What are 7th day adventists?

[Sophia7]

Take your MIL out to Pizza Hut for a great little dinner, and just let the conversation find its own way rather than forcing an agenda.

I second that suggestion.

 

[Aibrean]

LOL Yea...I'll just order a pepperoni for me and my husband hehe.

 

[heritage36]

This is the traditional Adventist teaching in as much of a nutshell as I can fit it into; it is very complex and difficult to explain briefly. Keep in mind that I am summarizing it, not agreeing with it.
________________________________________________________________

There is a sanctuary in heaven with two "apartments" or rooms, just like the tabernacle on earth: the holy place and the most holy place. When Jesus ascended to heaven after the resurrection, He entered the holy place and transferred the confessed sins of believers there by His own blood. This is how Ellen White describes it:

As the sins of the people were anciently transferred, in figure, to the earthly sanctuary by the blood of the sin-offering, so our sins are, in fact, transferred to the heavenly sanctuary by the blood of Christ. And as the typical cleansing of the earthly was accomplished by the removal of the sins by which it had been polluted, so the actual cleansing of the heavenly is to be accomplished by the removal, or blotting out, of the sins which are there recorded. This necessitates an examination of the books of record to determine who, through repentance of sin and faith in Christ, are entitled to the benefits of his atonement. The cleansing of the sanctuary therefore involves a work of investigative Judgment. This work must be performed prior to the coming of Christ to redeem his people; for when he comes, his reward is with him to give to every man according to his works. [REV. 22:12.] {4SP 266.1}
​

In the OT sacrificial system, when a person sinned and brought an animal as a sacrifice for his sin, that sin was first confessed and transferred to the animal, and then the sin was transferred from the animal to the sanctuary via the administration of the animal's shed blood in the holy place. Those sins, recorded in blood, would build up all year long, defiling the sanctuary, until the Day of Atonement. On that day, the high priest would enter the most holy place to cleanse it from all of the sins that had accumulated that year.

Since the earthly tabernacle was a pattern of the heavenly, there is a corresponding "antitypical" fulfillment of all of the OT ceremonies. Jesus fulfilled the sacrificial system and the spring feasts (Passover, Firstfruits, Pentecost) at the time of His death and resurrection, but the fall feasts (Trumpets, Day of Atonement, Feast of Tabernacles) had yet to be fulfilled in the future. After His ascension, Jesus began His priestly work in the holy place of the heavenly sanctuary, where He remained until 1844. Here is Ellen White's description of what He was doing there:

Such was the service performed "unto the example and shadow of heavenly things." And what was done in type in the ministration of the earthly sanctuary is done in reality in the ministration of the heavenly sanctuary. After His ascension our Saviour began His work as our high priest. Says Paul: "Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us." Hebrews 9:24. {GC 420.2}

The ministration of the priest throughout the year in the first apartment of the sanctuary, "within the veil" which formed the door and separated the holy place from the outer court, represents the work of ministration upon which Christ entered at His ascension. It was the work of the priest in the daily ministration to present before God the blood of the sin offering, also the incense which ascended with the prayers of Israel. So did Christ plead His blood before the Father in behalf of sinners, and present before Him also, with the precious fragrance of His own righteousness, the prayers of penitent believers. Such was the work of ministration in the first apartment of the sanctuary in heaven. {GC 420.3}

Thither the faith of Christ's disciples followed Him as He ascended from their sight. Here their hopes centered, "which hope we have," said Paul, "as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which entereth into that within the veil; whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest forever." "Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by His own blood He entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us." Hebrews 6:19, 20; 9:12. {GC 421.1}

For eighteen centuries this work of ministration continued in the first apartment of the sanctuary. The blood of Christ, pleaded in behalf of penitent believers, secured their pardon and acceptance with the Father, yet their sins still remained upon the books of record. As in the typical service there was a work of atonement at the close of the year, so before Christ's work for the redemption of men is completed there is a work of atonement for the removal of sin from the sanctuary. This is the service which began when the 2300 days ended. At that time, as foretold by Daniel the prophet, our High Priest entered the most holy, to perform the last division of His solemn work--to cleanse the sanctuary. {GC 421.2}

