Why do people hate the Seventh Day Adventists?

[sparow]

In the church I visited a few were also ex Pentecostals. Strange as it may seem Catholics and Pentecostals have much in common concerning righteousness

The diversification of both is great; I don't know that you can generalise and say that they all believe one thing.

They almost have one thing in common and that is Futurism; the Catholics probably do not believe it but they created it as an argument against the Papacy being the Beast of Revelation.

 

[mark wright]

The diversification of both is great; I don't know that you can generalise and say that they all believe one thing.

They almost have one thing in common and that is Futurism; the Catholics probably do not believe it but they created it as an argument against the Papacy being the Beast of Revelation.

Doctrinally Pentecostals and catholics are supposed to be the two denominations furthest apart. So it sounds strange doesn't it to hear what someone once said to me:
Pentecostals and Catholics are the two denominations that find it hardest to accept biblical grace

 

[sparow]

We are called to expose the Papacy and it's role in prophesy. The laity are good people that are living up to the light they know... many of God's people are in the Catholic church and will 'come out of her' in the time just before Christ returns.

I think it is a complicated business and I agree in principle and this is why you are hated even by those who do not know what hate is. But you are the meat in the sandwich, it is God and Christ who is hated and people do not understand that either.

 

[sparow]

Doctrinally Pentecostals and catholics are supposed to be the two denominations furthest apart. So it sounds strange doesn't it to hear what someone once said to me:
Pentecostals and Catholics are the two denominations that find it hardest to accept biblical grace

I thought it was the Dispensationalist who translated Grace into a transportable product; you know cart it around it tip trucks and stuff people full of it,

 

[mark wright]

I thought it was the Dispensationalist who translated Grace into a transportable product; you know cart it around it tip trucks and stuff people full of it,

Grace is a hard thing to comprehend, impossible by relying on the human intellect to understand it

 

[Imagican]

First, I don't think that recognition equates 'hate'. To recognize that SDA have chosen an improper path does not equate 'hate'. I do not hate SDAs.

But I would point out that their 'religion' is based upon the delirious visions of a 'sick woman'. Since women are instructed to remain 'silent in the church', I find it difficult to accept a 'religion' created by a delirious woman.

Second, I have witnessed these that insist that the Sabbath is to be kept 'holy'. Then leave their Saturday Service and go to a restaurant together to sit and eat together. While they insist that it's WRONG to 'work' on the Sabbath, they find nothing WRONG with having others 'work for them' on the Sabbath.

If we 'are' our brother's keepers, if we ARE to offer the proper example, how does one suppose that it's WRONG for them to work on the Sabbath for the sake of their very souls, yet find nothing 'wrong' with encouraging others to work FOR THEM on the Sabbath? Seems kind of like a 'double standard' to me. "Come, join us in our proper worship of God by obeying the Sabbath. Stop working on the Sabbath and allow OTHERS to do so FOR YOU". You know, kind of like saying, "Yes, it is wrong to kill. But it's ok to pay someone to do it for you".

And how would one explain the SDAs owning hospitals and charging in the manner that they DO? Is there really ANYTHING any MORE worldly than hospitals in our present society? And find it OK to take their 'brothers and sisters' in Christ to the COURTS of the 'world' in order to make them pay their outrageous 'charges'.

No, if one does a cursory study of the history of the SDA, it is perfectly clear that it is nothing other than a 'woman made religion'. More about the visions of a delirious woman than what we are offered in the Bible.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

Grace is a hard thing to comprehend, impossible by relying on the human intellect to understand it

Really? I would offer that intellect is the manner in which we understand 'complex' concepts.

So you believe that one LACKING intellect would have a better chance of understanding complex concepts?

Oh my. What next?

Grace is about as 'easy' a concept that exists in the Bible.

The problem is that most don't want to ACCEPT the simplicity of 'grace'. [Staff edit]

Grace is simple: it is simply the 'act of sharing'.

But what grace is not is pretending.

God offered the sacrifice of His Son for the lives of others. Freely offered this. Shared it freely without cause other than His love us-ward.

Nothing we have done or could do inspired the 'sharing'. It was offered 'freely'.

But what grace is NOT is the idea that the gift offered can be of benefit FREELY. Grace has nothing to do with the acceptance of the 'gift'. The OFFER was/is through 'grace'. But the acceptance is not without 'cost'. That is perfectly clear to anyone who reads and accepts what we are offered in the Word of God: the Bible.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[mark wright]

Really? I would offer that intellect is the manner in which we understand 'complex' concepts.

So you believe that one LACKING intellect would have a better chance of understanding complex concepts?

Oh my. What next?

Grace is about as 'easy' a concept that exists in the Bible.

The problem is that most don't want to ACCEPT the simplicity of 'grace'. [Staff edit]

Grace is simple: it is simply the 'act of sharing'.

But what grace is not is pretending.

God offered the sacrifice of His Son for the lives of others. Freely offered this. Shared it freely without cause other than His love us-ward.

Nothing we have done or could do inspired the 'sharing'. It was offered 'freely'.

But what grace is NOT is the idea that the gift offered can be of benefit FREELY. Grace has nothing to do with the acceptance of the 'gift'. The OFFER was/is through 'grace'. But the acceptance is not without 'cost'. That is perfectly clear to anyone who reads and accepts what we are offered in the Word of God: the Bible.

