Let’s Discuss the Seventh-day Adventism!

January 12, 2011 at 1:18 PM 27 comments

Lately, I’ve been hounded by a Seventh-day Adventist who does not understand what I mean when I say “I’m not interested in debating.”  To him, that sentence apparently means “Let’s debate.”  It doesn’t, but it really should not surprise me that he doesn’t understand my intentions because of the many ill-advised theologies that are inherent within Seventh-day Adventism.

Before I start off, I’d like to say that in spite of the fact that I am presenting this disclaimer –  I am not attacking Seventh-day Adventists, I am countering their beliefs – there will be people who will come to this board, read my comments and tell me that I AM attacking Seventh-day Adventists.  It does not matter how I couch my words, or how many disclaimers I present.  It is like saying “Homosexuality is wrong” and being accused of a hate-crime by some Gay or Lesbian individual in spite of the fact that the person making that statement (homosexuality is wrong) does not hate anyone. 

It is important for Seventh-day Adventists to understand that when people present information and articles against their beliefs, it is not done because we are tossing stones, or because we hate Seventh-day Adventists.  It is done because there appears to be tremendous problems with the theology that is inherent within Seventh-day Adventism.  It is our desire that these folks come to terms with these errors and realize that salvation may not be what it is believed to be under Seventh-day Adventist tenets.  It is for THIS reason and this reason alone that I present this information.  Nonetheless, here we go with some basic understanding of Seventh-day Adventism.

William Miller in the 1800s believed he had narrowed down the date of the return of Jesus Christ.  So he, and his followers gathered on a hill dressed in white robes and waited for the Lord to return.  The Lord never returned and like Harold Camping of today when his first guess as to the Lord’s return ended without the Lord having the decency to appear, so too did Miller and his followers walk away with their tails between their legs and frustration in their hearts and minds.

From that inauspicious beginning, Ellen G. White entered as Miller exited.  While Seventh-day Adventism has been careful to not puff up White too much, she is clearly the leading founder of Seventh-day Adventism.  Since that is fact, it is important to know what White taught, in spite of the fact that this group has endeavored to publicly distance themselves from White.

Here are some interesting facts about White and her beliefs:

  1. Immortality:  Seventh-Day Adventists do not believe that the whole man or any part of him is inherently “immortal” (Q.D., p. 518).
  2. Soul Sleep:  SDAs believe in “soul sleep” for the saved (i.e., no conscious existence from the time of death until the resurrection), and
  3. Annihilation for the wicked (i.e., the body and soul are destroyed at death rather than experiencing everlasting torment). How, then, can one get to heaven?
  4. Immortality on one condition: SDAs believe that one can have immortality only on the condition that he comes to Christ through Ellen G. White; i.e., a works program, following salvation by grace with light of revelation through Ellen G. White as the infallible guide to Holy Scripture, apart from which one cannot have immortality. Then, at resurrection day, the body will be re-created (necessary because of soul sleep) for all those who believe in White’s guidance and teachings (while non-SDAs will remain in “soul sleep” forever; i.e., will cease to exist [annihilated] and will not suffer everlasting torment).
  5. Regarding Christ:  Mrs. White: “Christ took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature … Christ took human nature and bore the infirmities and degeneracy of the race. He took our nature and its deteriorating condition” (Q.D., pp. 654-656) (cf. Jn. 14:30). According to SDA, then, Christ acquired a sinful nature! Of course, if this could have been so, there could have been no sinless sacrifice, no hope for sinners, and no Savior.
  6. Baptism: According to White, Christ made it clear that He required baptism of those who wished to become part of His church, His spiritual kingdom”; “In baptism believers enter into the passion experience of our Lord”; “… [B]aptism also marks [a] person’s entrance into Christ’s spiritual kingdom. … it unites the new believer to Christ.… Through baptism the Lord adds the new disciples to the body of believers — His body, the church.… Then they are members of God’s family” (SDAs Believe …, pp. 182, 184, 187)
  7. Investigative Judgment:  This is essentially a salvation by works claim.  According to SDA theology, beginning on October 22, 1844, Christ entered upon the “judgment phase” of His ministry, whereby He blots out sin: [The SDA doctrine of the “Investigative Judgment” rests on Ellen G. White’s claimed revelation that Christ entered the heavenly Holy of Holies, not at His ascension, but in 1844, wherein He then began to investigate the records of human works (TGC, pp. 362-373) (cf. Heb. 9).] “When Christ, by virtue of His own blood, removes the sins of His people from the heavenly sanctuary at the close of His ministration, He will place them upon Satan, who, in the execution of the judgment, must bear the final penalty” (TGC, p. 422). Satan, thereby, becomes the scapegoat of Leviticus 16. This lack of clear distinction between the forgiveness of sins and the blotting out of sins, makes it impossible for anyone to know, even in the hour of his death, whether he is saved or not. (SDAs are not “allowed” to experience assurance of salvation, because then there would be no pressure on them to keep the Old Testament law, as interpreted by Ellen G. White, and especially no pressure to pay the tithe.) Moreover, the concept that the sins of all men are to be laid on Satan, assigns to Satan an indispensable role in the blotting out of sin, thus nullifying the all-sufficiency of the finished work of Christ. [When Jesus said on the cross, “It is finished,” i.e. completed, paid in full, it cannot be that there is yet another salvation event more than 1,800 years later, just as essential to salvation as Christ’s death on the cross, in which one must believe in order to be saved. This is clearly “another gospel” (Gal. 1:6–9).]

    The “Investigative Judgment” and the “Scapegoat Theory of the Atonement” are, by themselves, so non-Biblical as to contradict Galatians 1:8-9. It is “another gospel,” about which the Apostle Paul wrote, “let such be anathema” (i.e., cursed/condemned).

  8. The Sabbath:  In one of her most revered works, Ellen White wrote that Sabbath observance would be the “line of distinction” in the “final test” that will separate God’s end-time people who “receive the seal of God” and are saved, from those who “receive the mark of the beast” (The Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan, p. 605). Describing a supposed vision direct from God, Ellen White wrote, “I saw that the Holy Sabbath is, and will be, the separating wall between the true Israel of God and unbelievers” (Early Writings, p. 33; emphasis added). She also wrote of some Adventists failing to understand that “Sabbath … observance was of sufficient importance to draw a line between the people of God and unbelievers” (Ibid., p. 85).

I realize that the above comments will seem like an attack to many Seventh-day Adventists.  As stated, this is nothing of the sort.  If any Seventh-day Adventist who reads these words and disagrees with them as being false, then that is up to them.  What I have merely done is gone to the source of much of the SDA teachings and repeated her comments here with references.