​

Notice that the sins were not cleansed yet but still "remained upon the books of record." The door to the most holy place was closed until 1844. (That date is calculated from Daniel 8:14, and the history behind it is very complicated, so I will leave it at that for now.) In 1844, the antitypical end-time Day of Atonement began, and Jesus as our High Priest moved from the heavenly holy place to the most holy place, where He began the work described by Ellen White in the first quote above, examining the record books in heaven and blotting out the confessed sins of professed believers, which had been transferred there via His blood, thus necessitating the cleansing of the heavenly sanctuary. That cleansing process continues to this day, having begun with an investigation of the lives of professed believers who had died, to make sure that all of their sins had been confessed so that they could actually be saved when Jesus returns, and then progressing to the professed believers who are currently living. The antitypical Day of Atonement will end when Jesus leaves the heavenly sanctuary to return to earth.
________________________________________________________________

Again, the above is a summary of the traditional Adventist doctrine, as taught by Ellen White. You will find Adventists today who hold to many different variations of it and some who don't even agree with it. I have many problems with the beliefs that I have described above, but in regard to the book of Hebrews, I believe that the Bible presents Jesus' work of cleansing as already completed at His ascension to heaven, signified by His sitting down at the right hand of the Father. One of the key texts is Hebrews 9:24-25. (Verse 24 is quoted by EGW above, as are several other verses from Hebrews, and I'm sure you'll notice also that she assumed, based on tradition, that Paul wrote Hebrews.). I'll quote those verses here, with a bit of surrounding context:

23 Therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
24 For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us;
25 nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own.
26 Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.
27 And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment,
28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.

​

The traditional Adventist teaching is that the context of those verses is not the Day of Atonement, when the high priest entered the most holy place. There's a whole argument about the Greek word used there and whether it means "holy place" or "most holy place" or "holy places." Really, the context is the determining factor, though, and I believe that the context clearly contains Day of Atonement references. What that means is that, according to those verses, Jesus fulfilled not only the sacrificial aspects of the OT ceremonies but also the high priest's Day of Atonement entrance into the most holy place with blood--His own blood, of course, rather than the blood of animals. His cleansing of sins was completed when He sat down at the right hand of the Father, long before 1844: "When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high" (Hebrews 1:3b).

Is it strange that out of all of this, the thing I am most stuck on is that someone who is "inspired", as I think I understand that it is claimed Ellen White is, clearly believed Paul wrote Hebrews? If she was inspired she would know the author more accurately I would think. In our thread about it, that was the thing that seemed most clear, that Paul did not write it.

 

[Sophia7]

Is it strange that out of all of this, the thing I am most stuck on is that someone who is "inspired", as I think I understand that it is claimed Ellen White is, clearly believed Paul wrote Hebrews? If she was inspired she would know the author more accurately I would think. In our thread about it, that was the thing that seemed most clear, that Paul did not write it.

Ellen White accepted many beliefs that were based on tradition, rather than on biblical or historical evidence, including the belief that Paul wrote the book of Hebrews. The problem is that she claimed that everything she wrote was inspired by God and that none of it was her own opinion:

The statement which you quote from "Testimony," No. 31, that "in these letters which I wrote, in the Testimonies I bear, I am presenting to you that which the Lord has presented to me. I do not write one article in the paper, expressing merely my own ideas. They are what God has opened before me in vision--the precious rays of light shining from the throne," is correct. It is true concerning the articles in our papers and in the many volumes of my books. I have been instructed in accordance with the Word in the precepts of the law of God. I have been instructed in selecting from the lessons of Christ. Are not the positions taken in my writings in harmony with the teachings of Jesus Christ? If not, point it out to me. {RH, September 6, 1906 par. 1}
​

That leaves her no room for error, but she made many errors in her writings and contradicted the Bible as well.

 

[heritage36]

Yeah, I am not familiar with her writings at all hardly to be honest, but I would expect them to align with Scripture in all ways if she truly was inspired. Obviously my belief that Paul didn't write Hebrews isn't something I can say is 100% fact, so I wouldn't say she is or is not inspired based on that, but I think there is strong evidence that Paul did not write it.

