Seventh Day Adventist Church Q&A Part II

So predictably I’ve received a lot of feedback from the interview I did with David Hamstra of the Seventh Day Adventist Church. For that reason, I thought it might be fruitful to ask a few follow up questions, and then share some of my thoughts about the interview [as well as SDA theology as a whole]. I will include a brief reflection in Part III of this, which I will post in a few days.  To the formers end, I will print his answers below. The first question is for Mark.

1. Does the SDA Church consider itself part of the mainstream Christian movement?  Why do you believe that other denominations may not consider you part of that movement?

The answer depends on how you define mainstream Christianity. With our distinctive beliefs, I don’t think most Adventists would consider themselves “mainstream.” On the other hand, we definitely consider ourselves part of Protestant Christianity, and most Adventist pastors in North America are part of ministerial associations that require ascent to the Nicene or Apostles Creed. So in that sense, Adventists do consider themselves part the “mainstream Christian movement.”

I do not know of any denomination that has taken a position that says Seventh-day Adventists are not a part of mainstream Christianity. Perhaps your readers know of some that I do not. I do know that Adventist theologians have undertaken non-ecumenical interfaith dialogue with theologians of several Protestant denominations including the Lutherans, Reformed, and Presbyterians during which there was mutual affirmation of the denominations’ legitimacy.

2. What would you say to the accusation that some have that the SDA are not Christians, but rather are a cult?

It depends on your definition of a cult. I’ve seen some anti-Adventist critics toss the term around very loosely. I’m probably not the best person to ask whether Seventh-day Adventism is a cult—because I have a horse in that race and because I’m not an expert in cults. Kingdom of the Cults was written by the first evangelical to seriously examine whether we are a cult, and he concluded that we are not. [Walter Martin]

To be perfectly honest, I find the idea that we are a cult laughable. How many cults have accredited theology schools whose faculty are members of the Evangelical Theological Society? How many cults believe in the eternal divinity of Christ, salvation by faith in Him, and sola scriptura? How many cults allow someone to be a member of their movement without believing their founder was a prophet? (To clarify, in our baptismal vows, one need not agree Ellen White was a prophet to join the Adventist Church.)

3. If 1844 was such a big bust, why put any stock in it at all? Why not just write off William Miller as a madman and false prophet like Harold Camping? What reasons does the SDA Church have for saying that something actually happened in 1844? People have been making predictions about Christs’ return since He ascended, so what makes 1844 and the Millerites different from the tens of thousands of people who have predicted the second coming of Jesus and have been disappointed throughout the centuries?”


Regarding 1844, I like to compare it to the crucifixion. Prior to both events Jesus followers expected him, based on prophecy, to establish his kingdom on earth. That idea was also part of the religious zeitgiest of both societies. The disciples lived in a time of messianic expectation and false messiahs. The early-Adventists lived in a time of millennial expectation and false prophets (e.g. Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy). Both groups of followers were disappointed. Both were unwilling to loose faith in the experience with Jesus they had leading up to the event. And it led both to a new understanding of the prophecies involved and to a reinterpretation of the event as having primarily spiritual significance.

The Great Disappointment instilled a painful lesson in Seventh-day Adventists: no more date-setting. Though I believe God was moving in 1844, it doesn’t follow that the humans in the movement were error free. But, praise God, we are able to learn from our mistakes.

I see the experience of the early-Adventists following the Great Disappointment of 1844 as a reminder that God often leads out of his people’s brokenness rather than their successes. In the Bible, I see a pattern that often when God is performing his greatest acts, his people are the most disappointed—usually because of their false conceptions about God. I think 1844 fits that pattern. So I like 1844 because it keeps us humble.

Of course, the other reason I, along with the early-Adventists, decided to stick with 1844 is the conviction that Miller’s basic historicist prophetic scheme regarding the 2,300 days of Daniel 8 was based on sound exegesis (as opposed to Harold Camping’s numerological approach). That convincing prophetic paradigm combined with the experience of God’s power in converting hearts, overcoming sin, etc. leading up to 1844, led the early-Adventists to conclude something spiritually significant happened in 1844.

 

30 thoughts on “Seventh Day Adventist Church Q&A Part II

  1. I agree with you that he did a really good job. Even though I disagree with much of what he said, his responses were very thoughtful and concise. I sorta love everything about the q&a, in fact.

  2. I disagree with pretty much every doctrinal distinctive of the SDA Church post 1844. I am a complementarian, and so the role that Ellen White has played in shaping any doctrine would be suspect. Other than that, the issue of lack of eternal hell and the investigative judgement would be suspect in my mind.

