What Do Seventh-day Adventists Believe?

The painting above is "The Divine Counselor" by well-known Seventh-day Adventist painter Harry Anderson.

Religion and American politics has always proven to be a complicated mix. Religious conservatives like to quote their heroes of the faith of the last 100 years. President’s like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush seem to lead the pack.

Yet, if one looks at the presidents of the 20th Century, many of those who were known to be devout men of faith were Democrats. Presidents like Woodrow Wilson and Harry Truman are prime examples. Within the last generation, Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton both identified themselves as Southern Baptists during their political careers and time in office.Like many other years, 2016 is shaping up to be another year when religion plays a role in selecting our next president, at least the GOP candidate. It seems to be to be a rite of passage for a candidate to express their faith in no uncertain terms. Even Mitt Romney, a devout Mormon, received the coveted endorsement of Evangelical America's patron saint, Billy Graham.

The Rise of Ben Carson

One candidate that continues to intrigue the GOP electorate is Dr. Ben Carson. The former neurosurgeon is the antithesis of the other standout candidate for 2016, Donald Trump. Where Trump is loud and in your face, Carson is quiet and humble. He is also a Seventh-day Adventist.Most of us can identify the key distinctive of Seventh-day Adventists—they keep the Sabbath on Saturday, hence the label that has come to define the group. Still, labels can be misleading, especially historic labels. Take Southern Baptists, for example; visit most Southern Baptists churches outside of the South and the State of Texas and you will find that they are neither Southern nor Baptist. Most would prefer to identify themselves as “non-denominational.” I digress.For purposes of reference, I started looking into what Seventh-Day Adventists believe and came across this article found within The School of Biblical Evangelism. It provides a good overview of the history, beliefs, and practices of Seventh-day Adventists.

Seventh-day Adventists

By Dr. James BjornstadSeventh-day Adventism originated during the great “Second Advent” wakening of the 19th century. In 1818 William Miller, a Baptist minister, read Daniel 8:14 and predicted Christ’s return in twenty-five years—between March 21, 1843, and March 21, 1844 (2300 years from 457 b.c.). Later his associates set the date for October 22, 1844. During the following years, from 1844–1847, three groups came together to form Seventh-day Adventism:

• Hiram Edson provided the doctrine of the Sanctuary and Christ’s final ministry in the Holy of Holies (the Investigative Judgment). On October 23, 1844, “Suddenly there burst upon his mind the thought that there were two phases to Christ’s ministry in the Heaven of Heavens, just as in the earthly sanctuary of old. Instead of our high priest coming out of the most holy of the heavenly sanctuary to come to this earth on the tenth day of the seventh month at the end of the twenty-three hundred days, He for the first time entered on that day the second apartment of that sanctuary, and that He had a work to perform in the most holy before coming to this earth.”
• Joseph Bates provided the doctrine of seventh-day worship, the Sabbath.
• Ellen G. Harmon (White) provided the doctrine of the “Spirit of Prophecy.” Her visions and prophecies brought together the theological notions above to form a unique religious system.

Theology

Seventh-day Adventists are in basic agreement with historic, biblical Christianity in many areas: the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible; the Trinitarian nature of the Godhead (the Fatherhood of God, the deity of Jesus Christ, and the person and deity of the Holy Spirit); and that man was created in the image of God, but is in a fallen state of sin and in need of redemption. They teach that Jesus Christ was virgin-born; lived a sinless life; was crucified, dead, and buried; and rose bodily from the grave.On the other hand, Seventh-day Adventists also have a number of distinctive doctrines that are not in accord with historic Christianity.

The Role of Ellen G. White

Seventh-day Adventists claim that Ellen G. White “performed the work of a true prophet during the seventy years of her public ministry. As Samuel was a prophet, as Jeremiah was a prophet, as John the Baptist, we believe that Mrs. White was a prophet to the Church of Christ today” (The Advent). The Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual states: “As the Lord’s messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction.” Mrs. White herself claimed, “When I send you a testimony of warning and reproof, many of you declare it to be merely the opinion of Sister White. You have thereby insulted the Spirit of God.”However, there are some problems with Mrs. White’s “gift of prophecy.” Walter Rea, in his book The White Lie, documents extensive plagiarism. She was also frequently in error, as she herself admitted.