Blessings,

MEC

We have not received the spirit of the world but the spirit who is from God that we may understand what God has freely given us.
This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words
The man without the spirit foes not accept the things that come from the spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them for they are spiritually discerned
1cor2:12-14

 

[Lazarus Short]

The Lord did not bring an accusation against Satan because it would have been sin. Paricipating in strife is not Godly...

Then, just posting on this forum may not be Godly, says this ex-Adventist.

 

[dqhall]

Jesus worked on the seventh day. Jesus ate lamb during the Passover. The Seventh Day Adventists do not work on Saturday and they do not eat meat. They do not smoke or drink alcohol. They live longer than the population at large. Not every one wants to be a Seventh Day Adventist. I do not smoke and can do that fine without attending SDA church meetings.

What does hate mean? We get all these topics about people hating religious sects. Some people do not think much about Calvinists, Baptists, Catholics and others who claim they have been hated. I had forgotten Seventh Day Adventists exist until I read this topic and remembered my experiences visiting that church decades ago.

The Seventh Day people may boast of the law and that they rest on Saturday. They do not keep the Passover law as they will not eat lamb. Thus their hope in the law is to obey one law and not another. Salvation is in Christ, not the laws of Moses.

 

[mark wright]

. Salvation is in Christ, not the laws of Moses.

Amen to that

 

[Sketcher]

You understand the scripture differently to me; but you are right as a human being Jesus was not an angel but before His human birth He was not human.

Moreover, he was clearly not an angel before his birth.

 

[Jadis40]

There was only one entity there, and it was the angel of the Lord that they worshipped, the same as with Abraham.

Gen 22:11 And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.
Gen 22:12 And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.
Gen 22:13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.
Gen 22:14 And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen.
Gen 22:15 And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time,
Gen 22:16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:
Gen 22:17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;
Gen 22:18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

No angel---Michael is Jesus.

Again, you are wrong.

John 1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.

Jesus has always existed, and I firmly believe in the eternal sonship of Jesus. Jesus and Michael are not the same being. Michael is a created angel, and therefore Michael is below the members of the Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Michael is below Jesus. Yes, he is the commander of the angelic host, but he answers to the Godhead. The archangel Michael is *not* God.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Most SDA are ex-Catholics.

Well, the most seriously disgruntled Catholics have to go somewhere I suppose. And where better than someplace that has it out for the Catholic Church as a matter of their ordinary course?

I have never known the SDA as an organisation to hate Catholics; they hate the religion for sure.

I'm sure they say some of their best friends are Catholics.

It seems to be that the Gospel according to the SDA starts and ends with condemning the Catholic Church (and other Protestants they believe are too Catholic). I hear very little about Jesus from them. For me I just give them a wide wide berth.

 

[mmksparbud]

Again, you are wrong.

John 1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.

Jesus has always existed, and I firmly believe in the eternal sonship of Jesus. Jesus and Michael are not the same being. Michael is a created angel, and therefore Michael is below the members of the Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Michael is below Jesus. Yes, he is the commander of the angelic host, but he answers to the Godhead. The archangel Michael is *not* God.

And no one is denying the eternal sonship of Jesus. Certainly believe it, too. Always was, always will be. Michael, Angel of the Lord are only titles, as He is also our High Priest--designations of activity, nothing else.

 

[mark wright]

[Staff edit]
It is true SDA believe in the trinity where God exists as three persons.
It is also interesting to note, initially EGW did not believe Christ was God, she was persuaded to accept he was by her co founders of the SDA church

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

Again, you are wrong.

John 1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.

Jesus has always existed, and I firmly believe in the eternal sonship of Jesus. Jesus and Michael are not the same being. Michael is a created angel, and therefore Michael is below the members of the Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Michael is below Jesus. Yes, he is the commander of the angelic host, but he answers to the Godhead. The archangel Michael is *not* God.

Do you have scriptual backing for your claims? Btw, no one here is claiming Jesus was created... we are saying that based on scripture, the Son of God was also the Captain of the host.

Joshua 5:14-15
And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the Lord am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my Lord unto his servant?

And the captain of the Lord's host said unto Joshua, Loose thy shoe from off thy foot; for the place whereon thou standest is holy. And Joshua did so.

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

What is a synonym of captain of the Lord's host? Archangel...

 

[Dale]

On YouTube I watched how the SDA are a cult. According to my dictionary there is nothing wrong with being a cult.

Here the SDA defends itself:

The Dictionary isn't a good source of spiritual truth.

I'm not sure I get the title, "Why Do People Hate Seventh Day Adventists?"
Perhaps the question should be, why do they hate everyone else?

About ten years ago, our local SDA's put up a billboard saying "Sunday Worship is the Mark of the Beast." That's pretty extreme. Do I have to like a group that goes to such extremes to attack the day that my church meets? With no basis in Scripture for this absurd claim?

 

[Dale]

Here's a reason for disliking Seventh Day Adventists you probably haven't heard.

When I was a teenager, our next door neighbors were SDA. We always found them to be a bit arrogant.

The Vietnam War was still going on at that time and the US still had a military draft. My mother found out that the SDA claim to be pacifists so they don't have to serve in the military. Their SDA school trains their boys to be medics so they can escape combat. To my mother this was infuriating. To think that I am liable to be drafted and sent to the front line in the Vietnam War because we are Baptists while our neighbors could claim a religious exemption made no sense to her.



It doesn't make any sense to me either. Ellen White, the founder of the Seventh Day Adventists, wasn't a pacifist. She gave her followers permission to enlist in the Union Army during the Civil War. At least she took this step after it became clear that the Union was going to win the war.