  3. Ah okay. It’s understandable that people have a hard time accepting EG White and her writings/teaching as inspired. My quick response to that is to direct them to our health message and the system that has sprung up as a result. For example, look up Blue Zone Adventists in California, and the Adventist Health Studies, which show that Adventists live significantly longer than the general population, just by following God’s guidelines on health as found in the Bible.

    As for your issues with the teachings on hell and other distinctives like the Sabbath. One only need to do a deeper study into the topics. I’ve seen lightbulbs light up on many people just by opening the Bibles with them, and have shared my personal studies on my blog if you’re interested. To them, the idea of a loving God burning people forever in hell didn’t jive, and the annihilationist position made a lot more sense. I’ve seen a lot of double facepalms when people realized that Sunday isn’t the Sabbath, or that the Sabbath is still very much valid today, just from a deeper study. The investigative judgement doctrine would require a pretty lengthy and deep study. I’m sure Dave would be more than willing to study that with you.

    • Thanks for the response, and sorry for the delay in responding. I definitely find the healthiness aspect of the sda teaching to be compelling- primarily in its pragmatism and not in its religiosity. -being healthy before healthy was cool. I am slightly concerned about the role though that legalism would play in such a setting- though i imagine it differs a bit from church to church.

      i would like to read up on your blog, though fair warning that i won’t be swayed. its not a matter of merely digging deeper into the bible for me. these things are settled doctrine in my mind. the thought of god punishing people in hell forever does jive with me. it fits well with gods holiness and justice, and it is a doctrine that i’ve come not merely to accept begrudgingly, but rather love because god created it and deigned it to be so.

      • Yup, the Adventist health message was years beyond its time. Just to clarify, being healthy, i.e. eating, exercising etc. does not earn anyone salvation, as others outside the church may try to distort or paint as such. Healthy living is part of the testimony that God has given us to show the world that if you follow God’ guidelines in the Bible, you can live a better, healthier life.

        As far as your thoughts on hell… please do check out my blog with a Berean mindset (Acts 17:10). The doctrine of hell is an old mistaken teaching which the devil has used effectively to discredit God’s character to many. It’s not very Berean to have one’s mind made up without giving it a fair study. God bless.

  4. Thank you for the response. This will have to be a case of agreeing to disagree. I believe I have acted the berean- and that historical christian orthodoxy with the creeds supports my conclusions. In any case, I enjoyed chatting back and forth. Be Blessed!

    • Agreed… it has been a pleasure chatting with you.

      Quick question though. Do you think that when all the orthodox creeds and confessions were drawn up, i.e. Westminster COF, do you believe those men back then had discovered the WHOLE truth?

      I say that because, for example, most Christians before the likes of George McCready Price, followed by Henry Morris of the ICR, were Old Earth Creationists. Now Young Earth Creationism is the mainstream thought. My belief is that God, since the dark ages and via the Reformation, has slowly revealed new understanding, that renders some old creeds obsolete. Enlighten me as to why these creeds, are still much more relevant today, than what the Bible actually teaches. Wasn’t the reformation all about Sola Scriptura? Then why rely on archaic creeds? I just want to know why one would hold on to such beliefs as you’re were brought to Christ in a different path as mine.

  5. Gents, with regard to your questions specifically whether Seventh-Day Adventism is part of the Evangelical Community and that no denomination has expressly stated they are not Mainstream Christian. That might be the case if all we looked at was DENOMINATIONAL institutions however the non-Denominational Body of Christians would say otherwise.

    Additionally, Louis Talbot as early as the 1950s wrote an article in response W. Martin and D. Barhouse’s piece in Eternity Magazine. In his 1957 article entitled Why Seventh-day Adventism is not evangelical, he responds clearly why his contemporaries were misled. Interestingly enough W. Martin was already beginning to reassess his position on Seventh-Day Adventism. Life Assurance Ministries has the entire reprint of this piece in three parts and it can be found here (http://lifeassuranceministries.org/studies/talbot1_reprint.pdf)

    Are we a CULT?–I am a 4th Generation former who exited Seventh-Day Adventism in 2009 (http://wp.me/P1tilv-J) I have come we believe we are Christian, it is largely because many do not even know what it is that we “Officially believe”. I found that to be very true as I learned more and more about Seventh-Day Adventism during my exit. (http://wp.me/p1tilv-pa). We are adept a word-smithing our documents so that the readers or members will not feel threatened by our doctrines. As the W. Martin book, “Kingdom of the Cults” that contains the Appendix on Seventh-Day Adventism you mentioned says in its first few chapters, Cults use Christian terminology but do not use the Christian definition; they use Christian vocabulary but not the Christian dictionary.

