# Brief Introduction to Seventh-Day Adventism



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Nov 12, 2015)

I was looking for information on the SDA movement and found this short article from the Master's seminiary on the problems with SDA. 

Any other resources one would recommend?


----------



## timfost (Nov 12, 2015)

Yes:

The Four Major Cults by Anthony A. Hoekema.

Some of the stats are outdated (first published in 1963), but it evaluates the major cults (Mormonism, JWs, Christian Science and SDA) from a reformed perspective.

Also, take a look at the SDAs own fundamental beliefs. The link below was provided by an SDA pastor when I asked him what they believed.

http://sdanet.org/atissue/books/27/index.htm


----------



## raydixon9 (Nov 12, 2015)

Carm.org's Seventh Day Adventist page.


----------



## Goodcheer68 (Nov 12, 2015)

Here is The Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan by Ellen White http://www.whiteestate.org/books/gc/gc.asp#23 
Here is another link from exadventists. http://www.exadventist.com/Home/Intro/tabid/64/Default.aspx


----------



## yeutter (Nov 12, 2015)

An abridgment of Dr. John H. Gerstner's treatment of 7th day Adventism
www.rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2...f-seventh-day-adventism-by-dr-john-h-gerstner


----------



## timmopussycat (Nov 12, 2015)

Walter Martin wrote an Appendix analyzing SDA in "The Kingdom of the Cults" 1977 and concluded that it was a heterodox Christian system.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Nov 13, 2015)

timmopussycat said:


> Walter Martin wrote an Appendix analyzing SDA in "The Kingdom of the Cults" 1977 and concluded that it was a heterodox Christian system.




Thanks for that. Found an updated version

http://www.amazon.com/The-Kingdom-Cults-Walter-Martin/dp/0764228218


----------



## Captain Picard (Nov 13, 2015)

It's important to remember that SDA exists along a spectrum these days, somewhat dissimilarly to Mormonism, and _radically_ so from the JW movement. You can find SDA pastors and theologians who, despite heterodox conceptions of the Sabbath, have views quite similar to Reformed folks and view EGW as more of a "nice lady with some helpful things to say about theology", and you can find "fundamentalist" SDA who hold her to be a prophetess, view all non-Adventist churches as synagogues of Satan etc.

Often, people will dig up sources like White's husband James saying that Christ was not eternal and simply conclude every SDA is non-Trinitarian, when in fact EGW was one of the first theologians of the post-Millerite schism to identify Christ as co-eternal with the Father.

As another example, people like the folks at the Pulpit and Pen dug up stuff about EGW saying that Michael the Archangel and Christ were "the same person", inserted the JW concept of the creaturelyness of Christ, and used that as damning proof that Ben Carson is an unsaved cultist. This is unhelpful because A) it ignores the spectrum I mentioned earlier without bothering to learn what Ben Carson, or any other individual SDA or their local church teaches or believes, B) it divorces the specific doctrine from EGW's belief that Michael is the "angel of the Lord", and thus all appearances of Michael are Christophanies, and conflates it with a view of Christ pertaining to the creature/Creator divide that EGW did not hold, at least not as head of the SDA movement.

So yeah, the sources listed above are generally helpful, but discernment about the movement as a whole takes more investment in not treating it as a monolith than an investigation of a strictly regulated cult like JW would.


----------



## timfost (Nov 13, 2015)

Captain Picard said:


> You can find SDA pastors and theologians who, despite heterodox conceptions of the Sabbath, have views quite similar to Reformed folks and view EGW as more of a "nice lady with some helpful things to say about theology", and you can find "fundamentalist" SDA who hold her to be a prophetess, view all non-Adventist churches as synagogues of Satan etc.



There is definitely a spectrum. However, their own fundamental beliefs mark EGW as a prophetess which is part of the "evidence" they put forth that they are the "remnant church."

Fundamental Belief 17:



> One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an *identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen G. White*. As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested.





Captain Picard said:


> So yeah, the sources listed above are generally helpful, but discernment about the movement as a whole takes more investment in not treating it as a monolith than an investigation of a strictly regulated cult like JW would.



I think this is really helpful. Hoekema's book deals with them very generously. Personally, I'm not persuaded that they should be labeled a cult.

Also, they seem to be much more reasonable than JWs from my experience. This is probably because they do not separate themselves from all other Christian influence as do the JWs.