Setting everything else aside, the main tragedy of SDA is that in a nutshell, it is a system that endeavors to work for salvation.  The Bible clearly indicates that nothing we can do will earn for us any part of salvation.  It is God’s gift.  This is made clear in Ephesians 2:8-9 as well as numerous other passages of Scripture.

Salvation is a free gift.  It does not come with strings attached.  Unlike White’s teachings, which dictate that there are things we must do or we are in danger of losing our salvation, the Bible does no such thing.

Once we receive salvation, this spiritual act (cf. John 3) gives us the new birth, the same new birth that Jesus spoke to Nicodemus about.  It is from this new birth that our goals, our purposes, our perspective is changed over time.  This is the result of salvation, not the starting point for it.

It frustrates me when I read where people add to salvation, making it impossible for people to ever receive it.  Imagine living under a system where one wrong step could mean the loss of salvation.  Imagine never being baptized here on earth and dying without having gone through that sacrament.  As far as SDA is concerned, there is no hope for that individual.  They are lost and will be annihilated after death.

These doctrines are nothing less than doctrines of demons.  It is some truth with lies, which then makes the whole thing a lie.  Either salvation is free, with no strings attached and is received by believing in your heart and confessing with your mouth that Jesus is Lord (cf. Romans 9), or it is not.

Teachings like those of the SDA do nothing to teach people about actual salvation.  They muddy it, completely covering it with requirements that literally put it out of reach of the average individual.  This is not what Christ came to do.  When He died on the cross, He specifically and pointedly stated, “It is finished!”  There is nothing left to do except receive salvation and that is accomplished by believing that Jesus Christ is who He says He is and that He did what He came to do.  Once we see that truth, and embrace it through faith, salvation becomes ours.

We are told in Romans 8 by the apostle Paul that “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus…” and that chapter ends with “For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

The apostle Paul tells that we are no longer condemned because those who are in Christ, walk in His Spirit.  He ends that chapter with the fact that nothing can or will separate us from the love of God in Christ.  SDAs want us to believe that these two statements are not true; that we can lose our salvation, and that in the end, if we are not careful we will be separated from Christ.

Should we take the SDA’s word for it, or Scripture’s?

Entry filed under: 9/11, alienology, Atheism and religion, Demonic, dispensationalism, Eastern Mysticism, emergent church, Gun Control, Islam, israel, Judaism, Life in America, new age movement, Posttribulational Rapture, Pretribulational Rapture, Religious - Christian - End Times, Religious - Christian - Prophecy, Religious - Christian - Theology, salvation, Satanism, Sharia Law, temple mount, ufology. Tags: , , , , .

Liberal Hypocrites with Ft. Hood vs. Arizona Tragedy Bill Maher Stokes the Fires of Stupidity

27 Comments

  • 1. Sally  |  January 30, 2012 at 2:11 AM

    I’ve known Adventists personally since childhood and they were mostly nominal. Keeping the sabbath seems to be the focus, followed shortly by workaholism which leaves no time for anything or anyone else. If that’s not cultish what is? I have to say that I suspect the Sabbath “rest” is a sham because church activities can last until the afternoon. Personally I believe they need to put some emphasis on “love they neighbour”. Hence my next point.
    I was caught up with a two-faced Samoan independant SDA youth teacher but he wasn’t interested in marriage, at least not to me. He would lie and say anything to get intimate with me though. He was pretty darn convincing too! But he had no real concept of relationships or love, it was all wishy washy with the odd declaration of undying love. At first I passed it off as cultural but after a while i thought “Um no it’s not cultural – this man is an insensitive and selfish jerk”. He kept his double life a secret from the minister of his congregation because it was “none of his business” but right up until the last time I saw him he took his religion and his role very seriously indeed. I almost feel sorry for him, talk about a conflicted individual!

  • 2. p abbott  |  December 3, 2011 at 6:21 PM

    I am a former Seventh Day Adventist. Although there are SDAs that I know and love as friends, I think their religion is one of the most scarey things I have ever experienced, I attended their schools for 8 years – high school and college. My life would have been a lot easier if I never heard of them.

  • 3. rocky  |  October 20, 2011 at 6:58 AM

    as i was taught,yahshua the messiah fullfilled the hebrew concept of the law,the law was given to hebrews and hebrews only.the gentile did by nature what was contained in the law. and seeing yahweh transformed into every phase of so called nature on everyone of the days in other words its all him and he got up in the first man adam and walked around in his own creation! what day isnt the sabbath?seeing hes coming from sabbath to sabbath or from glory to glory?hope this was a blessing.thank you.

    • 4. modres  |  October 20, 2011 at 7:44 AM

      Thanks Rocky – I think I understand exactly what you’re saying.

  • 5. Katelynn  |  August 21, 2011 at 2:02 PM

    I myself don’t read much of Ellen G. White. I believe that many SDAs read to much into her works than the Bible’s. My only question is this.. Where in the Bible, not in anyone else’s writing, the BIBLE does it mention ANYTHING about going to church on Sunday?

    I’m not saying that if you don’t go to Church on Saturday that you are condemned to Hell. That’s not in my place to say where anyone goes, nor is it in anyone else’s place but the Lord’s.

    And I understand that you have talked to many SDAs and our religion just doesn’t seem right. But really, when you think about it, there are those people from every religion. You seem like someone who really has read into it a lot, and that’s great! But if you are really interested in why we believe the way we do, this is a GREAT source!

    You see, I didn’t believe in this religion at first either. It didn’t make much sense to me. But if you read this, and have a Bible near. I urge you to go through, read each part in this site, and read along in your Bible and I hope you can get a better understanding!

    (link deleted)

    • 6. modres  |  August 21, 2011 at 5:14 PM

      I believe I already answered your question when I quoted the passage in Romans. The fact that Paul mentions that one person views that particular day as reserved for the Lord, while another person views another day, etc.

      By the way, the only reason I mentioned that is so that YOU will ask YOURSELF if YOU believe you will lose salvation if you STOP worshiping on Saturday. We’re not talking about anyone else here, or people in general. I was asking YOU to ask YOURSELF that question.

      I have studied Seventh-day Adventism quite a bit actually, not only by reading SDA authors but by also reading what others say about it.

      Again though, my point is really simple: if YOU believe that you are saved and that your salvation is eternally secure, then who cares what anyone says? All I am concerned with is that people actually have AUTHENTIC salvation. I’m not trying to bash SDA or anything else that I might disagree with.

      So once again, it’s not that I need to understand more about SDA. It’s my concern for those who are involved in who really cannot effectively explain WHY they believe they are saved and even IF they are saved. The ten facts are written by SDA people and as such, the information does not really stand up under solid scrutiny. Also, I try to avoid allowing people to include links to other pages, so for that reason I have removed the link. I’m sorry, it’s nothing personal.