 

[Sophia7]

Yeah, I am not familiar with her writings at all hardly to be honest, but I would expect them to align with Scripture in all ways if she truly was inspired. Obviously my belief that Paul didn't write Hebrews isn't something I can say is 100% fact, so I wouldn't say she is or is not inspired based on that, but I think there is strong evidence that Paul did not write it.

I agree that the authorship of Hebrews is not completely certain although modern scholars generally favor the view that Paul didn't write it, so I wouldn't use that in itself to determine the validity of Ellen White's prophetic status either. My point was that she accepted the commonly held tradition of her time on that, so many Adventists likewise have accepted it without question, as a result. She also embellished many Bible stories in her retelling of them with additions that came from tradition or with interpretations that she allegedly received in vision. That becomes a problem when her writings contradict Scripture. Those contradictions are the reason that I do not accept her as a prophet.

 

[VictorC]

Is it strange that out of all of this, the thing I am most stuck on is that someone who is "inspired", as I think I understand that it is claimed Ellen White is, clearly believed Paul wrote Hebrews? If she was inspired she would know the author more accurately I would think. In our thread about it, that was the thing that seemed most clear, that Paul did not write it.

We don't actually know who wrote the epistle to the Hebrews. And yes, Ellen White claimed Paul wrote that epistle, whenever she stated "Paul wrote" and then quoted something from Hebrews.

Ellen White also claimed via divine inspiration that there will be a third covenant made with those found compliant with the first covenant, with no regard for the new covenant known as the basis for Christianity:

I saw the saints leaving the cities and villages, and associating in companies together, and living in the most solitary places. Angels provided them food and water; but the wicked were suffering with hunger and thirst. Then I saw the leading men of earth consulting together, and Satan and his angels were busy around them. I saw a writing, and copies of it scattered in different parts of the land, giving orders, that unless the saints should yield their peculiar faith, give up the Sabbath, and observe the first day, they were at liberty, after such a time, to put them to death. But in this time the saints were calm and composed, trusting in God, and leaning upon his promise, that a way of escape would be made for them. In some places, before the time for the writing to be executed, the wicked rushed upon the saints to slay them; but angels in the form of men of war fought for them. Satan wished to have the privilege of destroying the saints of the Most High; but Jesus bade his angels watch over them, for God would be honored by making a covenant with those who had kept his law in the sight of the heathen round about them; and Jesus would be honored by translating the faithful, waiting ones, who had so long expected him, without their seeing death. {1SG 201.1}​

This text written in 1858 is also where the claim of a national Sunday law comes from, which Adventists on the General Theology forum continue to insist is coming to violate the sabbath commandment found only in the first covenant mediated by Moses.

1SG quoted above was originally the draft of The Great Controversy, between Christ and His angels, and Satan and his angels published in 1858. Later editions in 1884, 1888, and 1911 of the Great Controversy do not have this claim of a third covenant. Why would Ellen White delete a claim via "I saw" according to a divine vision?

And then of course there is Ellen White's claim via divine inspiration that some of those attending the 1856 Bible Conference in Battle Creek would see Jesus coming in the second advent before they died:

A conference was held at Battle Creek in May, 1856...

But we were yet to pass through another severe trial. At the conference a very solemn vision was given me. I saw that some of those present would be food for worms, some subjects for the seven last plagues, and some would be translated to heaven at the second coming of Christ, without seeing death. Sr. Bonfoey remarked to a sister as we left the meeting-house, "I feel impressed that I am one that will soon be food for worms." The conference closed Monday. Thursday Sr. B. sat at the table with us apparently well. She then went to the Office as usual, to help get off the paper. In about two hours I was sent for. Sr. B. had been suddenly taken very ill. My health had been very poor, yet I hastened to suffering Clara. In a few hours she seemed some better. The next morning we had her brought home in a large chair, and she was laid upon her own bed from which she was never to rise. Her symptoms became alarming, and we had fears that a tumor, which had troubled her for nearly ten years, had broken inwardly. It was so, and mortification was doing its work. {2SG 208.2}​

These are representative of the nonsense that came from the SDA source of authority, as SDA Fundamental Belief #18 codifies the writings of Ellen White. Beyond your own findings regarding the authorship of Hebrews (which I don't regard as conclusive), there are several prophecies made by this person claiming that they "are what God has opened before me in vision" (thanks to Sophia7 for quoting this) that are either founded on unScriptural principles or else have failed to happen past their last possible terminus. There is no one from that 1856 conference left standing today.