----------



## Captain Picard (Nov 13, 2015)

timfost said:


> Captain Picard said:
> 
> 
> > You can find SDA pastors and theologians who, despite heterodox conceptions of the Sabbath, have views quite similar to Reformed folks and view EGW as more of a "nice lady with some helpful things to say about theology", and you can find "fundamentalist" SDA who hold her to be a prophetess, view all non-Adventist churches as synagogues of Satan etc.
> ...



The "fundamentalists" I mentioned, if by that one means all SDAs who adhere to all of the list of fundamental beliefs you identified, might in fact outnumber the "moderates" or "progressives", but they do exist. The author who contributed to the book "Perspectives on the Sabbath", and the faith statement of the church he is a pastor at, for example, are similar enough to the Reformed perspective that I wouldn't view engaging with him as "evangelistic" in any sense. Although I would still view Saturday-only corporate worship as heterodox.


----------



## johnny (Nov 13, 2015)

Could a member of the Seventh Day Adventist Church be admitted to the Puritanboard,
If he personally ascribed to the WCF and was interested in Reformed Theology?

Has there ever been an SDA member?

I am aware this first question is an Oxymoron.


----------



## Jack K (Nov 13, 2015)

Having known and worked with a number of Adventists, I agree it's helpful to be aware of the spectrum of belief and practice. It is indeed fairly broad. Depending on the pastoral purpose for wanting more information, a study of the more extreme teachings still held to by the hardliners may not necessarily be the most helpful material. These teachings often are not the main reason folks are drawn to the Adventist church.


----------



## earl40 (Nov 14, 2015)

Jack K said:


> Having known and worked with a number of Adventists, I agree it's helpful to be aware of the spectrum of belief and practice. It is indeed fairly broad. Depending on the pastoral purpose for wanting more information, a study of the more extreme teachings still held to by the hardliners may not necessarily be the most helpful material. These teachings often are not the main reason folks are drawn to the Adventist church.



Having worked in a SDA hospital this is indeed true. I have learned to be gentile as a dove and wise as a serpent with the individual be it SDA or any other person who is a member of any denomination. I have seen the "hardliners" and this dove stays away from those who can devour me at my job.


----------



## Reformed Roman (Nov 14, 2015)

Ben Carson is SDA, yet has said many solid things, but I'm leary of considering him a Christian


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 14, 2015)

Kenneth Boa wrote a book on "cults" (I know; trigger word) that dealt with SDA indirectly.


----------



## Jack K (Nov 15, 2015)

Zach Rohman said:


> Ben Carson is SDA, yet has said many solid things, but I'm leary of considering him a Christian



All else being equal, we could do much worse than to have a practicing SDA as president.


----------



## kodos (Nov 15, 2015)

Seventh Day Adventists are a peculiar problem in the Church of Jesus Christ. There are many schisms and splits that have occurred in the Protestant Church. 

However, not many branches of this holy catholic church have decided to remove themselves from the catholicity of the church in the way that the SDAs do. The vast majority of the church has seen the first day of the week as the Day in which Jesus meets with His People. Only apostates (those Jews who rejected the Messiah) continued to worship on the seventh day of the week, after the resurrection of our Lord.

However the SDAs have decided to divorce themselves from the rest of the church in a shocking way that not many others have. They have effectively excommunicated the rest of the catholic church, and have decided to do what is "right in their own eyes". 

Demonstrating this, they often have resorted to calling those who worship on the first day as those who have the mark of the beast.

For this reason amongst others (elevation of their 'prophetess', legalistic teachings on the dietary laws, etc.) I think they rightly deserve the label 'cult', due to the violence they have done in the body of Christ's Church.

I will not vote for a cultist for President, and undoubtedly there is already a rehabilitation project underway to make the SDA church palatable to evangelicals, in order to get them to vote for a Republican nominated SDA.


----------



## VictorBravo (Nov 15, 2015)

Moderation

Please keep to the original question. Political discussion will send this thread to Politics and Govt.


----------



## TylerRay (Nov 15, 2015)

As to the Christian vs Nonchistian perspective...

Ellen G. White was a false prophet and an antichrist (she denied the divinity of Christ, in fact). So, they are followers of an antichrist. Second, they consider the keeping of the first-day Sabbath the mark of the beast (which is a tremendous blasphemy).

