My 16yo is an SDA (her dad's religion), and I'm wondering if I should be concerned about her salvation.
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Are Seventh Day Adventists Christian?
- Thread starter FR0G
- Start date
- Status
I work with a Seventh Day Adventist Pastor's wife. She loves the Lord with her whole heart, and her husband is one of the godliest men I know. We do have differing views on several issues, but the bottom line is we are both proud to love and serve God.
As with any person of any denomination, belief, faith, it is between the individual and God. Your daughter is old enough to know whether she has a personal relationship with Christ or not. Ask her!
As with any person of any denomination, belief, faith, it is between the individual and God. Your daughter is old enough to know whether she has a personal relationship with Christ or not. Ask her!
Upvote
0
MsAnne said:I work with a Seventh Day Adventist Pastor's wife. She loves the Lord with her whole heart, and her husband is one of the godliest men I know. We do have differing views on several issues, but the bottom line is we are both proud to love and serve God.
As with any person of any denomination, belief, faith, it is between the individual and God. Your daughter is old enough to know whether she has a personal relationship with Christ or not. Ask her!
That's exactly it! denomination aside, the relationship is personal.
Upvote
0
- Jun 6, 2002
- 20,698
- 4,434
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
It is my understanding that they have some unorthodox beliefs about music and the return of Jesus... neither of which would prevent me from calling them my brothers and sisters.
Upvote
0
They follow a "prophet", Ellen G. White. Also they believe Jesus was Michael the Archangel. This one concerns me the most I htink.
Upvote
0
- Jun 6, 2002
- 20,698
- 4,434
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
If this is so, then like the Jehovah Witnesses, I believe they derive this from Jude verse 9.Melani said:
Jude 1:9 Webster
9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
Gill
"... Yet Michael the archangel,.... By whom is meant, not a created angel, but an eternal one, the Lord Jesus Christ; as appears from his name Michael, which signifies, "who is as God": and who is as God, or like unto him, but the Son of God, who is equal with God? and from his character as the archangel, or Prince of angels, for Christ is the head of all principality and power; and from what is elsewhere said of Michael, as that he is the great Prince, and on the side of the people of God, and to have angels under him, and at his command, Dan 10:21. So Philo the Jew (o) calls the most ancient Word, firstborn of God, the archangel; Uriel is called the archangel in this passage from the Apocrypha: unto these things Uriel the archangel gave them answer, and said, Even when the number of seeds is filled in you: for he hath weighed the world in the balance.'' (2 Esdras 4:36). when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses; which some understand literally of the fleshly and natural body of Moses, buried by the Lord himself, partly out of respect to him; and partly, as some think, lest the Israelites should be tempted to an idolatrous worship of him; but rather it was to show that the law of Moses was to be abolished and buried by Christ, never to rise more: and they think that this dispute was either about the burying of his body, or the taking of it up again; Satan on the one hand insisting upon the taking of it up, in order to induce the Israelites to worship him, and Michael, on the other hand, opposing it, to prevent this idolatry; but then the difficulty is, where Jude should have this account, since the Scriptures are silent about it. Some have thought that he took it out of an apocryphal book, called "the Ascension of Moses", as Origen (p), which is not likely; others, that he had it by tradition, by which means the Apostle Paul came by the names of the Egyptian magicians Jannes and Jambres; and some passages are referred to in some of their writings (q), as having some traces of this dispute; but in them the discourse is not concerning the body, but the soul of Moses; not concerning burying or taking up of his body, when buried, but concerning the taking away of his soul, when he was alive; which none of the angels caring to undertake, at length Samael, the chief of devils, did, but without success, wherefore God took it away with a kiss himself: besides, the apostle produces this history as a thing well known; nor is it reasonable to suppose that such an altercation should be between Michael, and the devil, on such an account; or that it was in order to draw Israel into idolatry on the one hand, and on the other hand to prevent it; since never was the custom of the Israelites to worship their progenitors or heroes; nor did they seem so well disposed to Moses in his lifetime; nor was there any necessity of taking up his body, were they inclined to give him honour and worship; yea, the sight of his dead body would rather have prevented than have encouraged it: but this is to be understood figuratively; and reference is had to