What are 7th day adventists?

[Aibrean]

No...they most definitely were SDA. It was my husband's grandmother's church.

 

[Sophia7]

Sounds like you attended a service of a group called the shephards rod, which arn't seventh-day adventists but do revere the writings of Ellen White.

That happens at regular SDA churches, too, sometimes, not just offshoots.

 

[OntheDL]

I think that the "last supper" was indeed just a symbol of Jesus giving his life for sin. I think all churches have taken that and made it into something of a tradition. The Bible never actually instructs us to reenact that event in any way.

That happens at regular SDA churches, too, sometimes, not just offshoots.

I have attended many other churches. Most Catholic and many Pentecostal churches did not open the bible once. What's the point?

 

[Aibrean]

You don't need to physically open the Bible to use the Bible. I never touch the Bible at church however we always have readings from the Bible and obviously the sermon is from the Bible and the liturgy all has it's base from the Bible.

The SDA's were preaching Ellen White.

 

[VictorC]

Interesting, thanks for the input. I did a little research myself, and it seems from what I can gather that they believe in the trinity, and that the "prophet" Ellen White was a big part of their beginnings and beliefs

Ellen White is codified as Adventism's authority in their Fundamental Belief #18 (of 28 beliefs published by the church at this time). Here are some statement from Ellen White to give you a sense of Adventism's soteriology. Redemption remains a foreign concept to Adventism, and dismisses the purpose Jesus was incarnate, "to redeem those who were under the law" (Galatians 4:5):

It means eternal salvation to keep the Sabbath holy unto the Lord. God says: "Them that honor Me I will honor." 1 Samuel 2:30. {6T 356.4}

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}

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}

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.{HS 234.3}

As persons become convinced from the Scriptures that the claims of the fourth commandment are still binding, the question is often raised, Is it necessary in order to secure salvation that we keep the Sabbath? This is a question of grave importance. If the light has shone from the word of God, if the message has been presented to men, as it was to Pharaoh, and they refuse to heed that message, if they reject the light, they refuse to obey God, and cannot be saved in their disobedience. {RH, January 5, 1886 par. 2}

“God requires of all His subjects obedience, entire obedience to all His commandments. He demands now as ever perfect righteousness as the only title to heaven. Christ is our hope and our refuge. His righteousness is imputed only to the obedient!” (Review & Herald, Sept. 21, 1886)

"Christ does not lessen the claims of the law. In unmistakable language He presents obedience to it as the condition of eternal life—the same condition that was required of Adam before his Fall. The Lord expects no less of the soul now than He expected of man in Paradise, perfect obedience, unblemished righteousness. The requirement under the covenant of grace is just as broad as the requirement made in Eden—harmony with God’s law, which is holy, just, and good." (Christ’s Object Lessons, p. 391)

“He told them that he had been pleading with his Father, and had offered to give his life a ransom, and take the sentence of death upon himself, that through him man might find pardon; that through the merits of his blood, and obedience to the law of God, they could have the favor of God, and be brought into the beautiful garden, and eat of the fruit of the tree of life.” (1SP 45.1)

“Your only safety is in coming to Christ, and ceasing from sin this very moment. The sweet voice of mercy is sounding in your ears today, but who can tell if it will sound tomorrow?" (Signs of the Times, Aug. 29, 1892).

“Only by perfect obedience to the requirements of God's holy law can man be justified.” (Manuscript Releases, vol. 8, pp. 98-99)

"Not one of us will ever receive the seal of God while our characters have one spot or stain upon them. It is left with us to remedy the defects in our characters, to cleanse the soul temple of every defilement" (Testimonies, Vol. 5, p. 214).

“While God can be just, and yet justify the sinner through the merits of Christ, no man can cover his soul with the garments of Christ's righteousness while practicing known sins, or neglecting known duties” (1 Selected Messages, p. 366).

"To every one who surrenders fully to God is given the privilege of living without sin, in obedience to the law of heaven." "God requires of us perfect obedience. We are to purify ourselves, even as he is pure. By keeping his commandments, we are to reveal our love for the Supreme Ruler of the universe." (Review and Herald, September 27, 1906).

"The righteousness of God is absolute. This righteousness characterizes all His works, all His laws. As He is, so must His people be." (1 Selected Messages, p. 198)​

Compliance to the law God redeemed us from is the basis of Adventism's claim to eternal life: you need to stop sinning and keep the law God redeemed us from. That is a stark contrast to Galatians 4:30, telling us to cast off the bondwoman defined as the covenant from Mount Sinai (4:24), which was the ten commandments, "for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman". Those remaining unredeemed from the covenant from Mount Sinai don't have a valid claim to eternal life.