So, _they are the followers of an antichrist and they consider the observance of the Lord's own special day to be the mark of the beast_. From an objective standpoint, their assemblies should be considered synagogues of Satan and no true churches. Their sacraments should not be recognized.

All that being said, there may be some true believers among them. If so, those men and women ought to "come out of her ... that [they] be not partakers of her sins, and that [they] receive not of her plagues," unite themselves to a Christian church and be baptized.


----------



## timfost (Nov 15, 2015)

TylerRay said:


> Ellen G. White was a false prophet and an antichrist (she denied the divinity of Christ, in fact). So, they are followers of an antichrist.



Certainly EGW was a false prophet. However, I think we should be careful not to bear false witness.



> Christ's humanity was united with divinity; He was fitted for the conflict by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. And He came to make us partakers of the divine nature. So long as we are united to Him by faith, sin has no more dominion over us. God reaches for the hand of faith in us to direct it to lay fast hold upon the divinity of Christ, that we may attain to perfection of character. _Desire of Ages_ p. 123



And _Fundamental Beliefs_:



> God the Eternal Son became incarnate in Jesus Christ. Through Him all things were created, the character of God is revealed, the salvation of humanity is accomplished, and the world is judged. Forever truly God, He became also truly man, Jesus the Christ. He was conceived of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. He lived and experienced temptation as a human being, but perfectly exemplified the righteousness and love of God. By His miracles He manifested God's power and was attested as God's promised Messiah. He suffered and died voluntarily on the cross for our sins and in our place, was raised from the dead, and ascended to minister in the heavenly sanctuary in our behalf. He will come again in glory for the final deliverance of His people and the restoration of all things.—Fundamental Beliefs, 4





TylerRay said:


> Second, they consider the keeping of the first-day Sabbath the mark of the beast (which is a tremendous blasphemy).



This is partly true. They don't consider every person who worships on Sunday as having the mark of the beast. Rather, the mark is reserved for those who decide to observe the “wrong” day when confronted with the “true” doctrine.



> But Christians of past generations observed the Sunday, supposing that in so doing they were keeping the Bible Sabbath; and there are now true Christians in every church, not excepting the Roman Catholic communion, who honestly believe that Sunday is the Sabbath of divine appointment. God accepts their sincerity of purpose and their integrity before Him. But when Sunday observance shall be enforced by law, and the world shall be enlightened concerning the obligation of the true Sabbath, then whoever shall transgress the command of God, to obey a precept which has no higher authority than that of Rome, will thereby honor popery above God. He is paying homage to Rome, and to the power which enforces the institution ordained by Rome. He is worshipping the beast and his image. As men then reject the institution which God has declared to be the sign of His authority, and honor in its stead that which Rome has chosen as the token of her supremacy, they will thereby accept the sign of allegiance to Rome — "the mark of the beast." And it is not until the issue is thus plainly set before the people, and they are brought to choose between the commandments of God and the commandments of men, that those who continue in transgression will receive "the mark of the beast." _The Great Controversy_ p. 428



Since she was certainly not an inspired writer, you may be able to find a place that she would seem to deny the deity of Christ. I would be interested to hear if you can substantiate your statement (I'm teaching a pt. 2 on the SDA church next Sunday). However, in the interest of accurate representation, I don't think it's fair to make a blanket statement asserting that she denied Christ's divinity. On the other hand, I am not seeking to defend her or argue that she was a Christian. Scripture has harsh words against false prophets. Her doctrines have deceived many and led people away from from looking to the scriptures alone for instruction in righteousness.

Certainly the JWs and Mormons are antichrist in their denial of Christ's divinity, but we shouldn't conflate the doctrines of these groups.


----------



## yeutter (Nov 16, 2015)

The Seventh-Day Adventist resource that helped me best understand their theology is *P. Gerard Damsteegt*'s book *Foundations of the Seventh-day Adventist Message and Mission * Eerdmans 1977 It is the closest thing I have found to a contemporary 7th Day Adventist church history and systematics


----------



## TylerRay (Nov 16, 2015)

timfost said:


> TylerRay said:
> 
> 
> > Ellen G. White was a false prophet and an antichrist (she denied the divinity of Christ, in fact). So, they are followers of an antichrist.
> ...



