An Index of SDA (Seventh Day Adventist) Errors

[mmksparbud]

I have debated on CF.com with @EastCoastRemnant, a member of your church who, if I understood him correctly rejects, or rejected at the time of our debate, the deity of our Lord and the doctrine of the Trinity. It is also a known fact that Arianism was prevalent among Adventist communities prior to Ellen G White; much of the literature Ive read on the subject credits her with the conversion of the Adventists to a predominantly Trinitarian movement or denomination.

If any SDA rejects the "Deity of our Lord", they are not SDA or someone has misunderstood--- Jesus Christ always was, always will be. It is and always was---God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit----however---there is one and only one God. And again, if anyone can claim what that means in detail---kindly state the scriptures that support your claim. I do not know what it is you claim about the Trinity so I do not know if what we believe is the same as what you believe. I could care less what Adventist communities believed prior to EGW---there was no official church of SDA until around 1863, before that there were some Sabbatarian's and some Sunday keepers both trying to figure things out and come up with biblical believes and a name for that group.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

I have debated on CF.com with @EastCoastRemnant, a member of your church who, if I understood him correctly rejects, or rejected at the time of our debate, the deity of our Lord and the doctrine of the Trinity. It is also a known fact that Arianism was prevalent among Adventist communities prior to Ellen G White; much of the literature Ive read on the subject credits her with the conversion of the Adventists to a predominantly Trinitarian movement or denomination.

Careful bearing false witness brother... I have never denied the deity of Christ... what I have rejected is the RC version of the Godhead.

 

[Dale]

mmksparbud in post #117:
<<<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbath_in_Christianity

Corporate worship[edit]
While the Lord's Day observance of the Eucharist was established separately from the Jewish Sabbath, the centrality of the Eucharist itself made it the commonest early observance whenever Christians gathered for worship. In many places and times as late as the 4th century, they did continue to gather weekly on the Sabbath, often in addition to the Lord's Day, celebrating the Eucharist on both days.[13][14][15] No disapproval of Sabbath observance of the Christian festival was expressed at the early church councils that dealt with Judaizing. The Council of Laodicea (363-364), for example, mandated only that Sabbath Eucharists must be observed in the same manner as those on the first day.[15] Neander has suggested that Sabbath Eucharists in many places were kept "as a feast in commemoration of the Creation".[15]

The issues about Hebrew practices that continued into the 2nd century tended to relate mostly to the Sabbath. Justin Martyr, who attended worship on the first day,[16] wrote about the cessation of Hebrew Sabbath observance and, echoing the apostles, stated that the Sabbath was enjoined as a temporary sign to Israel to teach it of human sinfulness (Gal. 3:24-25),[17] no longer needed after Christ came without sin.[18] He rejected the need to keep literal seventh-day Sabbath, arguing instead that "the new law requires you to keep the sabbath constantly."[19] With Christian corporate worship so clearly aligned with the Eucharist and allowed on the seventh day, Hebrew Sabbath practices primarily involved the observance of a day of rest. >>>


Mmksparbud,



I don't believe the Wikipedia article you refer to is accurate. You say that Justin Martyr advocated keeping the sabbath constantly, on every day. This would be impossible since Deuteronomy forbids lighting a cooking fire on the sabbath. To keep the sabbath every day, people would have to stop eating. This can't be separated from the notion of the sabbath as a day of rest because not using cooking fires guaranteed that women would have a break from cooking.



The verse in Galations that you mention, 3:24-5, mentions the Law but doesn't specifically deal with the role of the sabbath.

 

[Dale]

I am concerned about your use of the Council of Laodicea in post #117.



Mmksparbud: “The Council of Laodicea (363-364), for example, mandated only that Sabbath Eucharists must be observed in the same manner as those on the first day.”


In fact, the Council of Laodicea pronounced anathema (equivalent to excommunication) on Judaizers who observed the Sabbath as their primary day of worship.



I'll try a Protestant source for a change. The following quotes are from the website of the Church of God (Carmichael, CA). The quotes are from an article written by H.M. Riggle in 1928. The title is The Sabbath and the Lord's Day, ,subtitled The Pope and the Sabbath, and THAT THE POPE CHANGED THE SABBATH, PROVED TO BE BASELESS. (Emphasis in original.)