  • 7. Katelynn  |  August 21, 2011 at 12:48 PM

    What many of Sunday churchgoers don’t understand is that there is NO Biblical Support that Sunday is the correct day to attend church! There is more support in the bible that you must keep the Sabbath day holy. Yes, I do feel that many Seventh-day Adventists take things a little out of the hand and can be over the top. BUT, what you also have to understand, is that there are those people in every religion. If you go through, and read the bible, take all bias-ism out of the picture, and truly READ the Bible, you will see that there is more support behind Church being on Saturday. What many Sunday church attending people don’t know, is that the Sunday church was actually started by Catholics (no offense to anyone, I’m not saying anything bad about the Catholics). But, I have read many articles by Catholics who have said that God was wrong on making the church day Saturday. Now, how can we listen to man, when God clearly says, in the 10 Commandments “Keep the Sabbath Day HOLY!”. Again, man has said that we no longer have to listen to that commandment. Now where is it, in our place, to say which commandment we can, and cannot obey? Throughout the Old and New testimony, it says numerous times that we must obey all commandments!
    I don’t mean to offend anyone. And I’m not saying your beliefs are wrong. But all my life, I’ve heard from peers, different churches, and even friends that my religion is wrong. I only ask that you read the bible, check up on how your church first became, and tell me, where in the Bible that it says to worship on Sunday. THEN tell me my religion is wrong!

    • 8. modres  |  August 21, 2011 at 1:21 PM

      What SDA’rs do not understand is that these debates/arguments, etc., have all been said and done. All I’ve tried to do is present information that clarifies the issue of SALVATION within the SDA movement. The point I have made is that I have personally talked with numerous SDA members who have told me that a person who FAILS to go to church (observe the Sabbath) on Saturday cannot be saved. It’s really that simple. Since my main point was to emphasize salvation, that comes into play.

      Regarding any bias I might have, the exact same could easily be said about you. You cannot read the Bible without your particular bias either.

      Your belief that Sunday worship was started by “Catholics” (meaning, the Pope) is incorrect. Yet, it is this belief you have that causes you to connect that Pope with the Antichrist who is able to change the times and seasons. Steve Wohlberg (a prominent SDA author) is very clear about this in a number of his books. It is that error that you believe which makes you also believe that the entirety of Christendom (excluding SDAs) are absolutely incorrect. There is good evidence that those in the Church just after it was born recognized Sunday as their worship day, to separate themselves from being confused with Jews.

      Man has not said we do not have to listen to the Sabbath commandment, but if you’ll take the words of Paul, you’ll see what I am referring to. In Romans 14:5-8, he states, “One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone. If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.” I have emphasized the first part because there, Paul specifically speaks of setting aside a special day to the Lord. It could be Sunday, or Monday, or Saturday.

      By the way, if you really believe that we are to obey “all commandments!” then I suggest that you are not doing that. There were 613 laws given to the nation of Israel. While many were given specifically to the Levites, there were PLENTY that applied to the average person. Paul also speaks of the fact that – using circumcision as an example – anyone who obeys part of the law as a means of gaining salvation, is obligated to obey ALL of it (Galatians 5:1-6).

      As a Christian, yes, I worship with others on Sunday, however, I worship God DAILY.

      My greatest concern for folks like yourself is the issue of SALVATION. Ask yourself, if you stop worshiping on Saturday and opted to worship on Sunday, do you believe you would LOSE your salvation? If so, then you do not have salvation by GRACE, but salvation by WORKS.

      I am a Christian, yet I still sin from time to time. I do NOT lose my salvation when I sin. My fellowship with the Lord is affected, but NOT my salvation. When I am told by SDA members (or anyone) that if I fail to keep a particular law, I am in danger of losing my salvation, I know they are 100% wrong because this is not what the Bible teaches. Yes, I can take this verse or that verse out of its context and make it APPEAR as though it teaches that my salvation is not sure, or that my salvation is conditional. From my study of His Word, I do not believe that any part of my salvation is conditional. It does not require anything from me except FAITH.

      This is the ONLY reason I have brought up anything to do with SDA. I’ve talked about other sects and groups as well and it has always been to try to urge people to search out the Bible to determine whether or not they can prove (to themselves) that the salvation they believe they have is unconditionally eternally secure or not. That is the entire reason I post these blogs about this group or that sect at all.

      There are some major problems – in my opinion – with some of Ellen G. White’s teachings. Moreover, I have a problem Scripturally with teachings that seek to ADD to the FINISHED work of Christ. In my opinion, these other teachings represent “another gospel” which Paul tells us is not gospel at all.

      Regarding my church, I am extremely careful about which church or denomination with which I associate myself. The problem with SDA is HOW it came to be, under WHAT conditions it came to be, and the TENETS that are thoroughly ensconced in those tenets. William Miller was off in the beginning believing that Jesus was coming back – and he believed he knew the date. When that failed, he essentially walked away. Ellen G. White turned lemons into lemonade and came up with the a theory which taught that Jesus DID return, but did so SPIRITUALLY.

      There are any numbers of problems with White’s teachings and rather than lay them out here, take the time to research them yourself. You can start here if you are interested:
      http://www.biblebelievers.com/SDA/

  • 9. fudoshin  |  August 20, 2011 at 2:44 PM

    It would appear to me that SDA’s or any religion / denomination might feel attacked by some of your opinions and facts because they identify personally with said religion / denomination and you are referring to their belief system in what they might call negative context. I have found it to be generally true that if I express my belief regarding something as simple as pizza there are people who will seek to debate my beliefs because they identify (in their mind) so much so with pizza that it creates an emotional response when something they disagree with is communicated to them. They feel a desire to “correct” the person who disagrees with their beliefs. There are things that Christians know for fact which they cannot and will not ever be able to “prove” to someone else’s satisfaction if they insist on disbelief. In my opinion, debate is useless because both people are seeking to persuade the other person to their belief system whatever they are debating. Neither one is honestly seeking for truth because each one believes they have it and its their duty to persuade the other. Jesus is the true light that illuminates and enlightens every man that comes into the world. The Bible stands as the anvil that has worn out many a hammer. Regarding Ellen White or any other claimed christian author one should apply the test of Philippians 4:8 and 1 Thessalonians 5:21 among other qualifiers. I for one appreciate your thoughts modres, in that they are challenging one to truly know what it is they profess to believe. This is very important because your spiritual belief system determines basically your final destination. How can a person be content to know so little about what they believe when so much is at stake and hinges on what they believe? One thing if nothing else I do know and that thing is that there cant be multiple peoples with opposing viewpoints right. Somebody is right and somebody is wrong. When time finally closes and the dust settles it will be clear as clear can be.

    • 10. modres  |  August 20, 2011 at 3:34 PM

      Hi Fudoshin, thanks for your comments. I realize that those within SDA might be offended or take offense to some things I’ve written and a number of people have. I also agree with you that debate is pointless. I’ve said this before; apologetics never saved anyone (that I know of).