I've looked into this again. You're right--I spoke too soon, and I repent of having done so. It appears that her writings on the nature of Christ and on the Trinity are vague and inconclusive.

I would not, however, go to the "fundamental beliefs" for early SDA theology, though. Their broad-scale Trinitarianism was a later development. Even they admit that many of their early leaders were Arians.

She has enough false doctrine and schismaticism, though, to be considered an antichrist, even without outright denying the divinity of Christ. Surely you agree.

As to the matter of the Sabbath, my point stands: they consider the honor of Christ in keeping his day holy the mark of the beast. That is satanic.


----------



## nick (Nov 17, 2015)

_No Compromise Radio_ just did a couple shows on it. Most of the first show deals with the failed prophecies. I plan on listening to the second show this week.

The Cult of Seventh Day Adventism (Part 1)
The Cult of Seventh Day Adventism (Part 2)


----------



## timfost (Nov 17, 2015)

TylerRay said:


> It appears that her writings on the nature of Christ and on the Trinity are vague and inconclusive.



From the EGW that I've read, she does seem to speak fairly clearly on the divinity of Christ (though you are certainly correct to say that many of the early SDA writers were somewhat Arian and not promoting Christ as co-equal with the Father). 

Where she seems to deviate from orthodoxy on this is when she speaks about the human nature that Christ put on. She said of Christ:



> He took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature. _Medical Ministry_, p. 181



and:



> He could have fallen, but not for one moment was there in Him an evil propensity. _Questions on Doctrine_, p. 651



The SDA church currently tries to make it clear that the nature that He took on was _not_ sinful but rather a nature weakened by sin (Hoekema 113). The problem as I see it concerns the nature of God. Since God "cannot lie" and "cannot deny Himself," to speak about Christ being _able_ to fall into sin seems to deny the power of His deity and the union of both natures.



TylerRay said:


> I would not, however, go to the "fundamental beliefs" for early SDA theology, though. Their broad-scale Trinitarianism was a later development. Even they admit that many of their early leaders were Arians.



Very true.



TylerRay said:


> She has enough false doctrine and schismaticism, though, to be considered an antichrist, even without outright denying the divinity of Christ. Surely you agree.



Honestly, I haven't studied the definition of "antichrist" enough to affirm or deny. Certainly she was a false prophet and has done great harm to the name and body of Christ.



TylerRay said:


> As to the matter of the Sabbath, my point stands: they consider the honor of Christ in keeping his day holy the mark of the beast. That is satanic.



Yes. They are calling good evil. They make fairly compelling arguments for Saturday Sabbath on the surface. Their flaws, though, as I see them, lie in the following:

1. They don't officially admit to using the hermeneutic that uses "necessary inference" (WCF 1.6), though they use it inconsistently from my experience.

2. They do not understand how to weigh the NT with the OT, which has led to many of their dietary prohibitions, among other things.

3. They have poor expositions of Acts 20:7 and 1 Cor. 16:2

4. They make an assumption that the 4th commandment sets the day of worship. It does not, only the ratio 6:1. Another commandment has always clarified which day of the week was to be our Sabbath rest.

5. They superimpose the heresies of the RCC to the very earliest times after the apostles and therefore do not take seriously early church practice, their own practice more closely resembling that of the Ebionites.

Desiring to see some of the positive, though, I think many Christians could learn from their Sabbath dedication (wrong day aside). An SDA friend of ours invited my wife to go out to eat one Sunday. My wife declined, explaining that "our Sunday is like your Saturday." Our SDA friend was surprised that we actually take the 4th commandment seriously.

The prevalent doctrine that the 4th commandment has been abrogated has unfortunately bolstered the SDA's own view of their practice in my opinion. Taken to it's logical conclusion, it is inconsistent for those promoting the annulling of the command to expect members to attend church regularly. I would presume that churches now wouldn't have to spend so much time on their music and other "programs" if the 4th commandment had it's proper place. But without it, churches have to "attract" the members to return weekly. When churches have to stir sinful man to desire coming because it's fun, what place is there to speak about sin from the pulpit? How does worship of God fit the equation?

As much as I dislike about the SDA church and denounce their prophetess and a great many of their beliefs, I think many Christians could learn from their dedication to the 4th commandment, all else aside.


----------