The Person of Jesus Christ

Seventh-day Adventism differs from historic Christian doctrine in some of its teachings regarding the person of Jesus Christ, such as the following:

• Some early Seventh-day Adventists contended that the Son was not fully equal to the Father, and that the former must have had a beginning in the remote past.
• The name Michael is applied not to a created angel but to the Son of God in His pre-incarnate state.
• When Christ became a man, He took upon Himself human flesh and a human nature, but no human soul as a distinct immaterial substance.

The Sleep of the Soul and the Destruction of the Wicked

In contrast to historic Christian teaching, Seventh-day Adventism holds that the soul represents the whole man and the whole man (the body) remains in the tomb until the resurrection morning. The soul cannot exist apart from the body, and there is no conscious existence after death. The righteous will be resurrected and caught up to meet the Lord at His return; the unrighteous will be resurrected after the millennium and then cast into the lake of fire where they will be annihilated.

The Sabbath and the Mark of the Beast

Seventh-day Adventists teach that the Seventh-day Sabbath (Friday evening until Saturday evening) was instituted by God, and that observance of this day is a test of one’s loyalty to Christ. A counterfeit Sabbath will be proclaimed during the Tribulation period. Those who worship on that day will receive the mark of the beast; those who remain faithful to God will continue to worship on the Sabbath.

The Heavenly Sanctuary, the Investigative Judgment, and the Scapegoat

Once again, we see a contrast to historic Christian doctrine in Seventh-day Adventist teachings:

• Jesus entered into the heavenly sanctuary in 1844 to begin a second phase of His ministry.
• The sins of believers have been transferred to, deposited or recorded in the Heavenly Sanctuary, and are now being dealt with in the Investigative Judgment. Those who have died are examined to determine if they are worthy of being part of the first resurrection. The living are also examined to determine those who are abiding and keeping God’s commandments. When the cases of all the righteous have been decided (the standard being the Ten Commandments), their sins will be blotted out and Jesus will return to this earth in all His glory.
• Azazel (the goat the high priest sent out into the wilderness on the Day of Atonement) designates Satan, and “Satan will ultimately have to bear the retributive punishment for his responsibility in the sins of all men, both righteous and wicked.”

Law, Grace, and Salvation

Finally, we see a difference in doctrine when we examine two perspectives of law, grace, and salvation. On the one hand we see justification by faith alone. Opposed to that we find justification by faith which is demonstrated by obedience to God’s commandments. This view strongly advocates Sabbath-keeping and the Old Testament dietary laws, which is difficult to harmonize with Seventh-day Adventists’ assurance that salvation is by grace through faith and not of works. For example, in Just What Do You Believe About Your Church, Fordyce Detamore wrote:

The best summary of the requirements for salvation is found in the counsel Jesus gave the rich young nobleman (Mt. 19:16–22), “If thou wilt enter into life, (1) keep the commandments … and (2) follow me.” There is no other hope of salvation. By the standard of God’s holy law we shall be judged in the day of reckoning. (pp. 32–34) As long as Isaiah 66:15–17 is in this book, how dare I tell you it doesn’t make any difference whether or not you eat swine’s flesh and other unclean foods?… It would be much easier for me to say, “Go ahead and eat as you please; you needn’t worry about those things anymore.” But God says those who are eating unclean things when He comes will be destroyed. Wouldn’t you rather I put it plainly so that you’ll not be deceived and be destroyed at our Lord’s coming? (pp. 22, 23)

Sharing the Truth with Seventh-day Adventists

Our concern is to be sure that individual Adventists are confronted with the one true gospel. If an Adventist will admit that Mrs. White was fallible, that no record in heaven could possibly bring a believer into condemnation, and that the works of the Law such as Sabbath-keeping are not necessary conditions of salvation, then other things being equal, he should be acknowledged as an evangelical.On the other hand, if the Adventist persists in defending Mrs. White’s infallibility, the Investigative Judgment, and the Old Testament dietary laws, he places himself under the curse of the Law (Galatians 3:10) and is preaching another gospel (Galatians 1:8, 9). In response, to those who believe faith must be demonstrated by obedience to God’s commandments:

1. Stress the biblical teaching that a man is justified by faith in Jesus apart from the deeds of the Law (Romans 3:28; 4:6; Galatians 2:16; 3:10–14).
2. Point out that the Law of Moses (the ceremonial and moral aspects) has been fulfilled in Jesus Christ. By His perfect life He met all the requirements of the moral aspect of the Law; by His death He fulfilled all the ceremonial ordinances which prefigured His incarnation and sacrifice (Romans 5:10; Colossians 2:16, 17).
3. The law or commandment that Christians are called upon to follow is the law of love (e.g., Matthew 22:37–40; Romans 13:8–10).