the history in Zec 3:1; as appears from the latter part of this verse: some think the priesthood of Christ is intended, which was the end, the sum and substance, of the law of Moses; and seeing that Joshua, the high priest, was a type of Christ, and the angel of the Lord contended with Satan about him, he might be said to dispute with him about the body of Moses; but this sense makes a type of a type, and Christ to contend about himself; besides, this should rather be called the body of Christ than of Moses, others think that the temple of the Jews is meant about the rebuilding of which the contention is thought to be; and which may be called the body of Moses, as the church is called the body of Christ; though it should be observed, that the temple is never so called, and that not the place where the church meets, but the church itself, is called the body of Christ: but it is best of all to understand it of the law of Moses, which is sometimes called Moses himself, Joh 5:45; and so the body of Moses, or the body of his laws, the system of them; just as we call a system of laws, and of divinity, such an one's body of laws, and such an one's body of divinity: and this agrees with the language of the Jews, who say (r), of statutes, service, purification, &c. that they are "the bodies of the law"; and so of Misnic treatises, as those which concern the offerings of turtle doves, and the purification of menstruous women, that they are "the bodies" of the traditions (s), that is, the sum and substance of them: so the decalogue is said (t) to be "the body of the Shema", or "Hear, O Israel", Deu 6:4, so Clemens of Alexandria (u) says, that there are some who consider the body of the Scriptures, the words and names, as if they were, "the body of Moses" (w). Now the law of Moses was restored in the time of Joshua the high priest, by Ezra and Nehemiah. Joshua breaks some of these laws, and is charged by Satan as guilty, who contended and insisted upon it that he should suffer for it; so that this dispute or contention might be said to be about the body of Moses, that is, the body of Moses's law, which Joshua had broken; in which dispute Michael, or the angel of the Lord, even the Lord Jesus Christ himself, durst not bring against him a railing accusation; that is, not that he was afraid of the devil, but though he could have given harder words, or severer language, and which the other deserved, yet he chose not to do it, he would not do it; in which sense the word "durst", or "dare", is used in Rom 5:7, but said, the Lord rebuke thee; for thy malice and insolence; see Zec 3:2; and this mild and gentle way of using even the devil himself agrees with Christ's conduct towards him, when tempted by him in the wilderness, and when in his agony with him in the garden, and amidst all his reproaches and sufferings on the cross. And now the argument is from the greater to the lesser, that if Christ, the Prince of angels, did not choose to give a railing word to the devil, who is so much inferior to him, and when there was so much reason and occasion for it; then how great is the insolence of these men, that speak evil of civil and ecclesiastical rulers, without any just cause at all? (o) De Confus. Ling. p. 341. & quis. rer. divin. Haeres. p. 509. (p) l. 3. c. 2. (q) Debarim Rabba, fol. 245. 3, 4. Abot R. Nathan, c. 12. fol. 4. 2, 3. Petirath Mosis, fol. 57. 1. &. c. (r) Misn. Chagiga, c. 1. sect. 8. (s) Pirke Abot, c. 3. sect. 18. (t) T. Hieros. Beracot, fol. 6. 2. (u) Stromat, l. 6. p. 680. (w) Vid. Chion. Disput. Theolog. par. 1. & 2. De Corpore Mosis, sub Praesidio Trigland. Lugd. Batav. 1697.
Upvote
0
wonder I believe they adhere to OT dietary laws, though most of them are vegetarian because "God told" EGW.
Upvote
0
Hmmmmm, I'm not sre about that. I know it's a restriction that MOrmons adhere to, but TBH I'm not sure about SDAs.
Upvote
0
What festivals and Holy Days are Christians supposed to follow?Morpheus_Anubis said:
I wasn't aware of anything I had to do other than what it says in Romans 10:9 - That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
(I also don't believe SDA's are 'born-again christians', as I also don't believe Mormons or JW's are... but not because they don't do any specifc work such as observing a festival or day)
Upvote
0
In addition to OnederWoman's post, I would add that your denomination teaches that they are most likely and simply separated brothers in Christ, not non-Christians:Morpheus_Anubis said:
CCC #818: "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers .... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."
I have never seen your standard used for determining who is Christian (read "Roman Catholic"). That doesn't seem anything like what I've read in Vatican II or other Roman Catholic documents on the status of professing Christians outside the RCC.
~Matt
Upvote
0
you still haven't answered my question about which festivals and holy days one is required to observe in order to be considered a Christian. Though I may not agree with you, I am still interested in your view on this... so, I'd appreciate an answer.Morpheus_Anubis said:
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