This explains why the Church of God concluded that the Adventist claim that a Pope changed the day of worship in the 4th century is spurious and misleading.



“The pope of Rome did not attend this Council at Laodicea, A. D. 364.”



“The council of Laodicea was only a local council, a small, unimportant affair, and not a general council at all.... ”



“ Finally, if the Council of Laodicea changed the Sabbath, as Adventists say, then it was changed by the Greek church instead of the Roman church) changed by the Eastern churches over which Rome had no authority.”





Link:

http://churchofgodcarmichael.org/sabbath/Sabbath44.html

 

[mmksparbud]

mmksparbud in post #117:
<<<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbath_in_Christianity

Corporate worship[edit]
While the Lord's Day observance of the Eucharist was established separately from the Jewish Sabbath, the centrality of the Eucharist itself made it the commonest early observance whenever Christians gathered for worship. In many places and times as late as the 4th century, they did continue to gather weekly on the Sabbath, often in addition to the Lord's Day, celebrating the Eucharist on both days.[13][14][15] No disapproval of Sabbath observance of the Christian festival was expressed at the early church councils that dealt with Judaizing. The Council of Laodicea (363-364), for example, mandated only that Sabbath Eucharists must be observed in the same manner as those on the first day.[15] Neander has suggested that Sabbath Eucharists in many places were kept "as a feast in commemoration of the Creation".[15]

The issues about Hebrew practices that continued into the 2nd century tended to relate mostly to the Sabbath. Justin Martyr, who attended worship on the first day,[16] wrote about the cessation of Hebrew Sabbath observance and, echoing the apostles, stated that the Sabbath was enjoined as a temporary sign to Israel to teach it of human sinfulness (Gal. 3:24-25),[17] no longer needed after Christ came without sin.[18] He rejected the need to keep literal seventh-day Sabbath, arguing instead that "the new law requires you to keep the sabbath constantly."[19] With Christian corporate worship so clearly aligned with the Eucharist and allowed on the seventh day, Hebrew Sabbath practices primarily involved the observance of a day of rest. >>>


Mmksparbud,



I don't believe the Wikipedia article you refer to is accurate. You say that Justin Martyr advocated keeping the sabbath constantly, on every day. This would be impossible since Deuteronomy forbids lighting a cooking fire on the sabbath. To keep the sabbath every day, people would have to stop eating. This can't be separated from the notion of the sabbath as a day of rest because not using cooking fires guaranteed that women would have a break from cooking.



The verse in Galations that you mention, 3:24-5, mentions the Law but doesn't specifically deal with the role of the sabbath.

'I didn't quote Gal. I didn't say anything about Justin Martyr---the article did. You have the right to disagree with anhything Wiki says. Your approval or disapproval does not make it right or wrong.

 

[mmksparbud]

I am concerned about your use of the Council of Laodicea in post #117.



Mmksparbud: “The Council of Laodicea (363-364), for example, mandated only that Sabbath Eucharists must be observed in the same manner as those on the first day.”


In fact, the Council of Laodicea pronounced anathema (equivalent to excommunication) on Judaizers who observed the Sabbath as their primary day of worship.



I'll try a Protestant source for a change. The following quotes are from the website of the Church of God (Carmichael, CA). The quotes are from an article written by H.M. Riggle in 1928. The title is The Sabbath and the Lord's Day, ,subtitled The Pope and the Sabbath, and THAT THE POPE CHANGED THE SABBATH, PROVED TO BE BASELESS. (Emphasis in original.)



This explains why the Church of God concluded that the Adventist claim that a Pope changed the day of worship in the 4th century is spurious and misleading.



“The pope of Rome did not attend this Council at Laodicea, A. D. 364.”



“The council of Laodicea was only a local council, a small, unimportant affair, and not a general council at all.... ”



“ Finally, if the Council of Laodicea changed the Sabbath, as Adventists say, then it was changed by the Greek church instead of the Roman church) changed by the Eastern churches over which Rome had no authority.”