 

[tall73]

I will second Sophia7's recommendation to peruse that website.

By the way, the website address will be changing sometime next month. I set it to something a little more likely to get search hits. It will redirect for a month and then switch over completely.

The new address is www.adventistsanctuary.com

 

[VictorC]

By the way, the website address will be changing sometime next month. I set it to something a little more likely to get search hits. It will redirect for a month and then switch over completely.

The new address is www.adventistsanctuary.com

Got it

 

[winslow]

Oh there are more than two. It depends how far down the rabbit hole you've gone.

When we die we are supposed to grow until we are the height of adam and eve before the fall (about 12 ft) and then Jesus is supposed to remain the same height (6 ft) as a reminder of his sacrifice.

That is Adventist doctrine.

All other commentary on the subject aside that is not an Adventist doctrine.

 

[VictorC]

All other commentary on the subject aside that is not an Adventist doctrine.

I believe there is ample reason for concern that you have no comment on what is Adventist doctrine. Does your silence indicate agreement with Ellen White's "vision" regarding a third covenant made with those supposedly compliant with the first covenant, unBiblical apologies for 1844, and other laughable tales from the prophet?

Winslow, this thread has the attention of a former Adventist pastor, his wife, and someone who has responded to personal challenges made by Adventists in his own life (me). We know Adventist doctrine better than many Adventists, and found that many of your church's doctrines can't be reconciled with Scripture.

 

[OntheDL]

If Paul did not write Hebrews, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find one among the disciples who wrote it before the 70AD, who was intimately familiar with the sanctuary ceremonies and exhibited the Hillel style.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

For the record VictorC has never been and SDA, has never worked for the SDA Chruch, never lived in as SDA envoriment, dose not have a hold any crediential in the SDA Church. He is what you would call an Outsider. his view not allway accurate.

 

[OntheDL]

I went through Adventist schools: elementary, academy, and college. How about you?

Can you name a doctrinal position that Mrs. White had that the demonination does not uphold? Anything at all that they disagree with her on in her many, many books and writings? Anything?
I would call her the SDA interpreter of Scripture if she wrote piles of her thoughts on Biblical positions and it is all accepted as truth by the church.

It is true that Adventists pick and choose which laws of Moses to follow.


Edit to add:I just want people to be aware of what the church is and where it comes from.

Is it true that some pick and choose which of the 10 commandments to follow?

 

[OntheDL]

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.

I'm a SDA. This is what we preach except for the highlighted sentence.

If the commandments are impossible to keep, then why does the bible says there are those who keep the commandments of God?

 

[Adventist Dissident]

If the commandments are impossible to keep, then why does the bible says there are those who keep the commandments of God

? great point, never have head an answer for that

 

[OntheDL]

What do you mean by "investigative judgement"? I have not heard that brought up yet at all.

Hi,

Investigative judgment in simple terms means prior to Christ' return, the judgment of His professed believers would have been completed.

The SDAs discovered this doctrine completely based on the bible. If you are up to it, here is a lengthy study on it.

http://www.christianforums.com/t3039271/

Sophia7 is an ex-SDA who had a fallout with the church on the issue. I would not take too much weight in what she says. Much of the arguments for and against have been presented to her and her husband. But it's up the individual to see it.

 

[OntheDL]

The verses that Adventists use to support the IJ have been taken out of context. Daniel 8:14 is the key text, but it says nothing about an investigation of the lives of believers. The context is the restoration of the sanctuary after defilement by the little horn. Daniel 7, another key text cited by Adventists as supposedly dealing with the IJ, is about judgment of the little horn, not of the saints, and it is executive judgment, not investigative.