      What I’ve endeavored to do is simply put the information out there. People can ignore it, use it, or seek to understand it, but ultimately, I put it out there so that people will at least question why they believe what they believe.

  • 11. Mike  |  May 26, 2011 at 9:50 AM

    Modres,

    I don’t mind you interspersing your comments between mine. There were some parts left out in one of my previous posts. But it’s probably because it was way too long. The problem is that there are way too many topics being discussed at once and it’s extremely difficult to respond to everything and still keep the response short.

    I think it’s best if you just choose one topic that you feel is most critical or that you have questions on and we can start with that and take it one topic at a time from there.

    And I’m sorry but it will probably take me as much as several weeks to get back to you, but it is the best I can do right now.

    Mike.

    • 12. modres  |  May 26, 2011 at 10:43 AM

      I think the main problem here is that I am discussing teachings of Ellen G. White. You and a few others have come here to say that you firmly disagree with aspects of what White taught. In that case, it is certainly possible that you (and the other folks) are not dyed-in-the-wool SDAs. It would be like a Mormon stating that he/she does not agree with foundational teachings of Joseph Smith. In that case, is that person truly a Mormon is the strict sense of the world?

      Desmond Ford was “excused” from the Seventh-day Adventist group because of his severe doubts about things like “Investigative Judgment.” His evangelical Christianity is not necessarily in question for many at this point. So when I write these blogs, I’m not necessarily speaking to or about those people who – like you – have disagreements with some of White’s teachings.

      There really are plenty of SDAs who wholeheartedly agree with what White taught, even though I believe that she – like Harold Camping – was a false prophet and a false teacher.

      When I compose my blogs, I simply write them. Sometimes I go with one point while at other times, I go with more than one. You’re always free to choose one point to comment on or not. As I’ve said before, while I greatly appreciate comments, my blog here is not necessarily open to debate. When you object to something I write, please make sure that what I am reporting on is not necessarily your particular viewpoint. I have studied a great deal on SDAs and other groups, including White’s own writings as well as people like Walter Martin. I’m not going into this thing blind.

      I’m convinced that Seventh-day Adventism – in its strict form – is a cult. You and a few other people have disagreed with me, but I cannot help but wonder if it’s because you yourself disagree with my understanding of SDA even though I’m getting it right from the source.

      I have also noted that I have had several SDAs tell me directly that I have already taken the mark because I do not worship on Sunday. Steve Wohlberg also brings this out in his many writings and Doug Batchelor has said as much. These people write and represent Seventh-day Adventism. IF they are wrong, then people like yourself either need to correct them, or present an accurate picture AGAINST what they teach.

      I’m not out there on a limb that is breaking. I’m going to the sources who teach SDA. If they teach or tell me that I have taken the mark because I do not worship on Saturday for instance, and that specific belief ties perfectly into what White and other high up leaders within SDA teach, then my rebuttal is on solid ground. If you do not believe that you have to worship on Saturday or that those who do not have already taken the mark, then you are part of the SDA movement that is not in line with the critical teaching of SDA.

      It is like the Worldwide Church of God, started by Herbert Armstrong. It clearly began as a cult and has very cultish beliefs. Over the past number of decades, they have tried to move it much more toward the center, from their cult teachings. The difficulty with that is that it began in every way like a cult. That is how it is known, so to try to change into something else is very difficult and simply creates schisms within the organization. Who knows how many people still associated with Worldwide Church of God still hold onto their cultish beliefs?

  • 13. Grace  |  May 19, 2011 at 9:02 PM

    Hi, I found your blog randomly. I just wanted to say that I am an SDA, and I agree with Mike. My church does not teach salvation by works, and we always use the Bible for study. However, I have met some very legalistic Adventists before.

    • 14. modres  |  May 19, 2011 at 9:22 PM

      Thanks for your comments. While Mike thinks I am misinformed, I would disagree with him. The origins of SDA and the early teachings speak for themselves. I’m glad you do not believe in salvation by works and that you always use the Bible.

      I hope you also believe in eternal security, because if you don’t, then no matter how you slice it, you believe that salvation is MAINTAINED by works.

  • 15. Mike  |  May 9, 2011 at 2:14 PM

    Dear Modres,

    Let me assure you once again that I personally do NOT think you are ATTACKING Seventh-day Adventists.

    What I do think is that you have only a superficial understanding of what SDA’s actually believe and as a result are misinforming people. Unfortunately, you misconstrue any attempt to clarify our position as “debating.” You made the comment earlier that none of the Seventh-day Adventists you’ve talked to were “able to dialogue” but it is more likely that it was you who was not interested in dialogue.

    Modres, if you want to know what SDA’s believe, then read an official SDA statement of belief rather than going by what this or that person tells you. Our church is very particular about our official doctrines. Changes or additions to our doctrinal statement are only made during a General Conference meeting where SDA delegates from all over the world come together and vote. If a doctrine was not unitedly decided upon in this way then it is NOT an SDA doctrine regardless of who says otherwise. Probably the best source for information on the official Adventist position is the book “Seventh-Day Adventists Believe” put together by the general conference of sda’s.

    So once again, for the record,

    1) The Seventh-day Adventist Church DOES NOT believe that people who are worshiping on Sunday have the mark of the beast. The mark of the beast is something that does not come into play until the very end of time AFTER the Beast/Antichrist takes over the world.

    2) SDAs do NOT believe in salvation by works. At least no more than any other denomination of the Arminian persuasion. If SDAs are a cult because of their view on salvation then so are methodists, free-will baptists, pentecostals and many others.

    3) SDAs, along with many other protestants, believe that the gifts of the Spirit given to the church in Acts, were given to the church until the end of time (Eph. 4:8-13). Prophecy was NOT just preaching. There are several examples in Acts of prophesying done by people who were not apostles (Acts 21:10; 11:28; 21:9 etc.)

    Nonetheless, we DO NOT believe the role of such prophets is to determine what the church is supposed to believe since doctrinal beliefs must be bases on the Bible and the Bible ONLY. SDAs, as a matter of principle, refuse to allow any outside element including EGW to influence them in determining Bible doctrine.

    4) SDAs do NOT believe Jesus ever sinned.

    Now regarding your comments above about SDAs being deceptive about their identity, was Jesus being deceptive when he told His disciples not to let people know that He was the Christ (Matt. 16:20)? When people go out of their way to prejudice the public against you, it is best to keep your identity to yourself until the individual has a chance to see for himself that you are a reasonable person.

    Lastly, I would appreciate it if you either post my comments in their entirety or not at all. It is very unethical to selectively post only fragments giving the impression that I left issues unanswered or that my answers were incomplete.

    p.s. i don’t know who simon is so there’s no way for him to know who i am. i found your blog while randomly surfing the web one day and was not referred here by anybody.

    mike.