    A good question to ask yourself or others at potlucks or vespers is, “Can you name the Document that the Church Officially says is its catechism?” and then count the different answers.

    A good example of not knowing what is in the SDA Catechism, is the above comment that the Baptismal vow does not say one needs to believe EGW is a prophet. That depends, which VERSION of the Vow are you referring? The standard 13 covenant version dances around the issue by saying in #8 the “gift of prophecy is one of the identifying marks of the remnant church” and #13 says, “the SDA church IS the remnant church of Bible Prophecy”. The alternate version of the Baptismal vow, which incorporates the 27 now 28 Fundamental beliefs is much less vague, #18 of 28 says, “This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. White.”

    I’d encourage you and your other readers Seventh-Day Adventist or not to critically examine the claims of the church. You may also be surprised to see the three (3) separate and distinct theories we give as to how the Sunday the Lord’s Day (Gr. kyriakos hēmera cf. sabbaton) in Rev 1:10 came about. They not only are they separate and distinct but they are also contradictory to each other.

    I encourage you to visit those links I mentioned above especially the one with Talbot’s Article). I too also post a journal/blog (outofadventism.wordpress.com)

    God Bless.

  6. Gents, with regard to your questions specifically whether Seventh-Day Adventism (SDA) is part of the Evangelical Community and that no denomination has expressly stated they are not Mainstream Christian. That might be the case if all we looked at were DENOMINATIONAL institutions; I believe the non-Denominational Body of Christians would most likely say otherwise; as many former SDAs who left the group have joined non-Denominational churches.

    Additionally, Louis Talbot as early as the 1950s wrote an article in response W. Martin and D. Barhouse’s piece in Eternity Magazine. In his 1957 article entitled, “Why Seventh-day Adventism is not evangelical”, Talbot responds clearly as to why his contemporaries were misled by representatives of the SDA church and thus arrived a flawed conclusion. Interestingly enough before his death W. Martin was already beginning to reassess his position on Seventh-Day Adventism. Life Assurance Ministries has the entire reprint of this piece in three parts and it can be found here (http://lifeassuranceministries.org/studies/talbot1_reprint.pdf)

    Are we a CULT?–I am a 4th Generation former who exited Seventh-Day Adventism in 2009 (http://wp.me/P1tilv-J). I believe the only reason we “think” we are Christian is largely because many members DO NOT know what it is, that we “Officially believe”. I found that to be very true as I learned more and more about Seventh-Day Adventism during my exit. (http://wp.me/p1tilv-pa). We are adept a word-smithing our documents so that the readers or members will not feel threatened by our doctrines. As the W. Martin book, “Kingdom of the Cults” that contains the Appendix on Seventh-Day Adventism you mentioned, says in its first few chapters, Cults use Christian terminology but do not use the Christian definition; they use Christian vocabulary but not the Christian dictionary.

    Don’t believe me, then try asking this question of yourself or others at potlucks or vespers, “Can you name the Document that is the Official catechism of the SDA Church?” and then count the different answers. The shame isn’t that we can recite our catechism point-for-point it is we claim to be “The Remnant”, but that we cannot even point someone to what “The Remnant” supposedly proclaims!

    A good example of not knowing what is in the SDA Catechism, is the above comment that the Baptismal vow does not say one needs to believe EGW is a prophet. That depends on which VERSION of Vow you referring? The standard 13 covenant version dances around the issue by saying in #8 the “gift of prophecy is one of the identifying marks of the remnant church” and #13 says, “the SDA church IS the remnant church of Bible Prophecy”. The alternate version of the Baptismal vow, which incorporates the 27, now 28 Fundamental beliefs, is less vague, #18 of 28 says, “This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. White.”

    I’d encourage you and your other readers SDA or not, to critically examine the claims of the church. You may also be surprised to see that even the three (3) separate and distinct theories we give as to how the Sunday, The Lord’s Day (Gr. kyriakos hēmera cf. sabbaton) in Rev 1:10 came about. They are no only separate and distinct but they are also contradictory to each other.

    I encourage you to visit those links I mentioned above especially the one with Talbot’s Article). I too also post a journal/blog (outofadventism.wordpress.com)

    God Bless.