 

[Elder 111]

Ellen White is codified as Adventism's authority in their Fundamental Belief #18 (of 28 beliefs published by the church at this time). Here are some statement from Ellen White to give you a sense of Adventism's soteriology. Redemption remains a foreign concept to Adventism, and dismisses the purpose Jesus was incarnate, "to redeem those who were under the law" (Galatians 4:5):

It means eternal salvation to keep the Sabbath holy unto the Lord. God says: "Them that honor Me I will honor." 1 Samuel 2:30. {6T 356.4}

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}

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}

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.{HS 234.3}

As persons become convinced from the Scriptures that the claims of the fourth commandment are still binding, the question is often raised, Is it necessary in order to secure salvation that we keep the Sabbath? This is a question of grave importance. If the light has shone from the word of God, if the message has been presented to men, as it was to Pharaoh, and they refuse to heed that message, if they reject the light, they refuse to obey God, and cannot be saved in their disobedience. {RH, January 5, 1886 par. 2}

“God requires of all His subjects obedience, entire obedience to all His commandments. He demands now as ever perfect righteousness as the only title to heaven. Christ is our hope and our refuge. His righteousness is imputed only to the obedient!” (Review & Herald, Sept. 21, 1886)

"Christ does not lessen the claims of the law. In unmistakable language He presents obedience to it as the condition of eternal life—the same condition that was required of Adam before his Fall. The Lord expects no less of the soul now than He expected of man in Paradise, perfect obedience, unblemished righteousness. The requirement under the covenant of grace is just as broad as the requirement made in Eden—harmony with God’s law, which is holy, just, and good." (Christ’s Object Lessons, p. 391)

“He told them that he had been pleading with his Father, and had offered to give his life a ransom, and take the sentence of death upon himself, that through him man might find pardon; that through the merits of his blood, and obedience to the law of God, they could have the favor of God, and be brought into the beautiful garden, and eat of the fruit of the tree of life.” (1SP 45.1)

“Your only safety is in coming to Christ, and ceasing from sin this very moment. The sweet voice of mercy is sounding in your ears today, but who can tell if it will sound tomorrow?" (Signs of the Times, Aug. 29, 1892).

“Only by perfect obedience to the requirements of God's holy law can man be justified.” (Manuscript Releases, vol. 8, pp. 98-99)

"Not one of us will ever receive the seal of God while our characters have one spot or stain upon them. It is left with us to remedy the defects in our characters, to cleanse the soul temple of every defilement" (Testimonies, Vol. 5, p. 214).

“While God can be just, and yet justify the sinner through the merits of Christ, no man can cover his soul with the garments of Christ's righteousness while practicing known sins, or neglecting known duties” (1 Selected Messages, p. 366).

"To every one who surrenders fully to God is given the privilege of living without sin, in obedience to the law of heaven." "God requires of us perfect obedience. We are to purify ourselves, even as he is pure. By keeping his commandments, we are to reveal our love for the Supreme Ruler of the universe." (Review and Herald, September 27, 1906).

"The righteousness of God is absolute. This righteousness characterizes all His works, all His laws. As He is, so must His people be." (1 Selected Messages, p. 198)
​

Compliance to the law God redeemed us from is the basis of Adventism's claim to eternal life: you need to stop sinning and keep the law God redeemed us from. That is a stark contrast to Galatians 4:30, telling us to cast off the bondwoman defined as the covenant from Mount Sinai (4:24), which was the ten commandments, "for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman". Those remaining unredeemed from the covenant from Mount Sinai don't have a valid claim to eternal life.

Here is a portion from this week S D A quarterly. I will also leave the link to the whole Quarterly.
THURSDAYJuly 29
The Law and Sin
We often hear folk say that in the New Covenant the law has been abolished and then they proceed to quote texts that they believe prove that point. The logic behind that statement, however, isn’t quite sound, nor is the theology.
Read 1 John 2:3–6, 3:4 and Romans 3:20. What do these texts tell us about the relationship between law and sin?