    • 16. modres  |  May 9, 2011 at 2:45 PM

      Mike, for the sake of continuity, I have interspersed my comments among yours WITHOUT editing yours at all.

      Dear Modres,

      Let me assure you once again that I personally do NOT think you are ATTACKING Seventh-day Adventists.

      Thanks Mike.

      What I do think is that you have only a superficial understanding of what SDA’s actually believe and as a result are misinforming people. Unfortunately, you misconstrue any attempt to clarify our position as “debating.” You made the comment earlier that none of the Seventh-day Adventists you’ve talked to were “able to dialogue” but it is more likely that it was you who was not interested in dialogue.

      If I was not interested in dialogue, I would not have allowed Simon’s posts. Whether it’s dialogue or debate (and it is often difficult to see the difference), it rarely results in better understanding.

      Modres, if you want to know what SDA’s believe, then read an official SDA statement of belief rather than going by what this or that person tells you. Our church is very particular about our official doctrines. Changes or additions to our doctrinal statement are only made during a General Conference meeting where SDA delegates from all over the world come together and vote. If a doctrine was not unitedly decided upon in this way then it is NOT an SDA doctrine regardless of who says otherwise. Probably the best source for information on the official Adventist position is the book “Seventh-Day Adventists Believe” put together by the general conference of sda’s.

      You are ASSUMING that I have never read a book by Ellen G. White, or have spent time on the official SDA Web site…

      So once again, for the record,

      1) The Seventh-day Adventist Church DOES NOT believe that people who are worshiping on Sunday have the mark of the beast. The mark of the beast is something that does not come into play until the very end of time AFTER the Beast/Antichrist takes over the world.

      2) SDAs do NOT believe in salvation by works. At least no more than any other denomination of the Arminian persuasion. If SDAs are a cult because of their view on salvation then so are methodists, free-will baptists, pentecostals and many others.

      3) SDAs, along with many other protestants, believe that the gifts of the Spirit given to the church in Acts, were given to the church until the end of time (Eph. 4:8-13). Prophecy was NOT just preaching. There are several examples in Acts of prophesying done by people who were not apostles (Acts 21:10; 11:28; 21:9 etc.)

      Yes, and there are incidents where people other than the apostles cast out demons too. That in and of itself does not prove what prophesy is; it merely proves that others had a particular gift. Even if the term prophecy meant more of being a prophet – uttering that which is divinely/supernaturally revealed – there is biblical (as well as extra-biblical) evidence that this type of gift died out with the last apostles. IF that is the case, then there are no prophets after that. I guess it would be important to ask WHY we would even need them if we have the entirety of God’s Word now and if Jesus completed all the work that was given to Him?

      Nonetheless, we DO NOT believe the role of such prophets is to determine what the church is supposed to believe since doctrinal beliefs must be bases on the Bible and the Bible ONLY. SDAs, as a matter of principle, refuse to allow any outside element including EGW to influence them in determining Bible doctrine.

      Interesting. I will absolutely do more research on this Mike. You know, if Simon could speak as clearly, definitively, and with an economy of words as you have done, we probably could have gotten to the point quite some time ago.

      4) SDAs do NOT believe Jesus ever sinned.

      Now regarding your comments above about SDAs being deceptive about their identity, was Jesus being deceptive when he told His disciples not to let people know that He was the Christ (Matt. 16:20)?

      Not at all. Of course, Jesus was/is God and you yourself said He never sinned. He had a specific reason for hiding His identity from people and in at least some cases, it was because of the pandemonium that broke out when people found out what He could do.

      What possible reason would YOU have for hiding your identity regarding being an SDA?

      When people go out of their way to prejudice the public against you, it is best to keep your identity to yourself until the individual has a chance to see for himself that you are a reasonable person.

      So your main concern is that you are aware that people think SDA is a cult. Because of that, you prefer not to tell people that up front because of their preconceived ideas they may have about SDA? By doing that, you are simply reinforcing the stereotype in my opinion. There are folks who believe that I am a heretic because I am 1) a normative dispensationalist, 2) a Pretrib Rapturist. Do I try to hide those things because some think I’m a heretic? No, I don’t. The real difference (if any) though is that Dispensationalism at its root is simply the understanding that God reveals His will progressively. Being a PreTrib Rapturist has nothing to do with my salvation (since it is in the realm of eschatology). Being part of a group that focuses on worshiping on the “seventh” day may strike people as legalistic even before they learn anything else about SDA.

      Lastly, I would appreciate it if you either post my comments in their entirety or not at all. It is very unethical to selectively post only fragments giving the impression that I left issues unanswered or that my answers were incomplete.

      Sorry Mike, I do not recall selectively posting your comments. As I stated at the top of this, it makes FAR more sense for me to intersperse my responses to your queries WHEN you ask the question or make the statement, rather than do it in a completely separate response as that may cause confusion. But so that people can know that I have NOT edited your comments at all, I have allowed your response complete in a separate post and have copied it and interspersed my comments into this one, leaving yours completely in tact.

      p.s. i don’t know who simon is so there’s no way for him to know who i am. i found your blog while randomly surfing the web one day and was not referred here by anybody.

      That’s fine, Mike. I was not aware of who he was referring to originally, but I now see that he had read your comments and was referring to you.

      mike.

  • 17. Simon  |  May 8, 2011 at 10:13 PM

    Re OSAS (more formally known as the doctrine of the ‘Perseverance of the Saints’), unless Fred is looking at other factual data, a simple Wikipedia search of the phrase (which I admit isn’t always 100% true, but at least has nothing to do with Adventists) suggests it is minority Christian belief, derived from Calvinist teaching. The doctrine seems to be rejected by the 1 billion Roman Catholics, 300 million Eastern Orthodox, most Lutherans (although they have a modified view all of their own) and the remaining Wesleyan-Arminian Protestants (Methodists, many Baptists and Adventists).

    Given there are only 800 million Protestants worldwide, this view is a minority one against the 1 billion Roman Catholics alone, not even counting the Eastern Orthodox and Wesleyan-Arminian Protestant Christians. Although Fred no doubt might debate the theology, I think Mike is right in saying this is a minority view within Christianity as a matter of statistical fact.

    • 18. modres  |  May 8, 2011 at 10:33 PM

      I’m beginning to think you have nothing better to do at all, Simon.

      Out of everything I commented on in this particular blog, you choose eternal security as the debatable item? That says a great deal.

      I have also explained to you previously that starting in the late 3rd century, the Roman Catholic Church became the only game in town, fully married to the state. As we know, Roman Catholicism does not adhere to eternal security and believes that it is a combination of biblical teachings, traditions of the church and the pope that gains salvation (which can be lost according to RCC).