  7. Pingback: No Creed but Christ? In support of Creedalism « The Paperthin Hymn

  8. Sorry, but you lost me at Life Assurance Ministries.

    http://www.ellenwhiteanswers.org/critics/Daleratzlaff

    Same with Mark Martin of ex-adventist.com. Those guys have faulty theology, I’ve even started a study on one of Martin’s argument’s breaking down his reasoning on my blog. You can see the merit of his arguments for yourself. http://emmilglenn.wordpress.com/2010/03/10/commandment-or-law-are-they-the-same/

    All these exadventists sites just strengthen my belief in what Rev 12:17 says about what’s going to happen to God’s remaining church.

  9. emmilglenn,

    Given what you said then I don’t think you will have an issue with Louis Talbot’s article. Dr. Talbot had NO affiliation with Seventh-Day Adventism nor any ties with Life Assurance Ministries or Mark Martin..

    Better yet the article was written in the 1950′s, before LAM was around, and was published in BIOLA’s official School Journal by their Chancellor. It does bring to light that as early as the 50′s Fundamental or Evangelical Christianity did not entirely view Seventh-Day Adventism as part of the Orthodox or “mainstream” Christianity .

      • I think that goes back to the typical question I ask of All SDAs I meet today. Given that we hold ourselves “The Remnant”, “Can you name the Document that is the Official catechism of the SDA Church?”

        To say there were no Fundamental Beliefs (i.e., the 27 now 28 Fundamental beliefs) does not mean there was no Official catechism of the SDA Church.

        If there was not one then any SDA could believe anything. That’s just not the case. It is the uniquely SDA doctrines in the catechism because of their interpretation/application that caused Talbot to say Seventh-Day Adventism is not Evangelical.

        BTW “Can you name the Document that is the Official catechism of the SDA Church?”

  10. Ok this is not meant as a “smart aleck” question rather it is an honest question that I had to answer as a Seventh-Day Adventist.

    When you and I became Adventist, what is it we affirmed and agreed to 100%?

    According to the General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventist, Ministerial Division this document contains the minimum beliefs that ALL SDAs are required to believe in order to be a Seventh-Day Adventist.

    Hence when I said I could not accept certain items on this document because they did not reconcile with Scripture, I was told by the GC in October 2009, perhaps I should not consider myself a Seventh-Day Adventist.

    Here’s a link to what I discovered (http://wp.me/P1tilv-15)

    I have been told by Seventh-Day Adventists, “so who cares what the General Conference says!” Such hubris brings that member in violation of their own prophets writing a violation of the SDA catechism, and perhaps that person is not an Adventist either.

    (See Testimonies for the Church Volume 3, Page 492 for EGW’s specific quote regarding the authority of the General Conference.

    • The link to the baptismal vows doesn’t work.

      As far as I’m concerned, the only creed I go by is the Bible alone. The official beliefs laid out in the 28 fundamentals support that. They are after all voted on and tweaked by the general membership every 5 years at General Conference sessions.

      All the “unique” doctrines can be easily explained. I touch on “Soul Sleep” on my blog. It’s quite plain, and I’m surprise people actually believe that souls are separate, immortal entities that can burn in hell forever. Anyway, I’m not sure what your point is, but all the official creeds/beliefs can be easily found on the adventist.org website.

  11. The point is exactly this, the majority of SDA’s don’t know what they are required to believe. (Try it call any of your conference men, union offices, pew members and even pastors. I did as recent as August 2011 not ONE got it right.) For Adventist to claim they are the Remnant and at the same time not even know exactly what they are REQUIRED to believe as an SDA is folly.

    Yet, while we are ignorant of what we–the supposed Remnant believe–we’ll go and claim all others have the Mark of the Beast and are Babylon. It is pure hubris and the arrogance of the Pharisees.

    No, the official creeds are not the Test of Fellowship to determine whether you are SDA or not. It is the Baptismal Vows, believe them all or you might as well believe NONE of them as, it is not buffet.

    For all nominal SDAs are worth, they argue “the Bible is my only creed”, or its the fundamental beliefs, or there is no creed, or its the Baptismal vows. All of which is pure rubbish, the institution which you were baptized into, gives NO SUCH latitude to that belief.

    Why? Because if you claim to be Adventist and believe in any version of the last 3, your own churches doctrines and church prophet REBUKES you. Believe the catechism of the Church and Scriptures are your rebuke.