To those who believe the Sabbath is binding on the Christian, you might point out that:

1. Constantine did not, as Adventists claim, change the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday. He enacted that the first day of the week should be a public holiday, but centuries before Constantine, Christians gathered together for worship on the first day of the week. Reference to worship on the first day of the week can be found in Acts 2:41; 20:6, 7; 1 Corinthians 16:2; Revelation 1:10, etc. (Also, both the Didache and Ignatius refer to Sunday as the “Lord’s Day” “Kuriake”.)In addition, references to worship on the first day of the week can be found in the writings of the early church fathers: Ignatius (110 a.d.); Justin Martyr (100–165 a.d.); Barnabas (120–150 a.d.); Irenaeus (178 a.d.); Bardaisan (154 a.d.); Tertullian (200 a.d.); Origen (225 a.d.); Cyprian (200–258 a.d.); Peter of Alexandria (300 a.d.); and Eusebius (315 a.d.).
2. There is no indication in the New Testament that the observance of the Sabbath was binding on Gentile believers. On the contrary, we find such words as these: “One man regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord” (Romans 14:5, 6). “Therefore let no one act as your judge in regard to … a Sabbath day” (Colossians 2:16).

Adapted from an article by the Ankerberg Theological Research Institute (www.johnankerberg.org).[1]

---

1. Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort, The School of Biblical Evangelism: 101 Lessons: How to Share Your Faith Simply, Effectively, Biblically—the Way Jesus Did (Gainesville, FL: Bridge-Logos Publishers, 2004), 630–635.  ↩

"The People Did What Was Right in Their Own Eyes"

In the Old Testament book of Judges, we see a phrase oft repeated, and "the people did what was right in their own eyes." This phrase is a sign of a society or nation sliding into moral decay. They no longer acknowledge God or His law, but instead simply make their own determination of what is right and what is wrong.Christians find themselves facing increasingly difficult decisions as they weigh the choices between staying obedient to God's Word and their own conscience and being obedient to the government and the civil laws of the land. This conflict is the focus of the world right now as everyone watches a county clerk in Rowen, KY live out her Christian convictions verses her civil responsibility as a representative of the state.Albert Mohler provides an excellent commentary on the difficult decisions Christians face in our culture today as he examines what is happening in Kentucky. Here are some bullet points from his article:

• In court today, Judge Bunning told Davis: “The court cannot condone the willful disobedience of its lawfully issued order.” He continued by arguing that “if you give people the opportunity to choose which orders they follow, that’s what potentially causes problems.”
• This story, now far larger than would have been imagined just a few weeks ago, points to some of the hardest questions faced by Christians who are determined to be faithful to Christ and to fulfill their responsibilities as citizens. Many of these questions defy a simplistic answer. How are Christians who hold elective office to fulfill that office when the nation’s highest court or those holding higher office rule and legislate contrary to Christian conviction? The same question is quickly extended to those serving in the military, holding appointive office, or even merely working for the government.
• The Bible is clear — a Christian cannot act in violation of conscience without committing sin. Kim Davis has been clear, even as her own marital background has been discussed, that her conversion and Christian beliefs do not allow her to sanction what the Bible declares to be sin.
• The Bible clearly commands that Christians respect the rightful authority of civil governments, understanding that the institution of human government is itself a part of God’s design. At the same time, the rightful power of government is not absolute. The Apostle Paul tells us to obey the government but Daniel and his friends were right to refuse to bow the knee to King Nebuchadnezzar. When is the Christian to obey and when must the Christian not obey government?
• It is very revealing that many of those who are celebrating Judge Bunning’s decision to send Kim Davis to jail and who are now asserting their absolute commitment to the rule of law are the very same people who made the opposite argument when it served their purposes. That argument, taken at face value, would have meant no civil rights movement — and no gay rights movement.
• What this story reveals beyond the headlines is that the moral revolution on marriage and human sexuality will leave nothing as it was before. No area of life will be untouched, and no address will be far removed from the front lines of the revolution. This story comes from Rowan County, Kentucky. A County Clerk is headed for jail. A legion of Christians struggles to be faithful in their own situations, responsibilities, and callings.