A few hundred years ago, Irish writer Jonathan Swift wrote: “But will any man say that if the words drinking, cheating, lying, stealing were by Act of Parliament ejected out of the English tongue and dictionaries, we should all awake next morning temperate, honest and just, and lovers of truth? Is this a fair consequence?”—Jonathan Swift, A Modest Proposal and Other Satires, (New York: Prometheus Books, 1995), p. 205.
In the same way, if God's law has been abolished, then why are lying, murder, and stealing still sinful or wrong? If God's law has been changed, then the definition of sin must be changed, too. Or if God's law was done away with, then sin must be, as well, and who believes that? (See also 1 John 1:7–10; James 1:14, 15.)
In the New Testament, both the law and the gospel appear. The law shows what sin is; the gospel points to the remedy for that sin, which is the death and resurrection of Jesus. If there is no law, there is no sin, and so what are we saved from? Only in the context of the law, and its continued validity, does the gospel make sense.
We often hear that the Cross nullified the law. That’s rather ironic, because the Cross shows that the law can’t be abrogated or changed. If God didn’t abrogate or even change the law before Christ died on the cross, why do it after? Why not get rid of the law after humanity sinned and thus spare humanity the legal punishment that violation of the law brings? That way, Jesus never would have had to die. Jesus’ death shows that if the law could have been changed or abrogated, that should have been done before, not after, the Cross. Thus, nothing shows the continued validity of the law more than does the death of Jesus, a death that occurred precisely because the law couldn’t be changed. If the law could have been changed to meet us in our fallen condition, wouldn’t that have been a better solution to the problem of sin than Jesus having to die?
If there were no divine law against adultery, would the act cause any less pain and hurt than it does now to those who are victims of it? How does your answer help you understand why God’s law is still in effect? What has been your own experience with the consequences of violating God’s law?
Redemption in Romans

 

[Aibrean]

Morality is stressed in the OT - also is the fact that all law is summed up in love others and love God.

 

[Sophia7]

A few hundred years ago, Irish writer Jonathan Swift wrote: “But will any man say that if the words drinking, cheating, lying, stealing were by Act of Parliament ejected out of the English tongue and dictionaries, we should all awake next morning temperate, honest and just, and lovers of truth? Is this a fair consequence?”—Jonathan Swift, A Modest Proposal and Other Satires, (New York: Prometheus Books, 1995), p. 205.

Are you familiar with the context of A Modest Proposal? It was a satire dealing with the English treatment of the Irish, in which Jonathan Swift suggested that people eat children to prevent them from being a burden to society.

Also, Jonathan Swift was steeped in the mindset of his time and place regarding the separation of the law into categories, in which the ten commandments are classified as "moral." Those categories are based on tradition, which can be traced back to Thomas Aquinas, a Catholic theologian. The Sabbath School quarterly (Lesson 2, Monday) actually acknowledges that such classification is convenient and artificial:

It is convenient for us to classify Old Testament laws into various categories: (1) moral law, (2) ceremonial law, (3) civil law, (4) statutes and judgments, and (5) health laws.

This classification is in part artificial. In actuality, some of these categories are interrelated, and there is considerable overlap. The ancients did not see them as separate and distinct.

The moral law is summed up by the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:1–17). This law sums up the moral requirements of humanity. . . .
​

Tradition and political satire don't seem to me like the best sources to look to for support for your theological convictions. Besides, Swift listed a few things in that quote that were not even addressed by the ten commandments.

 

[VictorC]

Here is a portion from this week S D A quarterly.

I note that you don't deny what your uninspired prophet wrote. Redemption does indeed remain foreign to Adventist theology.

If God's law has been changed, then the definition of sin must be changed, too. Or if God's law was done away with, then sin must be, as well, and who believes that?

Adventism's failure to distinguish sin apart from transgression of the law is the reason they can't reconcile sin's origin with Adam 2500 some years before the law existed: "For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law" (Romans 5:13).

In the New Testament, both the law and the gospel appear. The law shows what sin is; the gospel points to the remedy for that sin, which is the death and resurrection of Jesus. If there is no law, there is no sin, and so what are we saved from? Only in the context of the law, and its continued validity, does the gospel make sense.

Nasty theology. Why do you subscribe to it? As I mentioned, God's redemption from the law that held the recipients until the appointed time remains a foreign concept. Propitiation at the cross is illogical, because they don't understand the law doesn't forgive transgressions in the manner God forgives sin - forgiveness is an attribute He never placed in the law that knows only atonement by blood for reconciliation.

Hebrews 9
15 ¶ And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
17 For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives.​

That’s rather ironic, because the Cross shows that the law can’t be abrogated or changed.

And thus they nullify the claim made by Jesus that He came to fulfill the law in Matthew 5:17-18 and Luke 24:44-45.

 

[Elder 111]

Morality is stressed in the OT - also is the fact that all law is summed up in love others and love God.

Please explain. Is there no morality needed in the new? Is God different in the new? Are His requirements Different in the new? Are we saved by different means in the new as compared with the old?

 

[Aibrean]

We are saved by grace through faith by the power and blood of Christ. Our faith comes by hearing the gospel and is enabled by the Holy Spirit. By our own power we can do nothing for our salvation.