    So if you don’t believe their doctrines why are you an Adventist? You might as well say you are Catholic even if you don’t believe their doctrines.

    • 1. Your link to the vows does NOT work. So I can’t see what you’re talking about.

      2. You’re assuming that what you are claiming is right, and all those pastors and conference workers that actually deal with these issues on a daily basis is wrong. I’m more inclined to believe those in the know, unless you can show me concrete evidence.

      3. Other than that, I’m not sure what your point is. The Adventist beliefs are laid out on the website, I find nothing wrong with all 28 of them. So I don’t know where you’re coming from with “you might as well say you’re Catholic” business.

  12. 1. The link used to take you to the Seventh-Day Adventist Church Manual 17th Edition published in 2005. It is the latest version you can get from your ABC bookstore. You would have found it on Page 32-33. But it doesn’t matter you can just look on the back of your Baptismal Certificate. Don’t you remember? It is the same one you said you agreed to 100% when you were baptized and signed it.

    2. No, I’m not assuming anything. You should be asking you pastors and local conference workers the same thing. Call them and ask them, “What is the official catechism of the Seventh-day Adventist Church? What are the minimum things a person has to believe in order BE an Adventist?” Like I said, I did. If those people KNEW they would have given all the same answer, but they didn’t. Yet they are all “sure” their beliefs are the most Biblical, but as I described Adventist members can’t even tell you what those EXACT beliefs are.

    You’ll have to call the General Conference Ministerial Division and ask them. Why the General Conference, the pastors are all accountable to the GC. Also read what Mrs. White said–

    “I have been shown that no man’s judgment should be surrendered to the judgment of any one man. But when the judgment of the General Conference, which is the highest authority that God has upon the earth, is exercised, private independence and private judgment must not be maintained, but be surrendered. ” (Testimonies for the Church Volume 3, Page 492) If you disagree then you violate one of your own vows that you accept Mrs. Whites writings as truth.

    Being an Adventist you know the institution is like the Papacy, very top heavy, with the decisions for its world institution coming from a single location (i.e., Silver Springs, MD.)

    3. How is it you now say, you”. . . find nothing wrong with all 28 of them” concerning the catechism? Whereas previously you said, “the only creed I go by is the Bible alone”? Those statements are contradictions as that’s not what your prophet teaches, you obey her and, likewise, surrender your “private independence and private judgment” to the Church.

    Emmilglenn, not trying to mock you. The Adventist church does that to its members, I was one of them like you figured it was possible to be Adventist and not have to believe ALL of the doctrines, and it is not so. I am just using our own SDA material to point that out. It is EGW and the SDA church that “throws down the gauntlet” to its members, here are her own words which you said you affirmed at you baptism,–

    “This work is of God, or it is not. God does nothing in partnership with Satan. My work for the past thirty years bears the stamp of God or the stamp of the enemy. There is no halfway work in the matter.” (Testimonies for the Church Volume 4, Page 230)

    As a Christian I no longer have to believe in EGW or that Jesus did not fulfill his work completely on the cross, or that my Jesus had a sinful nature.

    Best of all and I can KNOW I am saved from the Judgement of God and that Salvation is as basic as described in John 3;16 and Romans 10:9-13.

    Good writing to you on this issue.

    Cheers and God bless!

  13. 1. Well I’d guess I’d have to dig up that certificate and review it.

    2. The quote you keep referencing is a LETTER to some Brother. You’re clearly taking it out of CONTEXT. Read the passages before and after, it seems like she was writing to someone who was taking things to the extreme.

    http://text.egwwritings.org/publication.php?pubtype=Book&bookCode=3T&lang=en&pagenumber=492

    The passage continues….
    “Your error was in persistently maintaining your private judgment of your duty against the voice of the highest authority the Lord has upon the earth. After you had taken your own time, and after the work had been much hindered by your delay, you came to Battle Creek in answer to the repeated and urgent calls of the General Conference. You firmly maintained that you had done right in following your own convictions of duty. You considered it a virtue in you to persistently maintain your position of independence. You did not seem to have a true sense of the power that God has given to His church in the voice of the General Conference. You thought that in responding to the call made to you by the General Conference you were submitting to the judgment and mind of one man. You accordingly manifested an independence, a set, willful spirit, which was all wrong.”

    CONTEXT. She’s not talking about general believers, but talking directly to someone who thinks his ways are the best. I don’t know what the guy was doing to provoke that letter, but for you to apply it as a general statement to everyone is very misleading on your part.