Also, the IJ doctrine contradicts the book of Hebrews, which says that Jesus not only offered Himself as a once-for-all sacrifice but entered heaven itself by means of His own blood and sat down at the right hand of the Father, thus completing his work of purification. The atonement was finished then, long before 1844.

Even if you aren't ready to look at the IJ in depth yet, I would strongly encourage you to read or reread the whole book of Hebrews. Read it several times so that you understand it well and are familiar with the context before you consult commentaries--either Adventist or non-Adventist. Whether you end up agreeing with the IJ or not, Hebrews paints a wonderful picture of what Jesus did to accomplish our salvation.

When you are ready for a more in-depth presentation of some of the problems with the IJ doctrine in regard to the book of Hebrews, I would recommend this site: sanctuarydoctrine.com.

IJ does not depend on the book of Daniel or Hebrews. IJ was understood after the early Adventists understood the doctrine of the sanctuary which found from the beginning pages of Genesis to the closing of Revelation.

 

[OntheDL]

The Investigative Judgment exists as an apology for 1844, a date rooted in Millerism's prediction of the second advent at that time. After what was known as the Great Disappointment when nothing happened in October 1844, about 2/3 of William Miller's followers left the movement, either to return to their former church assemblies or else abandon Christianity altogether. William Miller himself recanted the model he created when he saw the date fail to materialize the expected event, and would not lend his support to others who were determined to assign the date to another event that could not be verified.

IJ was not an apology for 1844 since the remnant of 1844 movement had been ridiculed to death by everyone. There was beyond a need for apology. Most of them didn't harvest their crops. They were going hungry and had to dig up the potatoes from the field. You think an apology was on their mind???

Didn't the disciples experienced a great disappointment of the Messiah of whom they thought would have redeemed Israel? Weren't the eyes of the remnant opened when Jesus again enlightened them from the scriptures?

About 1/3 of William Miller's followers refused to let go of the date, and sought to assign another event to apologize for it in an effort to validate the model of prophecy that came up with 1844 in the first place. A pivotal verse used for the model was Daniel 8:14, replacing the 2300 ereb-boqer (evening-morning) "days" with 2300 years. Ellen White attributes Adventism's reliance on that verse in this way:

The scripture which above all others had been both the foundation and central pillar of the Advent faith was the declaration, "Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed." [DAN. 8:14.] These had been familiar words to all believers in the Lord's soon coming. By the lips of thousands was this prophecy joyfully repeated as the watchword of their faith. All felt that upon the events therein brought to view depended their brightest expectations and most cherished hopes. These prophetic days had been shown to terminate in the autumn of 1844. In common with the rest of the Christian world, Adventists then held that the earth, or some portion of it, was the sanctuary, and that the cleansing of the sanctuary was the purification of the earth by the fires of the last great day. This they understood would take place at the second coming of Christ. Hence the conclusion that Christ would return to the earth in 1844. {4SP 258.1}​

Within that 1/3 of William Miller's followers who didn't follow William Miller's example of abandoning the failed model were the roots of the Jehovah's Witnesses and the seventh-day Adventist church, among others.

Actually there were probably much less than 1/3. Following Oct 22, 1844, there were probably only about two dozen who still believed in the 1844 message. But again when is there safety in statistics?

2300 ereb-boqer is the definition of the day in Genesis 1:5. A prophetic day is a literal year. Don't the Futurists also use that? Where else did everyone got 7 year tribulation from???

1844 was first tied to the second advent of Christ. The "Little Flock" led by the Adventist pioneers (including Ellen Harmon, later White when she married James White) held to that belief, but assigned the date to the "Midnight Cry" announcing the soon return of Christ. The first Adventist doctrine was the Shut Door, meaning that the time of man's salvation had past and Christ was about to return to take His bride and destroy the earth's inhabitants. Years later that doctrine (which was endorsed as a divine vision by Ellen's "I saw") was replaced to open the door on salvation once again.

Now you got this totally wrong.

The 1844 date as the second advent of Christ was a Millerite belief. The SDAs did not exist at that time. You got the 'shut door' totally wrong. Shut door was referring to the door of mercy closed for those who refused to believe the Advent of Christ was imminent.

