Study – Grow – Know

Origins of the Seventh-day Adventist Movement

April 30, 2011 at 11:50 AM 3 comments

Instead of delving directly into the Investigative Judgment area of theology – which is solely unique to the Seventh-day Adventist movement though they will tell you that it has “roots” in other protestant denominations – I thought it best to provide a history lesson on the actual origins of SDA.  How did it begin?  What were the circumstances surrounding its beginning?  Who was involved with it and how did it progress?

Most agree that William Miller

Please note that while researching this movement, a number of sources were used, as opposed to simply one.  The reality is that if you ask a SDA member what the origins were, they have their answer, but often, the truth is found in writings of people who were not necessarily involved.  This does not automatically mean that these accounts are more truthful (depending upon the individuals themselves and how close they were to the sources, and whether or not they had an axe to grind, etc.), however the more sources are used, the greater the probability that truth prevails.  Certainly one of the best sources for this information is Walter Martin and his connection with the SDA movement.  However, we won’t stop there.  Other sources need to be brought into the picture.

The most troubling aspects of Seventh-day Adventism will be brought out and measured in light of Scripture.  Some prefer to measure the teachings of SDA in light of history, etc., but the reality is that even when we go all the way back to some of the early Church Fathers, there is often not a clear-cut understanding of what these men meant.  In some cases, while their writings were prolific, the clear meaning does not come to the fore.

The best way to measure truth is against the Word.  Of course, it is also understood that many groups use Christian-sounding terminology but mean something else entirely.  They argue that they are simply gaining their specific (and often peculiar) meaning from Scripture itself.  A more in-depth understanding of Scripture often ferrets out the true meaning and in most cases, stands opposed to the meaning set forth by these groups.

I also have a difficulty when a group relies heavily on Church Fathers, tradition, or church history.  All of these things are open to interpretation.  For instance, Augustine, the father of Roman Catholic theology (in many ways) is held up in high esteem by the RCC.  Yet, it seems clear enough from history that he did everything possible to move the early church away from any direct connection with Judaism.  In essence, it appears that he wanted to remove Jewish roots from the early church.  His brand of eschatology therefore became highly suspect due to the fact that he allegorized much of the prophetic discourse within Scripture.

This is still the case today with the RCC.  They also adopted the same allegorical viewpoint of Eschatology that Augustine somewhat originated.

The same holds true of Martin Luther.  While a reformer to the end, it seems clear that God used him to break away from RCC due to the additional requirements for salvation that the RCC placed on it.  Indulgences (which are still in use today although not called indulgences), works, the tradition of the church, and the teachings of the current pontiff all enter into the process of salvation.  The RCC does not teach salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in God alone.  It adds to that by placing a variety of works onto the penitent.  This is not to say that it is impossible to become saved while Roman Catholic, but it is to say that getting down to the Scriptural understanding of salvation is difficult at best in Roman Catholicism.

So while history certainly has something to say about everything, at least some of it depends upon the actual historian.  Beyond this, looking backwards from our present day is also difficult because things change.  Words change and the meanings applied to those words also change.

In studying Seventh-day Adventism, it is extremely important to not only know what Ellen G. White taught, but what she meant by what she taught.  This can only be determined by studying her works and comparing them with Scripture.

Of course, devout SDAs will tell you that Ellen G. White was a prophet, therefore she went beyond what has been canonized in Scripture with new teachings.  That said, it should also be recognized that every cult offers the same reason/excuse for why their particular founder added a form of “scripture” to the Bible.  It is impossible to have Mormonism without the Book of Mormon.  Likewise with Jehovah’s Witnesses with their specific translation of the Bible and the many books published by Russell and Rutherford.  These take on the same authority as Scripture to adherents within both groups.

Unfortunately, like Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormonism, the Seventh-day Adventist movement is steeped in questionable situations from the start, beginning with a group known as the Millerites.  While these individuals were NOT Seventh-day Adventists, they play an important role in bringing the entire SDA movement to the fore.

So ultimately, what needs to be determined is how did Seventh-day Adventism begin?  Beyond this, who were the key human players, what did these human players teach, and what did they mean by their teachings?  One should agree that the essential teachings of Seventh-day Adventism should be clear and should not require an IQ of a genius or greater to understand them.  In other words, if one studies White’s teachings, they should be clear in and of themselves.  No one should advocate that because Ellen G. White was a prophet for instance, that her words were only discernible by those who actually followed her.  This is nonsense.  While this may have been true to a degree in the Old Testament and somewhat in the New, the Bible had not been canonized and therefore people did not necessarily have aspects of the Bible in existence to compare with other parts.

While certain writings existed on their own from the prophets, it was not always possible to compare what one prophet said to another easily.  When it was possible (as in the case of Daniel studying Jeremiah for instance), it was difficult at best to understand what was being taught, which was why Daniel spent so much time in prayer.

This is also not to say that the study of the Bible is merely a perfunctory endeavor.  To truly study the Bible, obviously, the presence of the Holy Spirit needs to exist.  Beyond this, a prayerful attitude should always be maintained.  Moreover, the Bible should always without fail be allowed to interpret itself.  If these things are followed, then any “new” information given by individuals who either say they are prophets or who are given the title by others, should fall in line with the Bible.  There is no new biblical teachings today.  While there may be greater understanding of biblical truths, the Bible in and of itself is the consummate work, written ultimately by God Himself.  Nothing else needs to be added and He says as much in various places throughout His work.

Soon, we will begin a study on SDA, starting with its beginnings and the people who were there at the beginning.

_____________________________________________________
Simon (or any other SDA adherent who reads this):  please do not tell me or suggest to me what I should be studying, or what I should be dealing with.  Please also do not simply toss out a bunch of “what-ifs” as if they are based in some reality somewhere when in point of fact, they are being used as a misdirect.  I will do things in my own time and in my own way.

Now that you have told me you are a lawyer, the length and tenure of your responses make perfect sense.  You’re obviously used to arguing your law cases.  Because of that, you have the ability to argue something so that it seems to make sense, yet when your words are carefully evaluated, it is clear that it may very well be that you simply “major” in debating with little actual substance because you seem to spend too much time “redirecting” as opposed to actually discussing issues.  I noticed this on your blog as well.  This is one of the reasons discussing things with you can be tiring because you tend to try to mire people in minutiae (historical references, etc.) that really have no real effect on the argument at hand; no offense.  Either SDA squares with the Bible or it doesn’t.  History has a purpose certainly, but the Bible is the ultimate source of inspiration and the determining factor in learning the biblical veracity of SDA theology and doctrine.

Entry filed under: 9/11, alienology, Atheism and religion, Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Sotero, Communism, Demonic, dispensationalism, Eastern Mysticism, emergent church, Gun Control, Islam, Islamofascism, israel, Judaism, Life in America, new age movement, Posttribulational Rapture, Pretribulational Rapture, Radical Islam, rapture, Religious - Christian - End Times, Religious - Christian - Prophecy, Religious - Christian - Theology, salvation, Satanism, second coming, Sharia Law, Socialism, temple mount, ufology. Tags: is seventh-day adventism a cult?, Seventh-day Adventism.