    3. How is it you now say, you”. . . find nothing wrong with all 28 of them” concerning the catechism? Whereas previously you said, “the only creed I go by is the Bible alone”? Those statements are contradictions as that’s not what your prophet teaches, you obey her and, likewise, surrender your “private independence and private judgment” to the Church.”

    Again let me quote the opening statement in the fundamental beliefs:

    “Seventh-day Adventists accept the BIBLE AS THEIR ONLY CREED and hold certain fundamental beliefs to be the teaching of the Holy Scriptures. These beliefs, as set forth here, constitute the church’s understanding and expression of the teaching of Scripture. Revision of these statements may be expected at a General Conference session when the church is led by the Holy Spirit to a fuller understanding of Bible truth or finds better language in which to express the teachings of God’s Holy Word.”

    Maybe you need to reexamine your position on things, because clearly, it looks like your positions are based on things clearly taken out of context. God bless.

  14. Just to clarify your quote, so you won’t keep using it. The letter continues on Pg 493 – and onward. Apparently, the Brother was advocating for a Top-down style, with one man in charge of all decisions of leadership, instead of the authority of the General Conference body.

    P. 493 – “God gave you a precious experience at that time which was of value to you, and which has greatly increased your success as a minister of Christ. Your proud, unyielding will was subdued. You had a genuine conversion. This led to reflection and to your position upon leadership. Your principles in regard to leadership are right, but you do not make the right application of them. If you should let the power in the church, the voice and judgment of the General Conference, stand in the place you have given my husband, there could then be no fault found with your position. But you greatly err in giving to one man’s mind and judgment that authority and influence which God has invested in His church in the judgment and voice of the General Conference.

    When this power which God has placed in the church is accredited to one man, and he is invested with the authority to be judgment for other minds, then the true Bible order is changed. Satan’s efforts upon such a man’s mind will be most subtle and sometimes overpowering, because through this mind he thinks he can affect many others. Your position on leadership is correct, if you give to the highest organized authority in the church what you have given to one man.”

    To me this sums the letter up nicely.

    “God never designed that His work should bear the stamp of one man’s mind and one man’s judgment.”

    Your quote actually proves that the SDA church is quite opposite to the Papacy where everything the pope says goes. Instead of one man, decisions are made by the whole body, hence the quinquennial General Conference sessions.

    So thanks for providing that.

  15. To the contrary emmilglenn I think you made a false assumption that I was referring to the President of the General Conference (e.g., the Adventist Pope) or the General Conference Executive Committee (e.g., College of Cardinals) as the locus of power.

    No, I was referring to Ellen G White who is the Seventh-Day Adventist’s Prophet and their “messenger of God”. The expanded quote you provide does just proves my point. In this letter and like so many others EGW is wont to use her tomes of letters and writings–now called “Testimonies” to tell the church what they should do; from whether “clapping” is ok in church to the validation of their very doctrines. If it comes from her it must have come from God.

    Today the SDA Church uses her to settle any argument it is also why they make belief in her Spiritual Gift a “test of fellowship” and a mark of the “remnant” church which is the SDA Institution’s very claim. Sounds like RCC to me.

    BTW have you found you Baptismal Certificate it’s what EVERY Adventist believes. If you can find yours here’s a copy (http://wp.me/p1tilv-pa)

  16. Right. So you’re basically saying EGW is controlling the church beyond the grave.

    “Today the SDA Church uses her to settle any argument it is also why they make belief in her Spiritual Gift a “test of fellowship” and a mark of the “remnant” church which is the SDA Institution’s very claim.”

    I don’t know where you’re getting these outlandish claims from. I just looked at the certificate of baptism, and if you’re talking about point 8. you’re link is tenuous at best. All those points on the baptismal certificate are derived from the Bible, so I don’t know what you’re trying to get at.

    Again, let me emphasize:

    “Seventh-day Adventists accept the Bible as their only creed and hold certain fundamental beliefs to be the teaching of the Holy Scriptures.”

    Your assertions that the church is governed by Ellen White’s teachings are anecdotal at best.

    At this point, I think it’d be best if we agreed to disagree. Your claims that Adventists don’t know what they believe, when it’s actually front and center on the official site has no merit.

    I don’t know what you’re whole purpose is, but your time would be better spent trying to reach those who don’t know about Jesus, than devoting your time/resources on a blog trying to discredit Adventists. Ratzlaff and Martin are already wasting enough resources trying. Anyway, good luck in your endeavors.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s