The Investigative Judgment replaced the Shut Door, attributing Christ's entrance into the Most Holy Place of the Heavenly Sanctuary to 1844.

No, IJ and shutdoor are two totally different messages.

Years of polishing their model in an effort to make it harmonize with Scripture has made it increasingly complex,

Complex, yes. Because the sanctuary message actually spans the whole bible. Years, no. It took a few months of 'exhaustive bible studies' and 'earnest prayers'. IJ has never been changed, added to, or polished (your word) since then.

with an initial entrance into the MHP at Christ's initial ascension, followed by His formal entrance into the MHP in 1844 to investigate the status of "the professed people of God", to determine if they were worthy to take part in the first resurrection or translation if they remained alive at the second advent.

The antitypical initial ascension into the MHP and the entrance into the MHP in 1844 were both typified in the Levitical ceremonies. Perfect example of the antitype meeting the type.

Ellen White "I saw" prophesied that some of the attendees at the 1856 Bible Conference in Battle Creek, MI would see Christ's return without tasting death, one of Ellen's several failed "visions".

First of all, it's a biblical concept that every generation could and should expect to see Christ's return. Finite humans know not that date.

Second of all, that prophecy was conditional much like other conditional prophecies in the bible.

SDA Fundamental Belief #9 recognizes Christ's "perfect atonement" on the cross, but SDA Fundamental Belief #24 contradicts that perfection when it asserts 1844 began a "second and final phase of atonement". Perfection needs no improvement.

Perfect atonement at the cross, yes. But there are three phases of atonement: sacrificial, mediatorial and judicial. If the cross is all there is to it, then why after a person repents and accepts Christ as the Lord and savior, he/she is not taken to heaven already? Why is there a need for the christian walk?

In a nutshell, the Investigative Judgment exists solely as an apology for 1844, to support a date with an event that never happened.

Daniel 12 tells us the book of Daniel shalt be opened in the time of the end and the wise shall understand.

A cursory reading of Hebrews 9-10 shows Christ's entrance into the MHP of the Heavenly Sanctuary as a completed event in the past tense when this epistle was penned. It does not allow modification to permit Adventism's model of entrance in 1844.

Exactly. Hebrews 9-10 shows Christ's entrance into the MHP in past tense because by the time the book of Hebrews was written just before 70AD, Christ has already entered into the MHP after ascension in 31AD to dedicate/inaugurate the sanctuary. It does not contradict but confirms our IJ message.

The Investigative Judgment does great harm to Biblical Christianity's affirmation of a completed atonement that redeemed our transgressions under the first covenant (Hebrews 9:15) completely with a result never to be added to:

Hebrews 10
11 And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. 14 For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.​

According to verse 13 above, the next prophetic event Christ is involved in is the second advent itself. Adventism seeks to shoehorn 1844 before this prophetic timetable in order to validate a fictitious event that never happened.

Ok. So you make the statement on the prophetic timeline base on that one verse? The SDA interpretation of the date of 1844 is based on 7 prophecies from Daniel and Revelation.

There are too many churches that have become comfortable, and don't place the emphasis on Bible study that would insulate their members from fads posing as Biblically-based doctrines:

Ephesians 4
11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; 14 that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, 15 but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ— 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.​

It is the nature of groups such as the Jehovah's Witnesses and the seventh-day Adventists to place a greater emphasis on Bible study, as they are motivated to harmonize their doctrines with Scripture. I admire their dedication myself, but I also recognize where their motivation comes from: validating their claim as God's "remnant" that is distinctive apart from Christianity.

You really don't have an in-depth understanding of Adventist theology, how it came to existence and the role of Ellen White on the Adventist theology.

 

[OntheDL]

That's a tough situation to be in. I hope that at some point your husband finds the courage to talk to her about it. I know it's hard, though. My MIL doesn't go to any church, but she still considers herself an Adventist although she doesn't follow any of the Adventist teachings. She won't talk to us about our reasons for leaving very often because she says that it upsets her too much. Hubby's grandma does talk to us sometimes, usually about the Sabbath, but she still can't understand why we no longer agree with it.

So you no longer believe in the sabbath either?