      It should also be noted that within Roman Catholicism, works is part of the process of salvation. Yet, you are comparing the 1 billion Roman Catholics who do not hold to eternal security as if they are the correct theological standard to which all should aspire, or at least be measured.

      For roughly 1,100 years from the 3rd century onward (until the Reformation), Roman Catholicism ruled the religious roost. Once the Reformation began, the Bible got into the hands of the common person (translated by people who eventually lost their lives to the Catholic inquisitions) who then began to start studying the Bible for themselves. It was because of that individual, personal study that people discovered many things in Scripture that had been kept hidden by Roman Catholicism. Certainly, there were some errors as well, but most importantly, major orthodox tenets of Christianity once again came to he fore.

      I think it’s hilarious that on one hand, you accuse me of not using the Bible to refute SDA beliefs, instead you say I’m constantly referring to Ellen G. White, yet here you are simply quoting STATISTICS as opposed to the Bible for some type of “proof” that eternal security is a minority belief! Your statistics mean absolutely nothing because they do NOT take into account the fact that the Roman Catholic Church was literally in charge of dispensing only the theology they wanted disseminated to the masses up until the Reformation.

      Beyond this, Luther was known for his severe anti-Semitic viewpoints and spoke very harshly against Jews toward the end of his life. His erroneous theological views here were eventually supported and praised by Hitler.

      As I said before Simon, I’m not interested in debating you (or anyone). However, it is clear that you are simply using statistics as a way to misdirect and that deserves a factual response, not a debate. Debate means one person is trying to win. That’s impossible. The best I can do is shine more light on your inaccurate portrayal of history.

      This argument of yours is weak at best and quite frankly, I’m really surprised you used it thinking it was a major weapon against what you consider to be my “faulty” reasoning. This is sad, Simon. You seem to be grasping at straws here and you also seem to have gone into “attack” mode, something you say that SDA folks do not do.

      Who is Mike by the way?

  • 19. Simon  |  May 7, 2011 at 9:11 PM

    Do you see web-sites run by SDAs dedicated to attacking the beliefs of Brethren – I can’t think of any? Who is really debating who? Adventists might comment, as Mike has done (and as I do from time-to-time), but only in defence and never in attack. Think about it?

    • 20. modres  |  May 7, 2011 at 10:10 PM

      With respect to your assertion that SDAs do not attack, but merely defend, I can see why they are in defense mode most of the time, because of what they teach.

      When you say “who is really debating who?” that is simply a misdirect. You are the one who comes to THIS site and spews your propaganda about SDA theology. You are here to DISAGREE with me. Since you take the time to disagree with me, I can at least return the favor by pointing out where you are wrong.

      But your assumption that I’m ATTACKING you is no different than when some lefthead accuses me of “hatred” and “racism” toward Mr. Obama for critiquing his comments and actions (just as you more than implied several posts ago, regarding some of my comments about Mr. Obama).

      I am not castigating YOU or maligning YOUR character. I am pointing out what appear to be problems in SDA theology. That’s not an attack and you know that. You’re simply trying to make me think that I should back down because YOU say I am attacking, when in point of fact, I am doing nothing of the kind. You do what I’m doing in the courtroom and that would never be classified as an attack. Give that up, will you Simon? I’m not forcing you to come to this site, am I? If my comments bother you that much, then don’t read them.

      I’m not attacking you or your beliefs at all, Simon. I’m simply critiquing them. Of course, it’s easy to charge someone with attacking your beliefs. The trouble is that this charge can be leveled at anyone who deigns to make any comments that might be construed as negative of SDA beliefs. Further, because Ellen G. White is essentially the founder of SDA and many within SDA view her as a prophet (you yourself used that term weeks ago in one of your first responses to one of my posts), then that in and of itself holds her up to a much higher standard and because of it, her beliefs and statements need to be taken apart with a fine-tooth comb.

      Is what White taught the truth? Did she plagiarize anyone? Do any of her teachings contrast or disagree with orthodox teachings of Scripture at all and if so, where?

      This challenge to me that I am “attacking” you or SDA is asinine and it is used by people who simply want the conversation stopped. As a lawyer, I’m sure you know the ins and outs of courtroom drama and how to wrap a jury (or judge) around your finger in the hopes of gaining the victory for yourself or your client.

      The truth of the matter is that if SDA is completely above board, then no amount of critique will damage it in any way. However, there are a TON of questions surrounding the beginnings of SDA, as well as the teachings. This bears a thorough investigation.

      Beyond this, there are situations in which the SDA Church has attempted to sue and/or take legal action against individuals in the past. For instance, the SDA tried every legal means possible to get Mark Martin to give up SDAOutreach.org (now http://www.exadventist.com due to the many lawsuits filed against Martin), and on another occasion the SDA Church tried to get Dirk Anderson to sell http://www.ellengwhite.org but he would not do it.

      These people are ex-adventists and because of their ministries to those who have left SDA, they have come under strenuous and at times, unrelenting attack by SDA Church lawyers.

      The other problem is that it would appear that in many cases, members or teachers of SDA are often deceptive when it comes to their presentation on the Internet. I can list at least 9 Web sites off the top of my head that are Seventh-day Adventist, yet there is absolutely nothing on those sites that would indicate that fact at all. Why are they hiding it if they have nothing to hide? Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses do the same.

      In addition to those, Steve Wohlberg’s own Web sites are the same and it was not until a number of people began asking him about his affiliation that he finally – grudgingly – put one line up on a small corner of his Web site.

      Groups like 3ABN, Amazing Facts, SafeTV, My Gospel Workers, The Voice of Prophecy, The Quiet Hour, It Is Written, Voice of Prophecy, The Final Events of Bible Prophecy, seem to take good measures to hide their affiliation. John Quade says nothing about it on his site.

      I see absolutely NOTHING about the SDA affiliation on the Amazing Facts Web site and there are others as well.

      Mormons do the same thing. Ancestry.com is owned by LDS individuals. They want everyone to go there and search their ancestry. Why? Because they believe in praying for the dead and any ancestors that individual Mormons may have.

      The surreptitious nature of groups like Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and even Seventh-day Adventism makes them questionable at best. While you might say that I do not have a denominational affiliation on my Web site, I would be happy to tell anyone who asks. But more importantly, in my “About Us” page of my blog, I clearly list my credentials and all of them are related to actual Christian orthodoxy.

      Steve Wolhberg also lists his credentials (and again, finally added the last line about he and his family belonging to a SDA church), and it is clear from checking his credentials that both La Sierra College and Andrews Seminary are affiliated with Seventh-day Adventism.