Link:

http://churchofgodcarmichael.org/sabbath/Sabbath44.html

Again--I did not use the Council of Laodicea---I was quoting an article in Wiki---

 

[Root of Jesse]

I do not believe you were ever an SDA---there is no SDA that believes Jesus Christ was ever created-----I never met one, it was never taught in grade school, nor high school, nor any Sabbath school nor from any pulpit, nor from any SDA book. I asked that if you're going to make pronouncements of what we believe that you please provide the needed citations.

Are Jesus and Michael the Archangel one and the same?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Careful bearing false witness brother... I have never denied the deity of Christ... what I have rejected is the RC version of the Godhead.

The Trinity?

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

The Trinity?

Yes... the co-equal leadership model that the trinity espouses. I read no where in scripture where the Father does the Son's will or the Holy Spirit's will.

 

[Commander Xenophon]

Yes... the co-equal leadership model that the trinity espouses. I read no where in scripture where the Father does the Son's will or the Holy Spirit's will.

My apologies if I mischaracterized your view; I recall you expressing a belief that Jesus Christ was the Son of God but not God Himself.

 

[mmksparbud]

"Are Jesus and Michael the Archangel one and the same?"

Yes---and if that is a problem for you, you will have to take it up with several other denominations---who may not be exactly in sync with the Catholic version. And you can't blame EGW for their believes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_(archangel)
Citing Hengstenberg, John A. Lees, in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, states: "The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the pre-incarnate Christ, finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the 'child' and the archangel in Rev 12:1-17, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Daniel."[13] Charles Haddon Spurgeon,[52][53] a Trinitarian, stated that Jesus is Michael “the only Archangel”,[54] and that he is God the Son, and co-equal to the Father.[52] In Spurgeon’s view, "archangel" means "head of the angels" rather than "head angel," and is a title similar to "Prince or Leader of the host." (Daniel 8:11)[55][56][not in citation given]

If you want more info---I do not know what faith this site is supposed to be---but it is a very long and detailed look at the subject.
http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/michael.htm

That said----I do not know of any SDA that prays in the name of Michael, or prays to Him---We pray in the name of Jesus and to Him. Catholics on the other hand, do pray to St. Michael. Jesus also hold the office of High Priest, after the order of Melchisidec---we do not pray to Him either---I don't know if Catholics do.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Yes... the co-equal leadership model that the trinity espouses. I read no where in scripture where the Father does the Son's will or the Holy Spirit's will.

That's not the Trinity we believe, then. We believe there is one will of God. The will of the Father is the will of the Son. As in the Athanasian Creed:
Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the catholic religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Substance [Essence] of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Substance [Essence] of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood into God. One altogether; not by confusion of Substance [Essence]; but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell; rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of the God the Father Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies; And shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved.

 

[Root of Jesse]

"Are Jesus and Michael the Archangel one and the same?"

Yes---and if that is a problem for you, you will have to take it up with several other denominations---who may not be exactly in sync with the Catholic version. And you can't blame EGW for their believes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_(archangel)
Citing Hengstenberg, John A. Lees, in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, states: "The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the pre-incarnate Christ, finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the 'child' and the archangel in Rev 12:1-17, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Daniel."[13] Charles Haddon Spurgeon,[52][53] a Trinitarian, stated that Jesus is Michael “the only Archangel”,[54] and that he is God the Son, and co-equal to the Father.[52] In Spurgeon’s view, "archangel" means "head of the angels" rather than "head angel," and is a title similar to "Prince or Leader of the host." (Daniel 8:11)[55][56][not in citation given]

If you want more info---I do not know what faith this site is supposed to be---but it is a very long and detailed look at the subject.
http://www.creation-science-prophecy.com/michael.htm

That said----I do not know of any SDA that prays in the name of Michael, or prays to Him---We pray in the name of Jesus and to Him. Catholics on the other hand, do pray to St. Michael. Jesus also hold the office of High Priest, after the order of Melchisidec---we do not pray to Him either---I don't know if Catholics do.

