackimg the traditional churches, I would not post this. I disagree vehemently with Lutheranism, but have not yet felt compelled to post a single thread on the errors of various Lutheran churches, owing to a mutual respect that exists between them and the Orthodox.

Doctrine does matter. That is why I am all for preaching truth (as you believe it). But, there is a vast difference between preaching what you believe to be true and attacking what someone else believes to be true. If, as you say, SDAs are going around posting their own anti-such-and-such-denomination threads, then let's lead by example by not following suit.

 

[mmksparbud]

Attacking??----No---debating the issues---yes---we are not in agreement on some things- that is obvious. We will defend our position--as you do yours. You think we're wrong, we think you're wrong--that is what a debate is--voicing opposing views. Everybody is defending their point of view--otherwise there would be nothing going on here! We point to scripture and stand on scripture---others will interpret those scriptures differently. ---so we debate. Can't debate what we agree on!!

 

[Kersh]

Attacking??----No---debating the issues---yes---we are not in agreement on some things- that is obvious. We will defend our position--as you do yours. You think we're wrong, we think you're wrong--that is what a debate is--voicing opposing views. Everybody is defending their point of view--otherwise there would be nothing going on here! We point to scripture and stand on scripture---others will interpret those scriptures differently. ---so we debate. Can't debate what we agree on!!

I'm fairly new to these forums. But, I would draw some distinctions:

(a) "The Bible teaches that we should worship on Saturday, which is the Sabbath, and not on Sunday" is an argument.
(b) "Worshiping on Sunday is a corrupt practice that the devil uses to lead people away from the Sabbath" is an attack.

It sounds like there are some here who feel (b) is all too common. The distinction is that (a) can be rationally debated, we can look to Scripture to reach a resolution, or ultimately walk away agreeing to disagree. The problem with (b) is that it imputes a motive that can neither be proven nor disproven and is too emotionally inflammatory to facilitate meaningful rational conversation.

 

[mmksparbud]

I'm fairly new to these forums. But, I would draw some distinctions:

(a) "The Bible teaches that we should worship on Saturday, which is the Sabbath, and not on Sunday" is an argument.
(b) "Worshiping on Sunday is a corrupt practice that the devil uses to lead people away from the Sabbath" is an attack.

It sounds like there are some here who feel (b) is all too common. The distinction is that (a) can be rationally debated, we can look to Scripture to reach a resolution, or ultimately walk away agreeing to disagree. The problem with (b) is that it imputes a motive that can neither be proven nor disproven and is too emotionally inflammatory to facilitate meaningful rational conversation.

Is "b" an actual quote--or is this just for the purpose of debating what debating is????

LOL---"b" is a bit strong---haven't seen that one---but we do have some, what I call, "militant SDA's"--they even strong-arm other SDAs--one old gal went up to another member and told her to stop wearing a certain dress because it was cut on the bias and she acted "flirtatiously" every time she wore it and she was jeopardizing her soul. The lady was so embarrassed she didn't wear it again--to church anyway--and I never saw her act any differently when she wore it--it was pretty and she looked great in it. One severely chastised me for having a banner outside with a rainbow in it--years ago--back then some people where using it to designate new age thinking---I just said it was the sign from God promising He would never destroy the world with water again---I left it up. Now it's been used to depict other things--I refuse to accept anything but what God said it is. The swastika used to be just a nice decoration used by Greeks and even American Indians--nobody can use it now! I do try to not be on attack mode when on here---but I do have a wide sarcastic streak on me that has gotten me into trouble before!

 

[Kersh]

Is "b" an actual quote--or is this just for the purpose of debating what debating is????

LOL---"b" is a bit strong---haven't seen that one---but we do have some, what I call, "militant SDA's"--they even strong-arm other SDAs--one old gal went up to another member and told her to stop wearing a certain dress because it was cut on the bias and she acted "flirtatiously" every time she wore it and she was jeopardizing her soul. The lady was so embarrassed she didn't wear it again--to church anyway--and I never saw her act any differently when she wore it--it was pretty and she looked great in it. One severely chastised me for having a banner outside with a rainbow in it--years ago--back then some people where using it to designate new age thinking---I just said it was the sign from God promising He would never destroy the world with water again---I left it up. Now it's been used to depict other things--I refuse to accept anything but what God said it is. The swastika used to be just a nice decoration used by Greeks and even American Indians--nobody can use it now! I do try to not be on attack mode when on here---but I do have a wide sarcastic streak on me that has gotten me into trouble before!

b was intended to be illustrative. However, I have run across quite a few people who would have no qualms about saying something so extreme. Most of the SDAs I've met probably speak more along the lines of (a). But, since SDAs are people, too, I'd assume that there exist some who would go to the extreme of (b).

But, I'd even go so far as to say "The Bible says we should worship on Saturday" is far preferable to "The Bible says that we shouldn't worship on Sunday." Starting with what you believe and why it is right is always better than starting with what you think someone else believes and why it's wrong.

 

[Extraneous]

Both Sunday and Saturday are wrong. There is no special day of worship, and everyday is to be observed the same way. We also dont go to Church and act one way and then act another outside Church. A good rule of thumb is to never do anything in public that you wouldn't do in Church.

Why argue over holy days instead of embracing liberty in Christ? Christ doesn't want us to be bound to ceremonies and holy days, he wants us to love each other, and to do what is good and just. That's all he wants from us.

My opinion is that holiness matters more than holy days. People go to church on Saturday or Sunday, but then go seeking help from politicians the rest of the week. Let your conduct be without covetousness, so that we may boldly say, the Lord is my helper, what can man do to me? Our citizenship is in heaven not earth. Set your heart on things above, not on earthly things.

 

[mmksparbud]

Well, I don't know that a debate on the Sabbath is what this thread is about--there are many of those and can be looked up, I guess. I'll just leave it at we follow the 10 commandments--but not as a means of salvation. The other 9 are acceptable to you I assume?

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

What is wrong with holding Sunday worship even if your main day of worship is Saturday? Nothing, according to the Jews.

You wouldn't understand unless you were an Adventist...

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

@Wgw
3. About our brother @EastCoastRemnant... I respect him and I know him as a passionate guy. I hope I won't offend him by saying this, but he belongs to the adventist fringe in some respects. He is among those who thinks that the adventist church is in apostasy because we've adopted “heresies” which according to him includes trinitarianism. (Correct me if I'm wrong about this, ECR.) So if I'm not mistaken he is in opposition to our official beliefs in some important ways. In other words, you can think of him as the adventist equivalent of my catholic sedevacantist acquaintance.

No offence taken brother... I know I'm outside of mainstream Adventism and I'm alright with that... more of a historical Adventist movement kinda deal.