      Of course, the very fact that the name of your group is Seventh-day Adventism smacks of the letter of the law. Yes, I’m aware of “Baptists,” yet it is generally believed that baptism, while not tenet OF salvation is something that authentic Christians follow their Lord in as a matter of obedience and love.

      Once again Simon, you’re simply attempting to use a misdirect. I am not attacking you or your beliefs. I am holding them up to question and critique and there is a huge difference. All you want to do is focus on anything we might agree on and you do not appreciate it when anything that might be construed as error is held up to light.

  • 21. Mike  |  March 29, 2011 at 3:21 PM

    Hello again, and thanks for posting my comments.

    “Why on earth would I need to talk to Seventh-day Adventists, when I can (and have) READ what they have produced, including Ellen G. White’s own writings? ”

    I suppose it is possible for someone to read a good selection of our writings and get a fairly good idea of what we believe, but, as I mentioned in my previous post, your original comments had several misunderstandings which is why I believe it will benefit you to talk to someone in person who is knowledgeable about our doctrines. I can help with this some, although I doubt I will be able to post more than once every few weeks.

    Mike, it’s funny that I read people like Steve Wohlberg and Doug Batchelor and I don’t believe I’ve misunderstood anything they teach.

    “There are a number of things in your comments that I would seriously disagree with, especially your view on the fact that I’m apparently in the minority with respect to OSAS.”

    This is not really a matter of opinion but of statistics. Out of all the people in the world who call themselves Christians, those who believe in OSAS are a small minority.

    That is simply NOT true.

    “On one hand, you state that salvation is by God completely, yet you believe that salvation can be lost. That is contradictory. No one who has actually embraced Jesus can walk away from Him. If it is possible to walk away from Him, then there must be something that man must do to REMAIN saved.”

    Whether it is contradictory or not is a good question that we can definitely take time to discuss a bit later. For now the bigger question is, why would you single out SDA’s for their rejection of OSAS when mach larger mainstream protestant denominations such as Methodists and Free Will Baptists reject OSAS just as much as Adventists do?

    I have not singled out SDAs for that. It was part of the discussion since I was already discussing SDAs.

    “Regarding Ellen G. White, if you have studied her extensively, then I find it difficult to understand why you have been unable to find the many contradictions she has written.”

    This has been my experience with EG White. If I take some passage she has written and give it to someone without telling them who wrote it, they will almost always tell me that they found the passage to be very profound and inspiring. If on the other hand I show the same passage to someone who believes EGW to be a false prophet they will inevitable come up with all kinds of supposed errors and flaws with the text.

    That does not matter. If I gave you a copy of the Great Invocation and did not tell you where it was from, you would also probably think it was very Christian. Why? Because a good deal of Christian-sounding verbiage is utilized. When members of cults come to my door, they also use the same Christian-sounding verbiage, but I KNOW they have another meaning for those terms that they are not telling me.

    “Jesus never taught soul sleep, or annihilationism. It is not in Scripture, though I DO understand how people can THINK that it is in Scripture. ”

    The Bible does teach unconsciousness in death and a hell that does not torture people forever. But I DO understand how people can THINK otherwise. This as well as some of the other topics mentioned is probably best discussed one at a time so we can give them our full attention. So I will let you decide which of the topics you want to address first and I will say more about this one when we’re ready for it.

    This is the chief problem with debating. It really serves no purpose. The Bible teaches that for me to be absent from my body is to be present with the Lord, however I also understand how you interpret the same passages that I look at. He told the thief on the cross that he would be with Jesus TODAY. I suppose we can allegorize that to mean an ethereal of future point called TODAY. That does not make sense with the context though.

    Don’t misunderstand me, Mike. I’m am responding out of politeness to your posts, but I have no interest at all in debating. It takes away from my studies, my writings, and my radio show. I see no point in going on and on about this. I’ve got people who read my posts about this or that and continue to try to hammer me. When I make a post, it’s not an invitation to debate. It is merely me offering my opinion about something. While I realize there are people like yourself who believe it to be your mission to “correct” me, I’m about as interested in that as you are to have someone “correct” you. This should not stop me from offering my opinion in one of my posts though.

    “Why is there even a NEED to mention Ellen G. White at all (referencing #4 above)? ”

    If you thought that someone in YOUR church was a true prophet of God, would you keep it a secret?

    That’s the problem – I do not at all for a moment believe she is or was a prophet at all. I really do not believe prophets exist today.

    Here is a question I have for you:

    In the bible there are many prophets mentioned whose writings never became part of the actual bible. Even in the New Testament there were prophets like Agabus (Acts 11:28; Acts 21:10) and others who were considered prophets by the church but were not of the apostles and did not contribute to the New Testament.

    Do you think the gift of prophecy which is mentioned as one of the gifts of the spirit stopped with the death of the apostles?

    The gift of prophecy in its basic sense is PREACHING and TEACHING. The gifts that I believe stopped with the death of the apostles are the SIGN gifts.

    If so, can you support this with the Bible?

    Of course. Would it convince you? Of course not.

    If not, then tell me how YOU would relate to someone who gave evidence that God was speaking through them like he did through the prophets of old.

    I would walk away from them.

    – We DO NOT believe that those who worship on Sunday have the mark of the beast
    That is like saying that all Christians have the same eschatological beliefs. I have been TOLD that I have taken the mark, Mike by individuals who call themselves Seventh-day Adventists. Please don’t tell me that ALL SDAs believe as you say. That’s extremely naive.

    – All through Bible and Christian history there have been times when governments demanded on pains of death that god’s followers commit things that went against their conscience. Daniel’s friends were asked to bow before the golden image, Daniel was asked not to pray to his God for 30 days. Many Christians in the early centuries lost their lives because they refused to burn incense to Cesar.

    And your point in the above statement is…?

    Chapter 13 in Revelation describes a similar scenario where people are condemned to death for refusing to go against their conscience in some way. So I am wondering how you understand these passages especially in light of your belief in OSAS.

    It’s very easy to explain and you have heard the arguments, no doubt. My repeating them to you will have no affect on you. I’m just not into debating, Mike. I’m not sure why it should matter to you.

    I will stop here for now since it’s quite a bit to read.

    Yes, it is. If you want me to respond in the future, please make your posts shorter.

  • 22. Mike  |  February 25, 2011 at 11:10 PM

    Hello Modres,

    Let me assure you before I say anything else, that I DO NOT think you are attacking Seventh Day Adventists by your comments. Your comments are actually quite polite and I am not at all offended.

    However, I am almost embarrassed to admit that your comments betray a profound lack of knowledge of what SDA’s actually believe and teach. Why not take some time to actually get to know some seventh-day Adventists who are well informed and able to explain the teachings of the church and hear them out for a bit first. If you don’t know any, tell me your general location and I’ll find someone nearby for you to meet with. Don’t you think it would only be fair, before posting your final judgments of the denomination on the internet, to give the defendants a chance to speak for themselves? And I am not attacking you at all in saying this.