The law is there to show us we are sinners and in need of a savior. The law is there to point us to the gospel. The law only condemns. It does not save. It is incapable of justification because it is impossible to keep. Belief in Christ is what saves.

Morality is all over the New Testament and gospels, however, as I said, keeping any kind of law will not save you.

All debates with SDA are brick-wall conversations.

 

[Elder 111]

And thus they nullify the claim made by Jesus that He came to fulfill the law in Matthew 5:17-18 and Luke 24:44-45.

Marvalous, He said He did not come to change it. Did He not? So let me see, Not to change But abolish. He forgot to say abolish?
You should have told Him. Then we would not have all this confusion.

 

[VictorC]

Marvalous, He said He did not come to change it. Did He not? So let me see, Not to change But abolish. He forgot to say abolish?
You should have told Him. Then we would not have all this confusion.

Jesus stated His intent was to fulfill the law, and He included the prophets in the same statement He issued. Adventism doesn't abide by these, as they need to fulfill the law (only part of it, actually) while waiting for the earth to melt under their feet, making burnt offerings to comply with the mandate to keep the sabbath holy, and waiting for the return of the Messiah - not realizing that their understanding of "one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled" doesn't accept the fulfillment of prophecy that is treated in the same manner as the law.

 

[VictorC]

He said He did not come to change it.

If you want to see the progression of the law's change (7:12), annulled (7:18), obsolete (8:13), and taken away (10:9), you should consult the epistle to the Hebrews.

 

[Aibrean]

He said he came to fulfill.

Romans 3:19-31

19Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.

21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
27Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

When it says "we uphold the law", it's referring to the verse where Christ says he came to fulfill the law. The law that points to the gospel. So by seeing we are sinners and then being pointed to the gospel by our knowledge of our sin (though the law) we are keeping the law intact. It never went away, but it is not there to "abide by" for our salvation.

As Christians we strive to live in the Spirit. As humans, we have a sinful nature and are incapable of doing good. This is why salvation must come through faith.

 

[VictorC]

When it says "we uphold the law", it's referring to the verse where Christ says he came to fulfill the law.

Actually, the meaning of Romans 3:31 is much simpler than that. The law that Paul upholds is quoted a few verses later, and it is from that we can determine what law is established. Remember, the chapter breaks in our English Bibles don't accurately reflect the paragraphs one would determine in the original manuscripts.

27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. 29 Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, 30 since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. 31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law. 1 What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” 4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.​

The law established is the Genesis record, shown by the quote from Genesis 15:6. It is that historical record that shows that righteousness is imputed by faith in God, and not by works according to the law mediated by Moses that didn't even exist for another 430 years after this account.

 

[Aibrean]

Are you sure he wasn't referring to 21 (Law and the Prophets - since it's a capital L).

The law of the gospel is faith. That much is clear.

 

[VictorC]

Are you sure he wasn't referring to 21 (Law and the Prophets - since it's a capital L).

I don't see a means to arrive at that meaning. Romans 3:21 states "But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets...", and the witness of the historical record seems to fit more coherently into the passage.

This entire presentation is sandwiched between "we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law" in 3:28 and this conclusion found in 4:13-15:

13 For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect, 15 because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression.​

Romans chapter 4 -which is where I would have placed Romans 3:31- doesn't support anything mediated in the hands of Moses. It isn't the covenant from Mount Sinai (ten commandments) the author established. It shows Abraham's righteousness imputed by faith from the law's historical account: "Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, but also for us" (Romans 4:23-24). By capitalizing "Law", it refers to the entire writings of Moses, the entire Torah from Genesis to Deuteronomy.

 

[Aibrean]

It's what my study Bible says...as a note:

"The Gospel does not ignore the Law; the Law is upheld because Christ perfectly fulfilled it."

I understand that the verses are explaining how to achieve righteousness.

 

[VictorC]

It's what my study Bible says...as a note:

"The Gospel does not ignore the Law; the Law is upheld because Christ perfectly fulfilled it."

I have come to distrust notes. The first question that enters my mind when I read a note like that is what law are they referring to when they state the Gospel doesn't ignore the law? Are they referring to the covenant mediated by Moses, or are they referring to the entire works of Moses including Genesis? I would answer that question with the entire works of Moses, inclusive of Genesis 15:6 that is quoted in the passage being questioned.

But then they qualify their statement by mentioning Christ fulfilled it, which points to the covenant mediated by Moses. The note then becomes a hybrid of two incompatible ideas, and I would scribble it out as nonsense at that point.

I understand that the verses are explaining how to achieve righteousness.

It isn't by works, because works denotes an earned claim on eternal life, and does not appeal to God's grace and His imputed righteousness.