Where is it, in the Bible, that Jesus and Michael the Archangel are the same? Secondly, angels are created beings, therefore, your belief is that Jesus is not God.
Thirdly, praying = asking. We ask St. Michael to defend us in battle and protect us. We ask lots of saints in heaven for intercession. But all of them are created beings except for God-Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Therefore, we can safely say that Commander Xenophon did not bear false witness against EastCoastRemnant, because SDA's believe that Jesus is a created being.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Where is it, in the Bible, that Jesus and Michael the Archangel are the same? Secondly, angels are created beings, therefore, your belief is that Jesus is not God.
Thirdly, praying = asking. We ask St. Michael to defend us in battle and protect us. We ask lots of saints in heaven for intercession. But all of them are created beings except for God-Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Therefore, we can safely say that Commander Xenophon did not bear false witness against EastCoastRemnant, because SDA's believe that Jesus is a created being.

Who is the angel of Rev 10? It is easily shown through text proofing that the attributes of this angel are those of Jesus...

Revelation 10:1-3
And I saw another mighty angel come down from heaven, clothed with a cloud: and a rainbow was upon his head, and his face was as it were the sun, and his feet as pillars of fire:
And he had in his hand a little book open: and he set his right foot upon the sea, and his left foot on the earth,
And cried with a loud voice, as when a lion roareth:

 

[Root of Jesse]

Who is the angel of Rev 10? It is easily shown through text proofing that the attributes of this angel are those of Jesus...

Revelation 10:1-3
And I saw another mighty angel come down from heaven, clothed with a cloud: and a rainbow was upon his head, and his face was as it were the sun, and his feet as pillars of fire:
And he had in his hand a little book open: and he set his right foot upon the sea, and his left foot on the earth,
And cried with a loud voice, as when a lion roareth:

The angel cannot be Jesus because angels are created beings, and Jesus is God, an uncreated being. He is the angel of Jesus. Angels are messengers, pure and simple. It is true that the attributes are God-like, but so what?

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

You say it cannot be but that is what the verse is saying... do you believe that there is a created being that has all those attributes of God? There is not... only Jesus Himself has been shown to have those characteristics.

Yes, angels are messengers... in Revelation 14 the 3 angels that give a loud cry are God's faithful on the earth

Exodus 3:2
And the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.

Was this not the Lord in the burning bush?

Exodus 32:34
Therefore now go, lead the people unto the place of which I have spoken unto thee: behold, mine Angel shall go before thee:

Exodus 14:19
And the angel of God, which went before the camp of Israel, removed and went behind them; and the pillar of the cloud went from before their face, and stood behind them:

Exodus 13:21
And the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night:

These verses show that the angel of the Lord and the Lord God are one and the same.

 

[Root of Jesse]

You say it cannot be but that is what the verse is saying... do you believe that there is a created being that has all those attributes of God? There is not... only Jesus Himself has been shown to have those characteristics.

Are you seriously asking if God can create a being that has those attributes? OF COURSE he can. The angel is Jesus' messenger. The attributes show that he is such. Jesus is not an angel.

Yes, angels are messengers... in Revelation 14 the 3 angels that give a loud cry are God's faithful on the earth

Exodus 3:2
And the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.

Was this not the Lord in the burning bush?

Exodus 32:34
Therefore now go, lead the people unto the place of which I have spoken unto thee: behold, mine Angel shall go before thee:

Exodus 14:19
And the angel of God, which went before the camp of Israel, removed and went behind them; and the pillar of the cloud went from before their face, and stood behind them:

Exodus 13:21
And the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night:

These verses show that the angel of the Lord and the Lord God are one and the same.

That's your SDA (faulty) interpretation. Jesus is not an angel, and the Lord is not an angel.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

That's your SDA (faulty) interpretation. Jesus is not an angel, and the Lord is not an angel.

May I ask your interpretation of the texts I posted? If you have none, then your objection to my understanding is moot.

 

[mmksparbud]

It's been presented--you were given a link that goes into the MANY verses to go into this, not just by SDA, but other denominations also. You did no research. You're argument is not with us only. We know Jesus is not a created angel--He is THE Angel of the Lord, Michael THE Archangel, The High Priest, The Son of God, The creator, The I Am, He has many titles. I guess you didn't get the memo.

 

[topcare]

Archangel is still an angel, so yes you do believe Christ was a created being. Don't be getting all huffy, defend your position and if you can't admit the truth.