View Article

I believe the most revealing quote from Mohler's article is the statement by Federal Judge David L. Bunning who states, "The court cannot condone the willful disobedience of its lawfully issued order.... If you give people the opportunity to choose which orders they follow, that’s what potentially causes problems.”This is the problem with "American Justice" today. Each one can do what is right in his or her own eyes. We jail a county clerk for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, yet two years ago President Obama was praised for ordering the Justice Department to no longer enforce the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) because the president believed it to be an unconstitutional law. The New York Times noted the constitutional conflict created by the president's action:

When President Obama decided that his administration would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court, he was presented with an obvious question with a less obvious answer: Would he keep enforcing a law he now deemed unconstitutional?

A debate in the White House broke out. Some of his political advisers thought it made no sense to apply an invalid law. But his lawyers told Mr. Obama he had a constitutional duty to comply until the Supreme Court ruled otherwise. Providing federal benefits to same-sex couples in defiance of the law, they argued, would provoke a furor in the Republican House and theoretically even risk articles of impeachment.

Two years later, that decision has taken on new prominence after Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. accused Mr. Obama from the bench on Wednesday of not having “the courage of his convictions” for continuing to enforce the marriage law even after concluding that it violated constitutional equal protection guarantees. The chief justice’s needling touched a raw nerve at the White House. “Continuing to enforce was a difficult political decision,” said an aide who asked not to be identified discussing internal deliberations, “but the president felt like it was the right legal choice.”

When President Obama came across a law he didn't believe he could enforce because of personal convictions, he simply made the decision to no longer enforce the law, yet when the same decision confronts Kim Davis, she is jailed for failure to carry out the stated law of the land.

I wonder what Judge Bunning would say to President Obama? If he has integrity, he would have to say, "Mr. Obama, the court cannot condone the willful disobedience of its lawfully issued order.... If you give people the opportunity to choose which orders they follow, that’s what potentially causes problems."

Called to Pastor? Maybe not

After serving in the vocational ministry for over 20 years, I have witnessed many men and women step forward in answer to God's call on their life to enter full-time service. Some were called to the mission field, some to ministry in other local churches, and some to become a church planting pastor. 

The call to ministry has always perplexed me. From a church leader perspective, it often places me in a tough spot--if God has called a man or woman, who am I to question? Yet, at the same time, I've seen too many respond during an emotionally high conclusion to a service, or worse, because they have grown weary of their present life and believe ministry is a great alternative. In your gut, you know this person is not equipped or prepared for ministry, and probably doesn't have the necessary skill sets to succeed.

A friend of mine, who is now in his mid-50s, told me the story of his call to ministry as a young man. Like so many, he responded during a powerful preaching service with a guest evangelist. He was young, with a young family, and he had no formal training, but he was certain God wanted him to forsake all and enter a life of ministry. Begrudgingly, his wife went along, and they began the process of enrolling in Bible college and returning to school. For the next four years, his family struggled, his wife carried an almost unbearable load, and my friend held down a part-time job while attending Bible college. Worst of all, he hated Bible college. He was not a good student, he struggled to preach well consistently, and he struggled with the details of ministry, even though he was only serving as an intern at a local church. Whenever he thought of quitting, a wave of guilt poured over him. After all, wasn't he called by God to serve? 

Eventually, my friend was forced to come to terms with his lack of success in the ministry. He felt like a failure both professionally and personally before God. Had he misread God? How could he be so wrong about his calling? In reflecting back on this period in his life, my friend made the comment that he wished his pastor had helped him direct his passion into an area that matched his gifts and abilities.

This leads us back to our original question: how can a church leader help confirm someone's calling to vocational ministry? Darrin Patrick, in his recent book Church Planter: The Man, the Message, the Mission offers two tests a leader should consider when examining a church member's calling. The first test involves his understanding of Scripture:

1. Does he have a working knowledge of the whole of Scripture?

2. Can he articulate the gospel story throughout the Scripture?

3. Does he understand the controversial verses that have caused division in church history (Calvinism vs. Arminianism, method and mode baptism, and so on)?

4. Can he explain the Christ-centered nature of Christian theology?

Secondly, Patrick recommends a leader examine the fruit of a member's present ministry:

1. Can he inspire the church for mission?

2. Can he cast vision for the church and inspire people to pursue that vision with him?

3. Can he organize the church to reach its goals?

4. Can he set up systems and structures that run apart from his direct influence?

This second area of focus is a great help in determining God's call into vocation ministry. Bottom line, are you doing the work of the ministry now? Do you demonstrate strong leadership abilities and are people following you? Let's be honest, a piece of paper from the best Bible college in America cannot make you into a leader. Education will give you knowledge and help you acquire the skills needed to lead, but you can't make an apple into an orange.

For those of you considering a call into ministry, one book I've recommended to many is Your Work Matters to God by Sherman and Hendricks. In this book, the authors make a solid argument that God calls people into both secular work and vocational ministry. The truth is, our understanding of the words "called" and "ministry" have become skewed. Too many of us believe that if God calls us, He must be calling us to preach or to the mission field. In reality, God calls His people to become teachers, factory workers, physicians, mechanics, construction workers, moms, etc. 

Could it be you are already doing what God has called you to do in the place He has called you to serve? If so, then enter your calling with renewed determination to serve God to the fullest of your ability and be thankful for His clear direction in your life.

Groups Urge Obama to Proclaim “Inclusive” Day of Prayer

By Bob Allen | Associated Baptist Press

The Interfaith Alliance and Jews on First called on President Obama to proclaim an "inclusive" national day of prayer May 7 instead of endorsing a National Day of Prayer Task Force headed by Shirley Dobson.

Critics say the Bush administration tacitly endorsed the National Day of Prayer Task Force, which excludes non-Christians.

Signed by Interfaith Alliance president Welton Gaddy and Jews on First co-directors Jane Hunter and Rabbi Haim Dov Beliak, the letter dated April 21 said the National Day of Prayer, established by President Truman, several years ago was taken over by "exclusivists" in a group that "systematically excludes Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Catholics and even mainline Christians from National Prayer Day events it conducts around the United States."

For the last eight years, the wife of Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, organized National Day of Prayer ceremonies in the East Room at the White House. That drew criticism from religious liberty groups like Americans United for Separation of Church and State claiming the event had been hijacked by the Religious Right and used for a political agenda.

Read More

DHS Right-Wing Extremism Warning

From U.S. News and World Report:

Reports of a warning about "rightwing extremism" issued by the Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis have been met with denunciations from conservative talk show hosts. Highlighting the reaction of the American Legion, which took issue with suggestions "that some soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan could be recruited by right-wing extremists to participate in violent actions," the Washington Times reports David K. Rehbein, the Legion's national commander, said in a letter to DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano that he thought it "important for all of us to remember that Americans are not the enemy. The terrorists are." The Times went on to note criticism of the report from Republican Reps. Lamar Smith, Peter T. King, Ron Paul, and Dana Rohrabacher. The AP reports DHS "officials said there was no specific information about an attack in the works by right-wing extremists."

The Politico says DHS "is especially concerned with attempts to "radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat." The warning makes numerous comparisons "to the 1990s, a period when the country was rocked by several acts of domestic terrorism including the 1995 bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City." A number of cable TV pundits picked up on criticism of the report from Rush Limbaugh, who depicted it as coming directly from Secretary Napolitano, with President Barack Obama's approval. CNN's Lou Dobbs asked, "Why are there not names named and specific targets referenced here if there is a legitimate threat to the interests of the United States?" Fox News' Your World led its broadcast with the DHS warning, stating, "While it takes aim at conservatives, it ignores liberal groups like ACORN breaking into foreclosed homes, housing activists storming Bear Stearns, violent anti-capitalist protests at the G20, and Code Pink."