    I don’t have time to address everything you mentioned, but can do so later if you have questions.

    Regarding Points 1 – 3. Yes it is a well known fact that SDA’s believe in soul sleep and annihilation along with many other Christians throughout Christendom. We get this teaching from the Bible as do the other soul sleep supporters who do not believe in, have not heard of or even predated Ellen White. For more on soul sleep and annihilationism see here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mortalism
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilationism

    4. Only on condition that they come to Christ through Ellen White. Now that has to be one of the silliest things I’ve ever heard said against Adventists. We don’t even mention Ellen White in our evangelistic meetings or Bible studies until close to the very end while we invite people to accept Jesus as a personal Savior from the beginning.

    5. Christ’s nature. What do you make of this text:
    Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the LIKENESS OF SINFUL FLESH, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh

    6. Baptism. Adventists DO NOT believe a person that is not baptized will be lost. We do believe that baptism is important and that a true Christian would naturally desire to commit himself to Christ through baptism following His instruction:

    Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16He that believes and is baptized shall be saved;

    But if a person is prevented from being baptized for whatever reason, that person is not going to be lost because of it.

    Regarding The Investigative Judgment and the Sabbath, there is more to say then I have time for right now. But I will gladly write more later if needed.

    Finally, let me set your heart at rest regarding the thing you seem most concerned about. Adventists DO NOT believe in salvation by works. We believe salvation is entirely BY GRACE through faith in Christ alone. We believe it is impossible for man to do anything whereby to merit salvation. You are right in that we do not believe in Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS). But then neither do the majority of Christians. If you do believe in OSAS you are the one who is in the minority, the odd man out, the cult, sort of speak. If you do not think it is possible for a person who disagrees with OSAS to experience true salvation then you should really take this up with Methodists and Free Will Baptists and a ton of other denominations first before even bothering with Adventists.

    And regarding Ellen White and salvation, I have read her writings extensively and let me assure you that her writings are filled with passages like the one following that speak of salvation by faith alone:

    “Let the subject be made distinct and plain that it is not possible to effect anything in our standing before God or in the gift of God to us through creature merit.”

    You can read the rest here:
    http://www.whiteestate.org/message/through_faith_alone1.asp

    • 23. modres  |  February 25, 2011 at 11:42 PM

      Hi Mike,

      Thanks for your well thought out response. Question: why on earth would I need to talk to Seventh-day Adventists, when I can (and have) READ what they have produced, including Ellen G. White’s own writings? Are you saying then that simply reading their writings is not enough, but that I must actually enter into dialogue with them?

      Just so you are aware, I actually HAVE attempted to discuss a number of these matters with folks from SDA. Without exception, they are unable to dialogue, but are simply able to merely repeat what they know. Reading Ellen G. White’s writings have given me a great deal of understanding about SDA.

      I realize that there have been some like Walter Martin for instance, who do not consider SDA to be a cult. I disagree and it is largely due to White’s teaching on salvation.

      There are a number of things in your comments that I would seriously disagree with, especially your view on the fact that I’m apparently in the minority with respect to OSAS. On one hand, you state that salvation is by God completely, yet you believe that salvation can be lost. That is contradictory. No one who has actually embraced Jesus can walk away from Him. If it is possible to walk away from Him, then there must be something that man must do to REMAIN saved.

      Regarding Ellen G. White, if you have studied her extensively, then I find it difficult to understand why you have been unable to find the many contradictions she has written.

      Jesus never taught soul sleep, or annihilationism. It is not in Scripture, though I DO understand how people can THINK that it is in Scripture. Like other areas of the Bible, rules of interpretation normally guide people in determining what the Bible says. In reading through a variety of SDA writers, it has become clear to me that the proper hermeneutic is simply not there in many cases. Of course, that’s my opinion, one in which you would disagree.

      Why is there even a NEED to mention Ellen G. White at all (referencing #4 above)?

      Regarding #5 – “Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the LIKENESS OF SINFUL FLESH, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh” – it means what is SAYS it means. He came in flesh – REAL flesh as a human being who LOOKED like everyone else, meaning He appeared outwardly to be of the same mold that everyone else was of, yet in His case, He was completely WITHOUT sin. White implies that He was NOT.

      The only way He could have been the perfect propitiation for our sin is for Himself to have been completely free of it. Had He failed at any point at all, He would have been disqualified. Hebrews, Romans and others make this point clear.

      I have quite a few books in my library from people like Wohlberg and others, as well as White herself. Unless I do not understand English, their teachings are fairly apparent.

      You folks believe that the requirement to worship on Saturday is tantamount. It is generally believed that the Pope who changed the “times and seasons” moved worship from Saturday to Sunday. Since that particular pope is generally viewed as the Antichrist, it is also understood by Seventh-day Adventists that to worship on Sunday means to have received the Mark of the Beast, disqualifying that individual for salvation.

      Do ALL Seven-day Adventists believe the above? No, which is why I used the phrase “in general.”

      In my view, there are huge problems with the basic tenets of the Seventh-day Adventist movement.

      Thanks again for writing, Mike.

  • 24. amc  |  January 14, 2011 at 8:00 AM

    I’ve noticed a trend in Adventists visiting prophecy forums and challenging premillers and pretribbers. They generally don’t come right out and say who they are but it’s usually easy to figure out. I suspect they’ve been empowered by the books and youtube videos put out by the likes of Wohlberg. That being the case they should expect appropriate responses from dispensationalists and their own views challenged.

    • 25. modres  |  January 14, 2011 at 10:17 AM

      Interesting. I haven’t had a lot of time these days to frequent some of those forums, but it makes sense that they would do this. When I began replying back with problems in the SDA view of things, I was accused of attacking that person’s religion. What they fail to realize is that any time someone questions the views of another person’s personal religious beliefs, it is often seen as an attack. If they are deliberately going to forums for that purpose, then it is clear that attacking is what they are doing.

  • 26. Nelson Swiger Jr.  |  January 12, 2011 at 1:45 PM

    I really appreciate the info in this article. I have SDA friends and it breaks my heart to see them caught up in this. They become angered when I try to explain the truth to them. God bless for taking an unpopular stand.

    • 27. modres  |  January 12, 2011 at 2:18 PM

      Yes, most people become angered when their religious beliefs are challenged. What many SDA individuals do not consider is the way they attack other individuals’ beliefs by laying the blame on the Bible “The Bible says that or this.”

      The thing I want SDA people to understand is that salvation is NOT by works at all. I pray that I can make that clear to them. Thanks for your comments.


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 13,212 other followers

Our Books on Amazon

Study-Grow-Know Archives

Blog Stats

  • 1,026,473 hits

%d bloggers like this: